Legit or not?

[Rasu 561]

Not much you can do except limit his access to the sheds to prevent his ability to repair it (Which I would recommend not doing because of the rules) or drop a deed and expand its perimeter over it (which is what a GM will tell you to do). Other than that all you can expect as an "official response" is a gm pointing you to the rules. This is why you will always see Deed it or Lose it.

[Judicator 539]

"I don't see what the problem is other than he didn't spend any money to claim the area. If he would have dropped a deed and built the same houses there wouldn't be any discussion on this at all."

 

Besides claiming an area without paying money, he has created an eyesore, which we cannot fix - we are prepared to deed over it, but cannot now as the shacks are there - building more shacks there would create an even greater eyesore....

 

The idea of raising a tile or two is an idea, but the isle is not that small and would entail 4 such small deeds to get the shacks into the perimeter of the deeds.

 

So it is legit, but this guy knew exactly what he was doing and it is not pleasant - could be for spite - or it could be for claiming land, without paying for deed, until ready - who knows, but it is pretty mean any which way you look at it...

 

Would be good if we could just identify the player to discuss this... 

 

You want personal attacks and a witchhunt because someone did something you dont like in a sandbox? If you didn't want shacks there you should have deeded the land. Public land belongs to everyone. Jesus some people...

Edited August 21, 2014 by Judicator

[Serpentarius 186]

Now this would be in violation of the rules

 

Only if you prevent access to the house inside the donut, right?

[Rasu 561]

Only if you prevent access to the house inside the donut, right?

 

As long as they have access to the structure its not against the rules.

[joedobo 1,187]

Drop dirt in water or level out a 3x3 area so you can place deed. Stretch perimeter over the house and wait for them to decay.

[Othob Rithol 700]

Meh, I know it won't happen but in a perfect world the GMs would talk to the player and if they don't intend to use or deed it soon, then the houses would be removed and those than want to deed it could.

 

But it continues to raise the issue about this rarely used exploit. Ideally there could be some check in place to determine what is a used structure and what is not, and only used structures block placement. That way big bad player can't deed over some noob shack in the woods out of spite but situations like these can be hardcoded out.

[rosedragon 2,282]

These complains only happen cause the guy ain't deed it. People who make a deed and don't use the land they deed doesn't get complain. To me, it is as easy as just move on and claim other land, xanadu is super big.

[Ayes 3,715]

To answer the OP's title, yes it is "legit" to do what this player has done as described. It may annoy you or others in the vicinity but that is your problem and does not mean that this practice should not be allowed. Actually it is much better that this is allowed, so that anyone can settle on undeeded free and open land without placing a deed there if they choose to do so.

 

If this person does not log onto this server within the 30+ day vague undefined specifically time period then these houses will start to get a more rapid decay. The same applies if they leave this server and take the writs with them. Combine this with a perimeter placed over these houses and the decay on them will be further magnified. Now if you don't want to place a deed there anyway, I see even less reason that you have to complain about this situation.

 

This deed blocking or land reserve practice is well documented with various fevered discussions about it before the enclosure rule protections were removed from the Freedom Isles PvE servers not so long ago. It should come as no surprise to anyone that this can be done who was around at that time.

 

There can be various steps by the Dev's to lessen this land claiming effect but for the reasons presented here I see them doing more harm than good, especially on the huge server of Xanadu with land available galore! If anyone wants a protected area they will either have to deed the land with a large perimeter buffer or do just what this individual has done with fencing added to keep others out, repairing it as it is bashed down by disgruntled neighbors such as these.

 

If you can't tolerate others around you who don't abide by your personal standards or will submit to your own desires, then take the proper steps available to keep them away.

 

=Ayes=

[Uno 2]

You want personal attacks and a witchhunt because someone did something you dont like in a sandbox? If you didn't want shacks there you should have deeded the land. Public land belongs to everyone. Jesus some people...

[Fireflyb 920]

I recommend taking this PvP server pill once a day after breakfast or lunch

[Klaa 4,872]

The writs in question will eventually decay, and if on a deed then until that deed disbands... aye its effectively his.

 

Personally if one wants to "run" an area then pvp servers are the places to do such. Otherwise its first come, first serve.

 

Probably one of the reasons why Rolf has been more likely to add new maps to the freedom cluster.

[Judicator 539]

Well in my opinion you have a contradictory stance on the matter. First you say that to claim land you should deed it or do I read it wrong? But at the same time you support a land claim that is done without deeding and without even settling (against which I would have nothing to say). That land is public but it's not because I can't deed it due to the cheap tactics employed by someone who claimed land without actually doing it. You should have a discussion with your other self and admit truth. Wether it is legit or not to do it is another story like I said, but your comments about supposed witchhunts are ludicrous.

 

He explicity asked to slander him in public by name, which is good enough to call a witchhunt.

 

And it's not contradictory. Any undeeded land belongs to everyone. If he wants to build shacks on it, that's fine. If someone else wants to plant trees around those shacks, thats fine too. Building shacks is not a landclaim, only deeding land is a landclaim. Public land is public. If you want to control land or have exclusive use of it, you have to deed it. Shacks are a good way to ensure land will remain public land, it does not mean you own it.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Judicator

[Cista 428]

he has created an eyesore, which we cannot fix

 

This witchhunt thread is an eyesore.

 

The guy created placeholder shacks, 10 people told you already that this is not uncommon.

[ShadowRonin 407]

Welcome to Wurm, get used to the way things work.

[Tissotx 217]

screenshot or it didn't happen =D

 

just wait 3 months and the 40ql woodshacks are gone

 

It's legit yes.

Best advice is don't do anything to the island, since it might backfire so the gamemasters rule against you.

 

 

there are players that love ticking others off, draging this any further and u might wake up with a rainbow colour of painted woodshacks build on the island.

[Bullbrand 63]

Yeah, I wouldn't have had any problem with someone settling on that piece of rock. However, you see, you probably missed the part where I wrote that he didn't settle.

 

All I get from this thread are the following:

 

1- Someone built some houses on an island near you.

2- You don't like this idea.

3- It's too far away from where you live to reach with a catapult (not that you can do anything with a catapult vs other player's houses on Freedom)

4- You're jealous you didn't think of it first.

 

What this person has done is perfectly legit in the game rules. The houses are on an island a distance away, so I doubt they will block any expansion plans you may/may not have -- so why are you so interested in what someone else did if not for personal reasons ?

[Mordraug 2,542]

Hrm....... seeing how some people are so horribly offended by this thread... I can aaaaaaalmost be bothered figuring out where said people live to plant a few q80 shacks near their deeds....... 

[SmeJack 5,801]

What would be the point of the 5x5 then?

[Serpentarius 186]

What would be the point of the 5x5 then?

Preventing the guy who dropped the 4 shacks to drop a deed, exactly like he is preventing people to drop a deed.. Two stupid people can play that  stupid deedblocking game.

 

Personally i would just terraform the area in the center of the four shacks and build a large stone house with 94ql stonehouse there then drop a deed nearby and put the perimeter of a temprary deed under his shacks to fasten their decay and prevent their repair but a 5x5 is less effort less skill and less money if you really want the spot.

[Lovefall 148]

Flatten the land around the shack and build a 5x5 donut house with walls of better ql around the shack.

 

Blocking access to someone's property is against the rules.

[Wargasm 1,928]

Not if the doors are unlocked, right?

[Serpentarius 186]

Not if the doors are unlocked, right?

A house with mostly arched walls works too. Hell a U shaped house works too.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Serpentarius

[Uno 2]

Tissotx,

thanks for answering in a human way. It's my thought too, however I asked a simple question about the matter. If I was the owner I wouldn't condone a practice that circumvents one of the few features requiring payment and that can be used to annoy other players, however I'm not the owner

 

He explicity asked to slander him in public by name, which is good enough to call a witchhunt.

 

And it's not contradictory. Any undeeded land belongs to everyone. If he wants to build shacks on it, that's fine. If someone else wants to plant trees around those shacks, thats fine too. Building shacks is not a landclaim, only deeding land is a landclaim. Public land is public. If you want to control land or have exclusive use of it, you have to deed it. Shacks are a good way to ensure land will remain public land, it does not mean you own it.

 

Yeah it is contradictory and I explained why already. You said *I* should have deeded the place to prevent someone from taking it but at the same time you claim someone else can take it without deeding it. Yeah I know I could have done the same (but I didn't really care of that place, which is one of the things you don't understand), but you said deed it because you know that the right way to proceed is to deed and that for this reason my question in the OP is perfectly normal. However you and others have to be pedantic on the forum to prove yourself how knowledgeable and superior you are, if you like it then please go on. The player in question has behaved in an unfair way, even if legit, therefore your definition of slander is misplaced. Anyone that will stop a minute to think honestly about the matter would understand that if we all took the time to seize land without owning it the game would not benefit at all. By the way, I didn't want the whole story to be told, I was only interested in knowing if this practice is legit or not, so slandering as well as defending an unfair practice do not add anything to the thread.

[Uno 2]

Not much you can do except limit his access to the sheds to prevent his ability to repair it (Which I would recommend not doing because of the rules) or drop a deed and expand its perimeter over it (which is what a GM will tell you to do). Other than that all you can expect as an "official response" is a gm pointing you to the rules. This is why you will always see Deed it or Lose it.

 

I can't drop a deed, that's why I have written this post in the first place. And again, this guy has control over the land without deeding it, so you are incorrect.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Uno

[Judicator 539]

Tissotx,

thanks for answering in a human way. It's my thought too, however I asked a simple question about the matter. If I was the owner I wouldn't condone a practice that circumvents one of the few features requiring payment and that can be used to annoy other players, however I'm not the owner

 

 

Yeah it is contradictory and I explained why already. You said *I* should have deeded the place to prevent someone from taking it but at the same time you claim someone else can take it without deeding it. Yeah I know I could have done the same (but I didn't really care of that place, which is one of the things you don't understand), but you said deed it because you know that the right way to proceed is to deed and that for this reason my question in the OP is perfectly normal. However you and others have to be pedantic on the forum to prove yourself how knowledgeable and superior you are, if you like it then please go on. The player in question has behaved in an unfair way, even if legit, therefore your definition of slander is misplaced. Anyone that will stop a minute to think honestly about the matter would understand that if we all took the time to seize land without owning it the game would not benefit at all. By the way, I didn't want the whole story to be told, I was only interested in knowing if this practice is legit or not, so slandering as well as defending an unfair practice do not add anything to the thread.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Judicator