Sign in to follow this  
Delvin

Protect maintained, non-deed constructions in griefing rules (Freedom Isles)

Recommended Posts

Since the enclosure rules were removed, it's essentially "deed it or lose it" on Freedom Isles. This is an absolutely horrible policy and makes the game less attractive. The game already costs money to play with full features. Why should I have to pay more to protect my things in a PVE server?


 


I think enclosures should be protected again. The enclosure rule had a measure against inactive players already. (If a fence decays, it's no longer an enclosure and people can do whatever to it.)


 


I was considering buying premium time, but since I found out the enclosure rule had been removed, I'm hesitant. This may tip the balance in favor of me going back to Minecraft or RuneScape rather than continuing to play Wurm, which is expensive with only subscription fees.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At different points in time people have been in favor of a very small deed to get people going, lets say a 5 x 5 ( 25 tiles ).


 


The problem is most want bigger than that while trying out the game, which is essentially what the purpose of an enclosure was intended to be, I know the Freemium thing was tossed around during that time as well.


 


It is completely possible to play the game paying premium only, your sacrifices are to hide out and build lots of houses and walls, or join an established village, I gather from your post you place the total amount your willing to pay for the entertainment Wurm provides is the baseline cost, the subscription rate, which the 2 solutions provided above can get it done at that price.


 


The smallest deed can be dropped and paid for for and have at least 4 -6 months of upkeep ( top of my head, I can't remember ), with just selling your referral, sleep powder and the coin you get to start, not to mention all the coins you can find foraging and selling a rare if you happen to be so lucky.


 


If anything it's easier than it ever has been before to play Wurm at little to no cost.


 


What size Enclosure would you like to see protected, you have a size in mind or just as much as you can fence, I can really toss any support behind it without knowing what your thinking. 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, it's great.  In old times ONE person could wall in an entire island and it was technically their's.  People would build a 1x1 house and a 300+ tile long fence to utilize the rule's loop hole to take control of very large areas of land... and because it was offdeed, if you bashed it (since offdeed there's honestly no way of proving ownership) they'd GM you and you'd be temp banned or worse if it was a repeat offense.


 


"Deed it and own it" aka "deed it or lose it" is THE fair way to allow palyers to own land.


 


So you tell me... should a player own an island because they deeded it or simply because they were the first person to completely wall it in?


  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the enclosure rule is that you can grief so very easily with it, players would fence off large areas and nobody else would be allowed to do anything here.


  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the enclosure rule is that you can grief so very easily with it, players would fence off large areas and nobody else would be allowed to do anything here.

Great example of this is on Celebration where we have people walling off large amounts of area right outside the starter deed. *cough* waarokku *cough*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need the enclosure rule back as it was per se. I like the idea of a small free deed of 25 tiles. I'd just like to have something to come back to besides a pancake if I quit the game for a few months.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small Deed not free.    A 5x5 deed that costs 2 silver maybe and not able to house a trader.  Should still have to pay upkeep and only have 2 villagers maybe. if you want more than that you need to pay for it.


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the enclosure rules were removed, it's essentially "deed it or lose it" on Freedom Isles. This is an absolutely horrible policy and makes the game less attractive. The game already costs money to play with full features. Why should I have to pay more to protect my things in a PVE server?

 

 

No, it doesn't make the game less attractive, it makes your area on the map look less attractive.  I don't want to live next door to Sanford and Sons, it's fine the way it is.

 

Your primary selling point, being able to secure your belongings, can be done in a number of ways without polluting the landscape with endless fields of rock fences.  If you have more items than can fit in 3-4 houses, then you have probably been playing the game long enough that you have the necessary skills to be able to "earn a living" in Wurm.

 

I know, the biggest reason people want enclosures is to have a larger farm.  A farm that I can build a catapult, destroy a tile of your fence and harvest while you're asleep.  Whether the walls decay over time (and you don't notice) or someone destroys the wall, you are still liable for loss.  Because of numerous complaints of stolen crops, horses, crates, etc.  Because the GM team cannot (and will not) enforce off-deed theft generally, the enclosure rule was abolished to simplify the rules and curtail the complaints of theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the only secure space I have available is my house, how in the world could I secure a bunch of charcoal piles?


 


Besides any other issue, being able to perimeter over someone else's undeeded house is a problem. Unless moderators will take action against people who do that, I can't see building a house without a deed.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the only secure space I have available is my house, how in the world could I secure a bunch of charcoal piles?

 

Besides any other issue, being able to perimeter over someone else's undeeded house is a problem. Unless moderators will take action against people who do that, I can't see building a house without a deed.

 

mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are NO PvE servers. Never have been, never will be. It's only the degree of PvP you are subjected to.


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the enclosure rules were removed, it's essentially "deed it or lose it" on Freedom Isles. This is an absolutely horrible policy and makes the game less attractive. The game already costs money to play with full features. Why should I have to pay more to protect my things in a PVE server? ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you are saying but it would make PVE Wurm like watching paint dry.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the game is setup is that it makes a good portion of its income from deed placement and upkeep, so in this respect removing the enclosure rule protections was a positive step to encourage players to purchase deeds. Yes, this adds to the expense of playing the game, that's how it works.


 


If you find an area with decent players around you they may not even mind you enclosing a reasonable sized area in the vicinity, building your house within it and using the enclosed area without disturbing anything within it, as it would have little value to them anyway. Still, there is always the risk that some random player will come along and if you have weak fencing with something that seems worth taking it should not be unexpected to find it missing the next day.


 


On Independence and Deliverance I had players living on free undeeded land within the vicinity for many months without any concerns or complaints about their being there but they were decent people who were pleasant to have around.


 


Yep, a house on free land can be perimetered over if someone decides to expand their deed into that area. I see no problem with this at all since they are paying for this land and the freeholder is not. A good policy actually, as the game makes more income in the process to enable it to support players who will not do the same.


 


=Ayes=


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, soon you can move to Wurm Unlimited, play for free(after initial purchase) and noone can touch your stuff. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, it's great.  In old times ONE person could wall in an entire island and it was technically their's.  People would build a 1x1 house and a 300+ tile long fence to utilize the rule's loop hole to take control of very large areas of land... and because it was offdeed, if you bashed it (since offdeed there's honestly no way of proving ownership) they'd GM you and you'd be temp banned or worse if it was a repeat offense.

 

"Deed it and own it" aka "deed it or lose it" is THE fair way to allow palyers to own land.

 

So you tell me... should a player own an island because they deeded it or simply because they were the first person to completely wall it in?

No they could not deed that much. You had to see the building from the fence. Stop exaggerating. It was never that bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they could not deed that much. You had to see the building from the fence. Stop exaggerating. It was never that bad.

 

You're right on two accounts. 

 

First, they wouldn't deed that much, which is why they were instead enclosing it.

Secondly I know of two instances where exactly this was done (with the wall having frequent shacks to comply with the rules) over VAST areas by players . Thousands of tiles enclosed by 80ql walls with 80ql shacks.

 

The enclosure rule was a disaster of an exploit. Deed it or lose it is the better solution.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right on two accounts.

First, they wouldn't deed that much, which is why they were instead enclosing it.

Secondly I know of two instances where exactly this was done (with the wall having frequent shacks to comply with the rules) over VAST areas by players . Thousands of tiles enclosed by 80ql walls with 80ql shacks.

The enclosure rule was a disaster of an exploit. Deed it or lose it is the better solution.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this