Allow Us To Remove Perimeter Please!

[Ostentatio 1,971]

27 minutes ago, MaurizioAM said:

Issle im not going to even read past the first sentence. 

 

Truth is regardless of what i think about you i answered your first questions because your comments had no merit.

 

Now to continue solutions to the same questions ive already asked myself...

 

Ostentatio you are asking the right questions looking for the hidden cons. But our debate should be based more on balance. Let me ask you what do you think is stopping people right now from being able to do the exact things your worried about? A fact is very very little. Money wise it would be cheaper to actually use the current perimeter system vs not having a perimeter.

 

Also the tile boarder is the only real question i asked myself and the only simple solution that i can see is for any ajointed deeds a 1 tile (perimeter not the same as current however) that takes the same decay as deed. 

 

What stops people from doing what I described is the fact that it would cost them at least twice the amount of money, in the example of making a big "donut deed"... possibly several times more, in fact. It's also not possible to deed coastlines or do any other wacky hijinks requiring illegally-proportioned deeds. The current perimeter system does not allow you to do these things, and it does not allow you to completely block access to non-deeded land.

 

Your "fix" to the tile border problem still introduces a tile of perimeter, and only addresses the issue of decay, not of deed permissions or ownership or anything else.

 

 

Some of the people posting here seem more interested in petty inter-kingdom squabbling than actually considering the design of these mechanics, and that's unfortunate. Don't say "why not, +1" when multiple people have already expressed exactly why not.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Ostentatio

[ElvenElder 139]

Prove me wrong Wulfgar: Reinforcements, deed draining, catapulting, reinforcements again, incomplete parapets and now deed perimeters. 

Edited December 30, 2015 by ElvenElder

[Wulfgarr 810]

29 minutes ago, ElvenElder said:

Prove me wrong Wulfgar: Reinforcements, deed draining, catapulting, reinforcements again, incomplete parapets and now deed perimeters. 

Hhaha, you are so clueless. But this is not a place for KvK so still +1 to OP.

[MaurizioAM 919]

30 minutes ago, Ostentatio said:

 

What stops people from doing what I described is the fact that it would cost them at least twice the amount of money, in the example of making a big "donut deed"... possibly several times more, in fact. It's also not possible to deed coastlines or do any other wacky hijinks requiring illegally-proportioned deeds. The current perimeter system does not allow you to do these things, and it does not allow you to completely block access to non-deeded land.

 

Your "fix" to the tile border problem still introduces a tile of perimeter, and only addresses the issue of decay, not of deed permissions or ownership or anything else.

 

 

Some of the people posting here seem more interested in petty inter-kingdom squabbling than actually considering the design of these mechanics, and that's unfortunate. Don't say "why not, +1" when multiple people have already expressed exactly why not.

 

Bull on the cost. The cost would actually cost more having to actually pay for what was once perimeter. Also if only 3 sides of the 4 have the option to butt up with another deed such as an ally you still cannot make a donut. On top of that the suggestion of making a 1 tile perimeter is to try and see what would make you happy. 

 

So far all of your worries are not even currently stopped right now. There are simply more cons to having perimeters exist AS IS then there would be if allowing the option to remove them. AN OPTION... so it would be up to the owners to remove it or not. If you are dont want people near you you keep the default NON DECAY perimeter. If you like your neighbor you have the option to share a boarder with a 1 tile kinda space between.  That land can be bashable on freedom why not. This way you cant say xy and z anymore. 

 

Fact still remains perimeters only do more harm then good.

[Jashton 20]

+1

 

I'd like to see an option on Freedom to reduce the perimeter to one tile. That would leave a two tile space between neighbouring deeds, more than enough for a road or right of way. If people are worried about others sealing off huge areas of free land then perhaps it could be made a rule (on Freedom, not Chaos) that a deed owner must make sure they do not build or terraform in their perimeter in such a way that it would obstruct the only route into a piece of non-deeded land outside of their perimeter?

 

Edit: on second thought that rule wouldn't stop anyone deeding on a spot which already had obstructions where the perimeter is going to be. Maybe it would be better to make the rule that a deed owner must ensure that there is always a route available for other players to any non-deeded land that their deed is next to.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Jashton

[Amadee 1,543]

5 hours ago, MaurizioAM said:

On chaos we have to worry about attacks which enemies will come right up to your door step and perimeters hinder a village to build reinforcements. I would select to have 0 Perimeter around my deed so that i am only hit with normal decay vs double decay or whatever it is inside of a perimeter.

 

-1

 

I'm not following your logic.  I don't play on chaos, but it seems to me that if enemies can come right up to your door step now, would it not be the same with or without perimeter?  Without perimeter they could quite literally sit on your doorstep.  

 

It's true that with 0 perimeter, you'd only be hit with normal decay as you said, but you only get the extra decay if you're building in that perimeter.  If you're only building on deeded land (as would be the case with no perimeter), then it's a moot point. 

 

The only real benefits I could see to this would be for joining 2 deeds.  Is the problem that enemies can get in between the 2 deeds?   I really feel removing perimeters would cause far more problems than it would solve.  Sure, I'd love to be able to join 2 deeds.  I just don't see where it would be worth what it would mean for the game overall.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Amadee

[Ostentatio 1,971]

53 minutes ago, MaurizioAM said:

So far all of your worries are not even currently stopped right now.

 

Err... except the thing where I mentioned, where you would get to maintain full control and access over landed that you haven't deeded. Being able to fully control hundreds of tiles of undeeded land is pretty significant.

[MaurizioAM 919]

1 hour ago, Ostentatio said:

 

Err... except the thing where I mentioned, where you would get to maintain full control and access over landed that you haven't deeded. Being able to fully control hundreds of tiles of undeeded land is pretty significant.

How can that happen of you cannot close a gap? I understand your worry but im sure there is a balanced way to work around it. Fact still remains perimeter is not used as it was implemented anymore. Since removal of enclosures and now the deed it or loose it rule in place, not having perimeters as they are right now would only change the fact neighbors who want to be closer can be. This magical barrier beside your paid land that speeds up decay is a bit stupid do you not think? Im fairly sure if everyone was forced to make a comment/suggestion to a fix the communiy would come up with something MUCH better then whats implemented right now. 

 

The comment of having 1 tile perimeter (with no decay) would be fine. Fact also remains even though there are perimeters now there are people who still build on them and no one does amything about it... The decay is just dumb. If the system that was implemented to speed up decay based on inactivity gets fixed properly that will take care of reforesting the servers. 

[polarbear 284]

-1. Design deed area better. 

[Jberg 3,070]

3 hours ago, ElvenElder said:

Out of all the kingdoms in Chaos, only you and Ebonaura are always requesting changes through suggestions and emails. One can't help himself but point out the similarities my friend.

 

LOL, that was a good laugh.

 

I'll go and -1 on this suggestion though, due to the points Ostentatio has brought up - making a fully encircled area in the center that you can 100% control access to is a big nono. Imo, just remove extra damage in the perimeter.

[Mordraug 2,542]

+1 however, skipping past all the kvk blather... 

 

0 perimeter mechanically can't happen as a deed owns its outer tile border, having two deeds touching would lead to the same problems as having two buildings touch in terms of management.

 

Still, 1-tile perimeter would rock for Freedom, I'll stay out of pvp.

[MrGARY 12,421]

-1 because of abuse

[LorraineJ 1,099]

I wish that we could join deeds that we own. Like if the two "mayors" agree, let the deeds butt up against one another. The decay on stuff I can't deed is so tiresome.

[Odynn 2,248]

As if you cannot build a 10 tiles longhouse in your perimeter on freedom to achieve the same big land enclosure. Yeah, you gotta repair it... but heck, you can still do it. So the whole point raised by ostentatio ain't that valid.

[Postinglels 1,270]

-1 due to the fact that jet fuel can't melt low stone walls

[zigozag 918]

+1 from Freedom and hooray for the L-shaped deeds made of two rectangular ones

[LorraineJ 1,099]

How about if you want to join two of your deeds that normally couldn't be joined because of other deed perimeters or odd shapes, that you have to include a passable road between them that anyone can walk through? That way large tracts can't be joined without allowing travelers to pass, but those 10 squares of rotting perimeter could be done away with.

[Ayes 3,715]

The problem with perimeter is that it is tied into the deed by name and with certain restrictions applied to it that the deed has exemptions to, this in turn making players consider perimeters as part of their deed, which yes in effect they are.

 

I would suggest that the current perimeter naming and restrictions be removed, with then every deed placed having a 5 tile build free zone around it which would restrict/prevent the building of houses and fencing within it by anyone. This would create then a 10 tile free zone minimum between every deed placed that players can pass through which could not be blocked off due to the no building/fencing restrictions built into it.

 

This is really the same buffer zone as the current perimeter system but not providing any special exceptions to the deed it surrounds. Also not being labeled with the deed name on this perimeter it does not have the psychological effect of the deed owners considering it as being their own. It would just be a protected free passage area around the deed once it had been placed.

 

=Ayes=

[Banzai 664]

HEY. HEY. I NEED MY PERIMETERS TO STEAL OFF DEED TRADERS FROM OTHER PEOPLE. OKAY.

 

LEAVE MY PERIMETER ALONE.

 

kthanks.

[Sixiron 22]

-1

 

The lowest perimeter could go is 2 due to how it works out (2 tiles for slope and 2 tiles for the road/path)

[sulfurblade 111]

+1000 Perimeter being forced down your throat makes zero sense.... I have to constantly repair my bridge tower's my permieter gates etc because I have this perimeter that has a negative effect and I payed for it????

 

Perimeter definately should NOT be mandatory!!!

[thirtynine 257]

-1  If we allow deeds to be built next to each other that is going to be severely abused.  Perimeter prevents deeds from being able to be stacked up one against each other.  Multiple tokens in the same area alone is a pretty silly thing in itself.  It's not going to happen because of this, I'm sure you understand why.

[Ohana 907]

I've always been in favor of being able to reduce your Perimeter to 2(in my mind it's a easement.). 

 

It can't be 0. Because then you end up with a border that both deeds own which is impossible. 

[LorraineJ 1,099]

On 12/30/2015 at 1:52 PM, Ostentatio said:

 

It also, I must emphasize, makes emphatically no sense at all for deeds to border each other directly, because then who does that tile border in the middle belong to? When two deeds share tile borders, who owns those tile borders? Normally, the border of a deed is considered part of that deed, but in this case, it's the border of both. Can either of them build fences or house walls there? How would that even work?

 

 

How about then, if two mayors agree, decreasing the perimeter between them to one tile? Ten tiles between my deeds is a massive pain.

[MrGARY 12,421]

15 hours ago, sulfurblade said:

+1000 Perimeter being forced down your throat makes zero sense.... I have to constantly repair my bridge tower's my permieter gates etc because I have this perimeter that has a negative effect and I payed for it????

 

Perimeter definately should NOT be mandatory!!!

 

expand your deed to cover it?  and the first 5 tile default perimeter is free...