Precision Perimeter Control

[Darmalus 631]

Precision Perimeter Control

 

Allow us to control the size of our perimeter in each cardinal direction, much like we control the rest of the deed.

 

Additionally, let us shrink our perimeter to a minimum of 1 while still allowing the first 5 to be free. This means that there would still be an absolute minimum of 2 tiles between deeds, instead of the current 10 tiles

[Frosty 18]

+1. When deeding coastal, it would be nice to have a minimal perim at the shore and bigger behind and on the sides.  I think the min perim might be better at 2 though.  That makes 2 full tile width between deeds, that can be fully manipulated, for making roads.

[Niki 2,278]

+1 would be nice

[Odynn 2,248]

+1 - suggested so many time it's silly it's not implemented yet!

[LorraineJ 1,099]

+ ten zillion

[Zachariah 736]

14 minutes ago, LorraineJ said:

+ ten zillion

If there was a number bigger then ten zillion I would suggest it so + one hundred zillion.

[Ayluin 170]

+1 very useful concept

[Mistvengery 141]

+1 truly would make  things much easier in many situations 

[Ohana 907]

I +1 to being able to voluntarily reduce your perimeter to 2. (I feel like 2 is the better number. 1 means that you and your neighbor might have different ideas on the height of your 1st off deed tile. 2 means you can each have 1 tile how you want it. 

 

I  have mixed feelings on e/w/n/s having different sizes.

 

So this is a +1/-1

[Slickshot 1,195]

Reducing perimeter to a radius of 2 would be nice.  Perimeter of 1 seems just a bit narrow to me.

[Shmeric 581]

+1

 

This would also allow much nicer multi-deed settlement layouts   No more 10 tiles of no-man's land! Wheee!

[Mordraug 2,542]

+1 all the way, I'd settle for 2 minimum as Ohana and Slickshot said, basically leave room for a highway between deeds without touching deed borders (and other assorted territorial disputes that would otherwise arise with 1-wide perims).

 

As for nsew perimeter tweaking, soooorta +1.  Reducing to 2 minimum would be better and leave it at that, main reason being <newbie checks out 3 sides of deed, 2-wide perim, goes to 4th side assuming it's the same thing, digs into the 20-wide perimeter side, world burns>.

[Saicotic 116]

This would be a great thing to have.

[elroth 279]

+1

[Steveleeb 1,067]

+1

[Ayes 3,715]

Yea, on the big perimeter debates of the past the ability to reduce perimeters has been brought up, more as one set by the game and not individual deed. I still go with the idea that a 1 tile *required perimeter would be all that is needed and a restriction mechanic added that would disallow anything to be built within it. In this way passage between deeds would always be guaranteed, in contrast with the current system where anyone can just wall it off.

 

=Ayes=

[Mordraug 2,542]

Ayes does bring up a good point in favor of the 1-tile perimeter.  If you want multiple deeds clustered and griefing-free, this solves 90% of it as you can fence the deed border and that only leaves a row of corners in the middle that can be messed with.  At least securing mine systems becomes easier too with this since we got mine supports.

 

Since this is suggestions' thread.. for that missing line between the two adjoining deeds, how i THINK the coding for this would go... 

Add invisible locked-in hardcoded "deed settings" for perimeter, or however devs got them coded so only deed owner can build structures on it currently.

   -  One that affects creation of fences, blocks everyone including deed owners.
   -  One that affects digging (allowed for deed owner.. here's the trick part.. Deed that touches borders with yours has a "custom" invisible setting added for that deed's mayor which allows digging, so both deeds automatically do that mutually for each other when adjoining deed is created).

   -  One for paving, same thing as digging one.

   -  One for destroying pavement, same thing as digging one once again.

 

Basically would give perimeters highway treatment *when naturally passable* and only direct neighbors would have a griefing option left, so not hard to find a culprit if that 2-wide strip is intentionally made impossible to travel through.  It's fairly easy to tell if the natural terrain used to allow it or not.  

On the flipside, turning it from naturally impassable to a usable road would mean it's 1-wide if only one deed wants it, and 2-wide if both cooperate, as you still can't terraform your neighbor's deed border and if one deed didn't want it, it was originally impassable to them anyways.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Mordraug

[Slickshot 1,195]

Eh, minimum of 2 is still better for negotiating purposes between neighbor deeds on perimeter tile usage.

[Tantail 16]

I think the 2 tile wide option minimum idea is good as it reduces the unusable space between deed clusters while still leaving room for roads through etc.. I can see why having control over the different sides could also be useful depending on the geography of the location. It wouldn't make sense to have a large perim over an area you won't use. Conversely, if you are backed up against a mountain for example you may have your deed longer in the front and want to protect the standard perim there whilst having the shorter perim against the mountain. I don't feel it would be any more confusing than how deeds are currently shaped. I had no idea about perimeters for the longest time. It would be nice to be able to see the perimeter a little easier though. 

[Yaga 2,887]

Indeed, this has been suggested many times before.... yet:

 

+1

[JakeRivers 2,921]

Maybe a +1 to reducing size, but a big -1 to control of the directions it can be expanded, this would make it cheaper for people to tie up specific tracks of land at no additional cost.

[newman330 72]

I vote YES to reduced perimeters 

[Shmeric 581]

I want to bump this.

[nudge]

Done.

[Etherdrifter 2,516]

+1 again, because why not.

[Mordraug 2,542]

 

Bump AND a cool gif!