Allow perimeters less than 5 tiles

[Anarres 246]

On 5/6/2017 at 9:01 PM, Bonsai said:

Either that or at least tone down the decay for the deed it is part of. Not necessarily 0 decay...but not the extra fast rate.

 

I thought that for structures owned by the mayor or villager of the deed, there is no extra fast decay rate. There should be increased decay rate only for structures owned by someone 'stranger' to the village. Do you seem to have a different experience?

 

[Amadee 1,543]

I'm of two minds on this.  On the one hand, I would love to be able to close the gap on my adjacent deeds. On the other hand, I'd hate to see what some people would end up doing to each other if they could. 

 

If there was a practical way to do it, like for instance as some have suggested, where both deeds would have to agree to reduce perim, maybe.  But then that brings up the question of what happens if/when one of the parties sells their deed. 

 

I don't know.  I think maybe the reason this has never been done is because of so many problems, seen & unforeseen, that could come up that could potentially outweigh any benefits. So I guess I can't + or -, but it's interesting to see the pros and cons.  Just woolgathering this morning and tossing my thoughts into the mix. 

[Rathgar 959]

+1

Imposible to box someone any more than now, since you would still be able to choose perimeter size. If you are worried about people boxing you in, keep a perimeter, if you want to build adjacent deeds, lower the perimeter. Everyone happy.

[Yaga 2,887]

34 minutes ago, Rathgar said:

+1

Imposible to box someone any more than now, since you would still be able to choose perimeter size. If you are worried about people boxing you in, keep a perimeter, if you want to build adjacent deeds, lower the perimeter. Everyone happy.

 

I agree, BUT it would be necessary to be able to set a different perimeter size for each of the four directions!