Old Highway Protection Rules vs. New Highway Protection Rules

[Ayes 3,715]

I think the old Highway Protection Rules should *always* remain in place even with this new Catseye/Waypoint system. The new Catseye/Waypoint system should just be an *optional* additional benefit.

 

The old Highway Protection Rules were simple. Any 2+ tile wide stretch of road connected from one deed tile edge to another deed tile edge was considered a highway and protected by GM oversight and intervention from being modified. Now this new Catseye/Waypoint system gives the impression that at some point any Highway without them functioning on it will no longer be considered a Highway and thus not protected by the GMs from alteration or removal.

 

There are a number of reasons why players may not want to go through this Catseye/Waypoint installation system. It may also be considered intrusive and unsightly to have to view this all the time. Add in the additional work of installing all this and the fact that when you do if you ever should choose to alter the Highway, which apparently will still need GM permission, then you will have even more work to remove these Catseyes. It could be a simple as just wanting to change the pavement type to cause all this Catseye removal problem.

 

Then of course there is all the work involved in installing this system, compounded by the length of some highways between or around deeds. Even then these Catseyes do not prevent digging down the edges of Highways, which the current Highway Rules do protect by disallowing others to do so. This is commonly done either by careless players or those who want to slant down the highway into their deed rather than slanting down the next tile in. When they also put a fence along the highway edge it can no longer be raised back up to level. The current Highway Protection rules do in effect prevent/resolve this by contacting a GM and having them contact the player to repair the road.

 

The Catseye/Waypoint system is a nice additional perk to Highways but more along the lines of a visual delineation of them and a directional system. In other respects they are inferior to the present Highway Protection Rules and should not be used as a substitute for them or a justification to remove them. *Optional* is the word of the day here, even for next week and the years to come. Eh?

 

Happy Trails

=Ayes=

[Retrograde 12,013]

The new mechanics prevent highways from being made impassable, while they can be dug they cannot be dug further than 20 slope (28 diagonally, 14/14)  meaning that at all times it remains able to be walked. This means that a highway protected by catseyes cannot be destroyed without removing the catseyes.

 

The rules had a lot of grey areas, and created a lot of paperwork for the GM team, who had to spend a lot of time running around and chasing up modifications,. This places more control back in the players hands, allowing them to build these roads and protect them without requiring the GM team to constantly monitor them.

 

This is a mechanical replacement for the rules, and we're aware that there will still be some need for rules around highways in regards to griefing and destroying them without reason, but every 2 tile wide road will no longer be protected and the amount of GM paperwork will be reduced, allowing them to spend more time helping players with other issues. 

 

TL;DR There will be a transition period, and some rules against needless griefing will still remain. Not every 2 tile wide road will be protected and GM's wont be needed to okay their modification or removal. 

[Sila 339]

we need atlast 1 month to protect all the corrent made highways before rule about highway gone.

[Retrograde 12,013]

Yeah there will be a period in which both are in effect, to make suire plenty of time is given to those wanting to setup the new highways, we'll give lots of warning

 

[Reylaark 1,100]

Never liked the old highway rules.  A player-driven, mechanical solution has long been my preference and I'm happy to see one come to fruition.

 

If deemed too unsightly, there is the option of not using them and counting on the road's usefulness to the community for survival.  After all, roads should be planned in such a way that the entire surrounding community wants it.

 

If I understand what you said, @Ayes , it will still require GM approval to make changes.  Therefore, it is still possible for one individual with a shovel and bricks to make unilateral decisions affecting an entire community by paving large swaths of wilderness, and subsequently have GM protection.

 

Anyone who doesn't like the cats eyes is not required to use them, but they then may have to live with the notion that their unilateral decision to pave large swaths of wilderness may not ultimately be up to them alone.  Personally, I think that's how the entire system should work anyway, without tacit protections.

 

Ultimately, I would prefer to see the cats eyes be removable without GM intervention, but at significant investment to the one removing them.  That way, it's not a simple matter of griefing.  People like to say if we don't want a highway plowing through our backyard, we should deed it.  Yet someone paving through it at no cost has instant GM protection.  To me, that is what should be revisited.  Not that it may now require a bit more work if expecting ultimate protection for unilateral decisions at no cost.

 

Crossed out section that does not apply after Retro's correction.

Edited August 18, 2017 by Reylaark
correction

[Retrograde 12,013]

catseyes dont need GM's to remove them, they can be bashed out

[JakeRivers 2,921]

57 minutes ago, Retrograde said:

catseyes dont need GM's to remove them, they can be bashed out

 

lol have fun removing dozens of those if you want to re-route a catseye highway

[Belgrim 13]

I suppose the survey should have had a "short term" vs "long term" option.

 

Keeping both indefinitely seems like the worst of both worlds.  Mechanical restrictions that don't work quite right combined with the limitation I cannot build a "private" road the way I want it to look or I'll lose the right to change it later. 

 

Quote

Ultimately, I would prefer to see the cats eyes be removable without GM intervention, but at significant investment to the one removing them.

 

I can understand this sentiment, but being a new player, I have to say that seeing tiny effort from "those who came before" turn into a "giant effort" for me can be very frustrating.  (Examples: insane and trashed mines, obsolete signs, ancient off-deed mine doors)

 

I think the effort to remove something should certainly be significant in some cases, but it should be commiserate with the effort to create it.   20x the investment seems like a possible cap.  Bashing a mine door for 2 days to make it public doesn't seem to match the 5 or 10 minutes it took to imp the door (144x the effort). 

 

So please, **also** make it harder to create these things with enough quality to be difficult to destroy.  Or maybe minimum distance between roads somehow (local protected vs unprotected ratio similar to deed animal ratio maybe?)

Edited August 18, 2017 by Belgrim
additional stuff to say

[starshard 6]

12 minutes ago, JakeRivers said:

 

lol have fun removing dozens of those if you want to re-route a catseye highway

Still probably faster than waiting for a GM response.

[Reylaark 1,100]

1 hour ago, Retrograde said:

catseyes dont need GM's to remove them, they can be bashed out

Thank you for the correction

 

50 minutes ago, JakeRivers said:

 

lol have fun removing dozens of those if you want to re-route a catseye highway

I think the difficulty is part of the compromise.  It's not magically protected by GM's anymore, but is likely not worth running around wrecking highways just to grief people.

Point being though, if you plow through a neighborhood without any regard for others, they do have a recourse of their own initiative.

 

46 minutes ago, Belgrim said:

I can understand this sentiment, but being a new player, I have to say that seeing tiny effort from "those who came before" turn into a "giant effort" for me can be very frustrating.  (Examples: insane and trashed mines, obsolete signs, ancient off-deed mine doors)

 

I think the effort to remove something should certainly be significant in some cases, but it should be commiserate with the effort to create it.   20x the investment seems like a possible cap.  Bashing a mine door for 2 days to make it public doesn't seem to match the 5 or 10 minutes it took to imp the door (144x the effort).

 

I hear ya, and I'm all for nothing in Wurm being permanent.  Welcome to Wurm btw .  The difficulty in destroying things, I think, is to prevent wanton griefing.  That mine someone wants to make public may well be someone's home, or just a hideout but still with items they value.

It's probably not easy finding the right compromise between making it hard enough to destroy so people can feel like building something is worth it... and yet still make it feasible to alter it if doing so is really worthwhile/needed.

[Belgrim 13]

33 minutes ago, Reylaark said:

Thank you for the correction

 

That mine someone wants to make public may well be someone's home, or just a hideout but still with items they value.

 

This was on Indy.  Not sure how much you've been there, but there are large swaths of land where every possible mine entrance is capped and even the roads are fenced in so there's no livable countryside.  This was such a location where the old players left and the landscape moved on.  Signs and mines were all that was left. 

[Ayes 3,715]

12 hours ago, Retrograde said:

The new mechanics prevent highways from being made impassable, while they can be dug they cannot be dug further than 20 slope (28 diagonally, 14/14)  meaning that at all times it remains able to be walked. This means that a highway protected by catseyes cannot be destroyed without removing the catseyes.

Exactly my point as to why these Catseyes are *inferior* protection to the current Highway Protection Rules, which I already went into in my OP. A diagonally sloped highway hardly compares in function and eye appeal as one that was originally created with care and leveled diagonally.

 

12 hours ago, Retrograde said:

every 2 tile wide road will no longer be protected and the amount of GM paperwork will be reduced, allowing them to spend more time helping players with other issues.

Things might work out this way but at the sacrifice of created highways that are flat diagonally since then there is really no recourse by their creators to call GMs about slopes later dug into them. Now to do this it will be perfectly fine (dig down the sides). Think about steep drop-offs at one side of the road that these Catseyes wouldn't prevent but rather to "Level" up the road again first the Catseyes must be destroyed after much time bashing them (with only a Crowbar steel tool?), then pavements removed adjacently in order to use the "Level" option. A poor mechanic for Catseye "protection" which should at least have prevented altering the Highway in ANY manner (sides included).

 

The whole Catseye/Waypoint system while possibly reducing GM intervention is a poor exchange for the current Highway Protection Rules which must be enforced by GMs. Yep, when you create a multiplayer world where highways are the main means of getting from one place to the other the game Developers through the use of GMs must monitor and control the situation. Catseyes and Waypoints are a sort of cool eye candy with their navigation and directional system but as a Highway Protection mechanism they loose their way.

 

=Ayes=

[starshard 6]

Presumably you can still call a GM for legitimate griefing, this new system just removes the pre-approval process of changing up a highway.

[Alyeska 2,621]

12 hours ago, Retrograde said:

catseyes dont need GM's to remove them, they can be bashed out

 

So, what happens when someone who has a lot of free time decided to mess up a chunk of cat-eyed highway by bashing the eyes and then making a huge trench in the road, will that be considered an offense, or not, because it's possible within the game rules?

 

If an upgrade may be done to a highway (such as replacing a section with a bridge) will a gm come to delete catseyes or will the roadbuilders have to spend days bashing cats eyes?

[Retrograde 12,013]

58 minutes ago, Alyeska said:

 

So, what happens when someone who has a lot of free time decided to mess up a chunk of cat-eyed highway by bashing the eyes and then making a huge trench in the road, will that be considered an offense, or not, because it's possible within the game rules?

if it's done purely for destruction the GM team may take action against the person who does it. We'll be looking at how the updated ruleset will work as this rolls out.

 

59 minutes ago, Alyeska said:

If an upgrade may be done to a highway (such as replacing a section with a bridge) will a gm come to delete catseyes or will the roadbuilders have to spend days bashing cats eyes?

Gm's wont help, this system is to give control back to the players.

Once the link is severed the catseyes will take decay hits over a period of time. if it's a reroute, a catseye can be upgraded to a waystone and the reroute done, with one catseye being based on the old link allowing them to decay.

[Cista 426]

3 hours ago, Retrograde said:

if it's done purely for destruction the GM team may take action against the person who does it. We'll be looking at how the updated ruleset will work as this rolls out.

 

 

Wurm is a game where historically players have tried to get other players banned for killing animals in the steppe.

 

1) a lot of casual new highways will be built by everyone wanting to see the new system in function, combined with 2) knowing we are now allowed to destroy such random and unwelcome bits of "highway" in our neighbourhood, but not wanting to be part of any ban-drama, any sane person will of course ask the permission of a GM before bashing.

Any feuding neighbour, however, will not ask anyone for permission, because he has read that the fate of highways is now in the hands of the players. He will immediately destroy any highway that his neighbour tries to create.  

 

In fact, I predict GMs will have a lot more requests to solve highway issues in the future than they have now.

You cannot at the same time say that we are removing the need for GM permissions for highway removal, but at the same time, highway removal can be a punishable offense. It will not be pretty.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Cista

[Angelklaine 4,266]

I dont think people will go into bashing sprees to remove catseyes just to piss their neighbor off. That's a lot of effort for very little gain. People generally cant be arsed to mess with fences on a regular basis. And I am sure the rule of "dont be a ****" will remain in place. If someone is griefing, they are griefing. Call a GM.

 

I think the chances of a catseye getting removed are about the same as a lamp. Do people bash and steal them? Sometimes. Is it enough of an issue to make a fuss about it? Definetely not.

[Cista 426]

17 hours ago, Angelklaine said:

I dont think people will go into bashing sprees to remove catseyes just to piss their neighbor off.

 

Maybe you are right! I know I am happy that theoretically I can remove unwanted bits of highway, so maybe they hit just the right balance with this. We'll see  

[Ayes 3,715]

Now doubt they will require a lot of time to remove with the specialized steel Crowbar tool. Devs are never ones to make bashing things down easy. Well except for hedges. It has been mentioned if you put the Catseyes down yourself they will be "easier" to remove. Just have to see how it all pans out but I am not rushing to put any down on highways that I have built. *shrugs*

 

=Ayes=

[Mordraug 2,542]

22 hours ago, Angelklaine said:

I dont think people will go into bashing sprees to remove catseyes just to piss their neighbor off. That's a lot of effort for very little gain.

 

(Not singling out your comment, Kaine, was just the nearest one to quote with that logic).

 

You'd be surprised, I've seen griefers go halfway across the server from their deed, past a desert or two, juuuust to dig up someone's perimeter in a very obvious "I stuck to that deed's perimeter" way.   Roads with one corner off each tile dug down 20 dirts.   Also seen those same people get away with it under the pretext of "I needed dirt", and the person who reported threatened with being disciplined for "griefing" if they so much as thought of taking a trip of their own to return the favor.  Same for the guy who'd find his way into a maze-like deed's mine to hit up the perimeter and dig deep shafts into it (one of these days imma say "to hell with it" and just name his sorry ass since his "punishment" was some proper ranking in the CA world).

 

Stop assuming that griefing has any purpose behind it beyond being an asshat.

 

Many bugs and such put me off WO to some degree or another, but never truly enough to make me walk permanently.  What really made me just walk was the lack of desire to pay for land just so that any basement dweller with insufficient parental attention can come and ruin weeks of work only to end up being told that "he acted within the rules/mechanics, and don't you dare retaliate 'cause that's griiiiefiiiiing").

Edited August 20, 2017 by Mordraug