An official statement request about clarification of highway rules.

[Platyna 521]

I was advised by a GM to post this kind request. 

 

Rules say:

Quote

A ) You may not intentionally disable an active highway connection by removing the catseyes without rerouting or replacing them promptly .

 

 

I would like to ask for the following:

 

1. What is a proper reroute/detour (reroute for permanent change of road and detour for a temporary disablement during road works), at least some approximate parameters such as how far it is supposed to be etc., Maybe it would be worth to add a requirement of proper detour signage as it is done IRL?

 

2. Level command seems to ignore highway protection slope limit, therefore is it possible to render a highway unpassable without removal of the markers. It can be very useful if used right (e.g. for resloping while adding intersections or in avoidance of surface mining). So I am not sure if this is a bug or a feature. I reported is as a bug though and it wasn't marked as one. I think if a work can be conducted without destroying the markers it should be allowed, also it seems to be a lot easier for wagoners if their route wouldn't just disappear, and a wagoner will pause until the road is passable again, the question is if is it OK?

 

 

3. How long is "promptly", at least by the unit of time (an hour, a day?). 

 

Thank you for your time. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Platyna

[ArthurHawkwing 176]

I just did a small re=slope of a Highway by glasshollow and got warning while leveling if the slope would become to steep to travel, so not sure if its working everywhere or just by catseyes. Took a weird grade out and widened the flat areas on both sides, looks better, awaiting for a "A Bridge to far" to finish decaying before i can re=slope to more spots and make it look even.

 

[Wonka 438]

You're asking for absolute rules for something that depends on the situation.  If someone needs to move a 20 tile long stretch of highway 5 tiles over because they don't want it in their perimiter, in a largely unpopulated area, that's probably a quick, low impact change, that won't take long and won't impact others.  If someone wants to reroute a highway around the far side of a mountain, that's probably going to need longer, and impact more people.  This is like asking, "how do I play nice?" - it depends on the situation and the people involved.

 

Similarly, 'promptly' depends on the directive in question.  Given the lead-in, I'm guessing you were told to do something (or to undo something) by a GM, and then got into an argument with them about how soon it was supposed to be done.  Possibly because they were working on the shortest possible solution, and you wanted to do things in a different way?  I can't say I've been on the receiving end of much in the way of GM directives, but my experience has generally been that they're pretty clear when you're being told to do something.

[BDCKoolaid 106]

Promptly is a vague term used to cover a wide variety of loopholes. This was most likely done to combat people like you, who actively attempt to exploit the rules to be more to your benefit.

 

I think the most useful definition for you to go by would be "as quickly as you are able to." And no, that does not mean as quickly as is convenient for you based on your own ideas of what being able to do means. That means as fast as is physically possible with no breaks or slowdowns.

 

My suggestion to you in such cases where you know it will take several hours or days to complete, is to create the detour in it's entirety before violating the preexisting highway, so that when the first catseye crumbles and the highway is broken, it may only take you a few minutes to reconnect to your created detour.

[Platyna 521]

This post was made solely to inquire about something that is interesting to me and other people who work on highways, to make sure we always obey the rules in the best possible way. All the conjectures I suggest to keep to yourself. FYI I never had any problems with GMs or other staff members during my highway work, several of them helped me even if they didn't have to spend their time on that. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Platyna

[Daciana 22]

 

Good rule of thumb if you are reworking a road that you need to temporarily remove catseyes from a highway-

 

If the work is less than 24-48hrs:  Don't worry about a reroute. If you are concerned there might be an issue, put up temp signs in the area.

 

If the work will take longer than 48 hours, temporarily reroute the road to connect the catseyes so that wagoners and people may pass. After the work is complete, remove the reroute.

 

Proper reroute-

Any road you reroute is fine as long as the existing catseyes on either end line connect again.

[Ulviirala 431]

I too think that "don't do this without a detour", and "or replace catseyes promptly" are vague, probably because it depends on any one situation individually, and shouldn't have a fixed rule because that seems like it'll hurt more than it'll do good. Highways shouldn't be immutable by rule, blocking off, claiming, or meta-protecting no-mans-land, anyone should be allowed to change and/or improve them as they see fit, the same as the players who originally decided to build it as they saw fit.

 

Not sure if they should be protected by game rules at all, but of course it's not nice to simply destroy random catseyes for the sole purpose of interrupting routes. But I guess the devs and the people like this feature so much, that they want it to be used, and consider it straight up griefing. Which I would say it is, there's no real use of destroying highway routes.

 

Should a detour exist before making changes? I have no idea how frequently the highway system and wagoners are used, I've used the markers maybe once. If a project takes days or weeks, maybe months, or you're not even sure if you'll ever finish it, then perhaps yes? Maybe the highway already finds an existing alternative route anyway, and if you're using the waypoint markers, you already have your detour marked. A posted sign saying "the usual route is temporarily closed because of a huge cart accident with EXPLOOOOSIOOOOONS" would be a courteous bonus, I guess.

[Platyna 521]

10 minutes ago, Daciana said:

 

Good rule of thumb if you are reworking a road that you need to temporarily remove catseyes from a highway-

 

If the work is less than 24-48hrs:  Don't worry about a reroute. If you are concerned there might be an issue, put up temp signs in the area.

 

If the work will take longer than 48 hours, temporarily reroute the road to connect the catseyes so that wagoners and people may pass. After the work is complete, remove the reroute.

 

Proper reroute-

Any road you reroute is fine as long as the existing catseyes on either end line connect again.

 

This is something I wanted to get, thank you. Are you sure any reroute is okay, even if far away from original road? 

 

There one last thing left, which I mentioned in my first post - do I need to remove catseyes and waystones during work (is it mandatory?), or I can use the fact that level ignores slope protection, and leave the markers on if they don't need to be removed (this allows the road to be available much faster)? Is it a bug or a feature or both? 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Platyna

[Daciana 22]

16 minutes ago, Platyna said:

This is something I wanted to get, thank you. Are you sure any reroute is okay, even if far away from original road? 

 

Reroute is fine. Only requirements are what I listed above. If it is to be reconnected, I would advise not making more work for yourself. With new roads/permanent reroutes, talking to the community in the area is always a good thing.

 

20 minutes ago, Platyna said:

There one last thing left, which I mentioned in my first post - do I need to remove catseyes and waystones during work (is it mandatory?), or I can use the fact that level ignores slope protection, and leave the markers on if they don't need to be removed (this allows the road to be available much faster)? Is it a bug or a feature or both? 

 

Honestly, slope for a highway must not exceed 20 straight or 14/14 diagonally.. I wouldn't use this as an alternative as it could be considered a bug. It is something that is being looked into though.

[Platyna 521]

5 minutes ago, Daciana said:

 

Reroute is fine. Only requirements are what I listed above. If it is to be reconnected, I would advise not making more work for yourself. With new roads/permanent reroutes, talking to the community in the area is always a good thing.

 

 

Honestly, slope for a highway must not exceed 20 straight or 14/14 diagonally.. I wouldn't use this as an alternative as it could be considered a bug. It is something that is being looked into though.

 

Ad 1. I just meant if there is something like "30 tiles from original road or less" or similar requirements ever made in GM rulings (like if someone complained about new reroutes being bad?). No it is not to check if I can do bad reroutes (I don't do that). 

Ad 2. Yes, however my question was about a highway during rework like when you add an intersection and you have to reslope, then even unintentionally you can temporarily make slopes higher than 20 while using level (this is how I noticed this for a first time) which will make a road unpassable. So should I then remove markers or just keep going until I fix it and don't bother with the markers for the time being? 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Platyna

[Daciana 22]

7 minutes ago, Platyna said:

Ad 1. I just meant if there is something like "30 tiles from original road or less" or similar requirements ever made in GM rulings (like if someone complained about new reroutes being bad?). No it is not to check if I can do bad reroutes (I don't do that). 

 

Honestly, the highway system was put into place to remove most of the GM's involvement. Only on a few cases have we ever placed a GM ruling and for that to happen, it's got to be pretty severe. As long as it is rerouted, catseyes connected back, whether permanently or temporarily, it should be fine.. With that being said... Like I mentioned before, if there are other players in your local, a friendly heads up and light discussion about it is always encouraged.

 

11 minutes ago, Platyna said:

Yes, however my question was about a highway during rework like when you add an intersection and you have to reslope, then even unintentionally you can temporarily make slopes higher than 20 while using level (this is how I noticed this for a first time) which will make a road unpassable. So should I then remove markers or just keep going until I fix it and don't bother with the markers for the time being? 

 

In these cases, removing the catseyes, completing the leveling work and reconnecting is suggested. Even if something is by accident, if you know this will happen, you do not want to put yourself into a position of possibly abusing an exploit. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't necessarily mean you SHOULD.

 

Hope that clears things up.

[Daciana 22]

50 minutes ago, Ulviirala said:

Should a detour exist before making changes?

 

If you anticipate the work taking more than 24-48hrs, yes.. Put the reroute in place FIRST.

[Platyna 521]

Thank you for the clarification, I really like the time spans, so I can finish my work without the necessity of staying up too long.

 

About destroying the markers I would really love to hear from developers about this too, because I submitted my report quite some time ago and it seems to never been classified, and indeed I wouldn't like to be accused of exploiting bugs. I even suggested in original post that such thing could be allowed by the game mechanics to e.g. high digging or high paving players. 

[Daciana 22]

In talking with Alectrys, she's classified this as a bug for now.. So remove catseyes and waystones before leveling if you think there might be an issue.

 

As far as requests to change it go, I'd have to point you to the suggestions forum and if they deem it worthy of change, then they will look at it as well.

[Platyna 521]

Okay. Good. All is now clear. Poor catseyes are going to pay the ultimate price for that. 🙂

Edited July 14, 2020 by Platyna

[Badvoc 204]

This seems a good place to post this since we have GM answering questions here.

 

With regards the highway system is it fine for a player to change highways when their deed isnt even close?

 

I know part of the problem is in the past is some highway builders have been upsetting local people because there idea of a highway is different to others at times and as these people can be very vocal they steam roller others without a care in the world they sometimes use game systems to enforce there ideas.

 

 but I have a question more about who takes president when two people have different ideas on the same highway. 

 

So who would have right of way to Decide on the highway, the person who wanted to change said highway or the local deed owners who wanted to keep the highway the same?

Edited July 15, 2020 by Badvoc
Removing any misunderstandings of a personal attack

[Platyna 521]

Post reported to forum moderators. To remind you:

 

Quote

C ) You may not deliberately supply Wurm Online Team members with false information.

 

Which you do, and this lie has short legs, because game mechanics will not allow planting or destroying highway markers on or next to a deed without planting and destroying items permissions (and once the markers are placed, also paving is restricted), plus highway markers bear the signature of a person who planted them, so it is very easy to find an author of a re-routing. Not to mention where I live all neighbouring deeds, are my allies, or are inactive (with one exception, where the deed mayor is not an ally but helped me with completion of my work without granting the permissions). Any player has a right to decide if there will be a highway, a bridge or a building on an undeeded land. I have terraforming and paving rights to multiple deeds and several of our alliance members perform the road work here (which is easily recognized by custom paving patterns). 

 

Quote

B ) You may not disrupt any thread.

 

You posted an off-topic personal attack disseminating false information about other player, in an important, rule-setting thread for the sole purpose of getting angry reactions.

 

Since the questions were answered and rules were established, so there is nothing more to add, I would like to ask a forum moderator to close this thread and remove redundant posting (including this post). 

 

EDIT: most of these no longer apply as original post I was replying to was edited. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Platyna

[Badvoc 204]

32 minutes ago, Platyna said:

Post reported to forum moderators. To remind you:

 

 

Which you do, and this lie has short legs, because game mechanics will not allow planting or destroying highway markers on or next to a deed without planting and destroying items permissions on deed (and once the markers are placed, also paving is restricted), plus highway markers bear the signature of a person who planted them, so it is very easy to find an author of a re-routing. Not to mention where I live all neighbouring deeds, are my allies, or are inactive (with one exception, where the deed mayor helped me with completion of my work without granting the permissions).  Any player has a right to decide if there will be a highway on an undeeded land. Both Ronal and me have terraforming and paving rights to multiple deeds and several of our alliance members perform the road work (we are known from our custom paving patterns).

 

 

You posted an off-topic personal attack disseminating false information about other player, in an important, rule-setting thread for the sole purpose of getting angry reactions, this is trolling. 

 

Since the questions were answered and rules were established, so there is nothing more to add, I would like to ask a forum moderator to close this thread and remove redundant posting (including this post). 

 

So once again your trying to force your view on someone else, by trying to close down a valid question.

Rather than me making a second post on the subject I am very interested in the views of the GM's in this matter and it fits perfect with the subject on this thread.

 

I am sorry if my use of an example you have taken as a person attack as thats not what I intended, I have removed it. All i did was use a real example of something that has happened, which ended up with a GM asking for there to be reverted some road changes that were made, no where have I said something of a mistruth.

 

Its not off topic, my question is with regards the highway system, the spirit of the game and common sense, I am interested in the views of the GM's as sometimes rules aren't black and white, what can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

 

So as is its your right to report my post may I remind you its also against the rules for a person to take it on themselves to act as a moderator, or to decide what questions are valid or not, that is the reason we have GM and Chat / forum mods. Also once posted here people do have the right to get involved in the discussion and while your question was answered to some degree I find a question I had was not and i am very interested in the views of the GM's.

 

So I ask if you would refrain for trying to turn this it a personal debate and allow a GM to answer my question as this is something important for me and I am interested in understanding how the game rules and spirit of them should be enforced, as you yourself should understand its better to avoid misunderstandings then to try and clear them up after the fact. Should A person who lives 300 / 400 tiles away from the highway have more say over that highway than someone who's deed is 20-30 tiles away, its quite an interesting thought, of course 9 /10 these problems don't arise as the locals are either happy with improvements or help with a new highways, but what happens when the locals and highway builder don't see eye to eye? I feel this is an important question.

 

If a mod would like me to make a completely new post to get my question answered I am happy to do so, but as i feel it fits in well with the topic in hand would very much like this aspect made more clear, I see no reason why the question needs to be avoided.

 

So I ask again :-

would have right of way to Decide on the highway, the person who wanted to change said highway or the local deed owners who wanted to keep the highway the same?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Badvoc

[Platyna 521]

I never said my highway work upset anyone, there was one discussion about waystones on GL where some people were upset because they were afraid I might be removing pickup waystones (which I don't do). If a GM ordered you to revert the route you revert the route or appeal to a higher GM, simple. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Platyna

[Badvoc 204]

12 minutes ago, Platyna said:

I never said my highway work upset anyone, there was one discussion about waystones on GL where some people were upset because they were afraid I might be removing pickup waystones (which I don't do, on the contrary, I do plant such waystones with public wagoner containers usually per request of the locals). If a GM ordered you to revert the route you revert the route or appeal to a higher GM, simple. 

 

thank you for your reply, but that wasn't my question, I am asking a GM the question above in my post for when there's a disagreement between road builders and local people. I would like to wait for an official response. Sorry thats right you said you were upset in GL freedom about being upset not here, again sorry for not making that clear.

 

If the answer is "game system"  whats to stop the local people reverting all and any changes that have been made by the road builders, which would end up with tit for tat silliness. How would a road builder feel if the next time they visit one of there roads and local put it back to the way it was? A complete waste of time and effort by all parties.

This is the reason why I am asking for this part to be made more clear. Would the locals have more say what is happening around there area or would the highway builder who claims its within the rules what they are doing but against the spirit of the game, having this made a little more clear can help solve toxic behaver before it gets out of hand.

 

I understand its a big difference between working on your own local roads, but surely its different when a road builder travels 100s and 100's of tiles away from there own deed to build roads, which maybe the locals aren't keen on.

Edited July 15, 2020 by Badvoc

[Oblivionnreaver 5,174]

GM decisions aren't set in stone, most likely depends on what's best for everyone

 

ages ago a member of my alliance on indy didn't want a highway going through their deed at that time, someone made a dirt bridge right next to their deed for a highway (and ripped up a rice farm for it), gm said it was okay for the highway to be removed with no replacement as they didn't want a highway there in the first place, so my money is on local populace > road builder

[Badvoc 204]

6 minutes ago, Oblivionnreaver said:

GM decisions aren't set in stone, most likely depends on what's best for everyone

 

ages ago a member of my alliance on indy didn't want a highway going through their deed at that time, someone made a dirt bridge right next to their deed for a highway (and ripped up a rice farm for it), gm said it was okay for the highway to be removed with no replacement as they didn't want a highway there in the first place, so my money is on local populace > road builder

 

Ty for your reply and I hope this is what the GM's would also advise. As with current rules once a highway has been built you cant remove it again. Which makes it difficult to revert a change in local which you didn't want.

 

I look forward to an official response.

Edited July 15, 2020 by Badvoc

[Ekcin 2,407]

4 hours ago, Badvoc said:

This seems a good place to post this since we have GM answering questions here.With regards the highway system is it fine for a player to change highways when their deed isnt even close?

 

Of course. There would be no highways on Wurm if only deed owners (most times of the day absent and often not caring for infrastructure) could decide about the course of a highway.

 

4 hours ago, Badvoc said:

I know part of the problem is in the past is some highway builders have been upsetting local people  ..

 

Happens. The best way is communicating with each other.

 

4 hours ago, Badvoc said:

but I have a question more about who takes president when two people have different ideas on the same highway.

So who would have right of way to Decide on the highway, the person who wanted to change said highway or the local deed owners who wanted to keep the highway the same?

 

Noone and everyone has the chair. As the environment outside deeds (with some limitations for perimeters) is free to be terraformed, this also extends to highway building. In case of conflicts the concerned parties have to negotiate and find a solution, maybe with GM mediation. There are no special rights for locals and deed owners other than those resulting from deed or structure ownership.

 

But in case of a mediation, each side has to explain their motives. And of course, the motives of locals to preserve their environs are legitimate and obvious. Somebody from afar would have to offer good reasons why one or the other road routing would be necessary or preferable. A highway, legitimately connecting deeds or routes, can indeed not easily be removed altogether, only rerouted.

[Retrograde 12,013]

The GM team try to work as mediators in these situations, if there are disputes they will review the situation as a team. 

 

If someone is known to be disruptive, or not even within their local, then they are going to take different action to a dispute within people in local. 

 

The best advice I can give is if you are doing something that is off your deed, and others are upset by it, don't do it. 

 

 

[Badvoc 204]

Thanks for that guys i think that covers it, 

 

So if I have that right if someone comes to local from a distance , changes things that the locals aren't keen on game systems / highway rules wouldn't be the end all of it, the team would look on the it on a case by case and decide what's best, not just on the fact someone could do this.

 

Like I said I would guess in 99/100 of times people are happy for improvements.

8 minutes ago, Ekcin said:

Noone and everyone has the chair. As the environment outside deeds (with some limitations for perimeters) is free to be terraformed, this also extends to highway building. In case of conflicts the concerned parties have to negotiate and find a solution, maybe with GM mediation. There are no special rights for locals and deed owners other than those resulting from deed or structure ownership.

 

The problem I see with that is when it all breaks down and you have two sets of active people, surely the locals would have a little more of a say depending on how close to said deeds and how many of the locals were against the planned improvement. one persons improvement might be another persons destruction, without a guideline you could easly get problems that gets out of hand very quickly and with the new servers coming I was interested in this being made a little more clear.

 

For example if a new highway starts to run towards an area the locals don't want destroyed takes moments to drop a shack down and stop that progress, this isnt the way to solve problems like this and why i asked the question, as sometimes the deed it or lose it or I can so I will isn't quite in the spirit of the game.

 

So if the highway rule isnt the be all and end all and that the GM's can and will take a look at it on a case by case is perfect and if found the road improvement was not in the best interests of the locals the GM's would at least take a look and help people sort out the problems.

 

ty for taking the time to reply to my question.