Reduce minimum perimeter to 1 tile.

[Badvoc 204]

35 minutes ago, Locath said:

Is there any chance that it's not the perimeter but players who cause the drama?

Is this perhaps one, specific player again?

 

Nail on head, doesn't matter if its 1 tile 5 tiles or 100 tiles, a toxic player will find a way or something to be toxic about.

 

You don't ever have to be close to your deed to be toxic for example look at all the drama regarding highways, its not the game its people rubbing each other up due to different ideas or something as simple as different languages leading to simple misunderstandings that then blow out of all proportion, it might only be a game but us humans have a canny nack to find problems in just about anything.

 

Current system seems to work in most cases I think like said above if its not broken no need to fix, if people living side by side is a problem isn't that make the case of making no mans land bigger not smaller?  ( which by the way I would also be against as 10 tiles between deeds is a nice sweet spot imo.)

 

 

[TheTrickster 2,284]

3 hours ago, Darnok said:

 

If separation works in real life, why wouldn't it work here?

 

A few days ago there was an sale announcement "I will deliver a free corbita, all you have to do is pay 15s for a lead anchor", so corbita is free or not?

How can I set up a settlement with only a free perimeter?

If I can't, the perimeter is not free, it is part of the deed for which we all pay.

 

 

The separation in Wurm works.  I have said so above.  

 

Regarding the perimeter being part of your paid deed, your logic is flawed.

 

The perimeter is undeeded land that happens to be around your deed.  Its permissions are identical to any other undeeded area except for "buffer" provisions.  If you don't deed, you can go right ahead and build on free land. The perimeter is the game's mechanic for keeping you away from your neighbours.  It is imposed not granted.  It is not a part of your deed at all, it is merely a buffer bordering your deed.  Show me screenshots or calculations to support your "the perimeter is not free".   You pay for the tiles you deed.  If you don't increase the perimeter, you pay ZERO irons for it - therefore you cannot possibly say that you pay for the perimeter.

 

Think of it this way.  Your deed doesn't have a perimeter.  The game has a perimeter around your deed.

 

The sale ad was being humourous, as plainly a lead anchor without a corbita would not fetch 15s.  If 15s was the going rate for that anchor, then yes the boat would be free.

Edited October 10, 2020 by TheTrickster

[Platyna 521]

Trickster, I think your logic is flawed. If I buy a kilo of raspberries and I will get a paper bag to it, even if I didn't directly pay for it, I wouldn't get it if I didn't buy the raspberries and the paper bag is mine. No man's lands on PVE servers are possible cause of conflict, especially if they are owned (because they belong to a deed, as they come with it) and not owned at once (because staff said so). And we have a paradox here - a perimeter was made so no one can build stuff or make a deed in front of you, yet, since it is not owned everyone can build stuff in front of you (just not buildings). This is absurd. 2 tile space between deeds hardly can be used for anything useful and developers could then set a strict no structure policy, so we can plant there just some trees or hedges or it is just grass. 

 

You can't win with territorial human nature, you can only bend to it. 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Platyna

[Darnok 200]

5 hours ago, TheTrickster said:

The separation in Wurm works.  I have said so above.  

 

Regarding the perimeter being part of your paid deed, your logic is flawed.

 

The perimeter is undeeded land that happens to be around your deed.  Its permissions are identical to any other undeeded area except for "buffer" provisions.  If you don't deed, you can go right ahead and build on free land. The perimeter is the game's mechanic for keeping you away from your neighbours.  It is imposed not granted.  It is not a part of your deed at all, it is merely a buffer bordering your deed.  Show me screenshots or calculations to support your "the perimeter is not free".   You pay for the tiles you deed.  If you don't increase the perimeter, you pay ZERO irons for it - therefore you cannot possibly say that you pay for the perimeter.

 

Think of it this way.  Your deed doesn't have a perimeter.  The game has a perimeter around your deed.

 

The sale ad was being humourous, as plainly a lead anchor without a corbita would not fetch 15s.  If 15s was the going rate for that anchor, then yes the boat would be free.

 

Perimeter and deed are one because you can't have one without the other. We pay for both of them, so they belong to the owner of the village.

Claiming otherwise is just cheap salesman talk.

[SirMuttley 151]

7 minutes ago, Darnok said:

 

Perimeter and deed are one because you can't have one without the other. We pay for both of them, so they belong to the owner of the village.

No, a perimeter is forced by the game to ensure a zone of separation. Most likely this is to help minimize griefing and unsportsmanlike behavior. If you want more land, deed it and stop trying to get "free" land by controlling the perimeter.

[Amata 400]

20 hours ago, Platyna said:

And the last drama, in SE Ind I know about was nothing else than HL perimeter where two deed mayors living nearby argued hard, and we had to witness that, and if they even called a GM the poor guy or gal would probably have a major problem to reach any satisfactory solution, and they have to spend their tile reading all that bickering (well I was a part of perimeter drama and bickered too, as I had no choice, so I know this first hand how stressful and unpleasant it may get). 

 

"we" had to witness nothing- as the majority of the interactions between the deed mayors was contained entirely in PM discussions. 

 

Anything that may have been discussed in Local chat or any other public chat tab, was not the discussion ("bickering") being held between the two mayors. If Wurmians want to reduce the amount of in-game drama, instead of reducing perimeter tiles - maybe this suggestion should be to reduce the amount of on-looker commentary? 

A GM was not called, because both mayors were/are aware that the point of contention is basically nebulous, as both mayors have equal rights to, and equal not-rights-to the HL perimeter area, so it would be incredibly hard to reach a satisfactory solution. In fact, that is precisely why the two mayors had not already reached a solution on their own. 

 

If a GM had been called - don't try to say "the poor GM"... this is literally the duties a GM accepts as their purview. 

Finally, please STOP using my deed, my neighbor & our recent experience as an example of "drama" that could be prevented by reducing the perimeter size.
That is NOT an accurate understanding of the situation.
I had NO INTENTION to make any aspect of the situation more public than it already was
(only me, my neighbor, and our immediate mutual neighbors were aware anything was going on). 
You were NOT directly involved in any of the situation.
You were asked, as a friend, to tell me about the "vibe" of the other islands.
You chose to insert yourself into the situation, and have very little knowledge of anything except the very end of it all. 

An accurate distillation of the situation would be the following: is the Wurm experience intended by the game creators supposed to be collaborative or solo? What, if anything, do Wurmians owe to each other in the public / un-deeded areas of the Wurm world? 
Reducing perimeter size would NOT have helped answer that fundamental disagreement. 

If you think reducing the perimeter minimum is a worthwhile change to game mechanics - argue that on its own merits.  

[Amata 400]

As for the actual topic here.... 
I would not support reducing the min perimeter - as many have pointed out, this would not reduce drama, only change what the drama is about. 

I WOULD absolutely support the ability to decide different amount of perimeter on each side of the deed. I would also support the ability to create non-rectangular deeds, if that is ever possible. Maybe. 

As for the general air of speculation: the issue was almost entirely down to clash of personalities (as well as architecture style TBH). Attempts to collaborate & compromise on the shared space were unsuccessful. And that was that. 

As I have no desire to have a 3-tile wide highway running next to my backyard, I have elected to be the one that moves. Every Wurmian would agree it's a sucky situation; we love our deeds & our neighbors & we get invested in where we live.

But - as it's already been said - it's just a game. I've already found a new location with exciting building prospects of its own. 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Amata

[Badvoc 204]

5 hours ago, Amata said:

As for the actual topic here.... 
I would not support reducing the min perimeter - as many have pointed out, this would not reduce drama, only change what the drama is about. 

I WOULD absolutely support the ability to decide different amount of perimeter on each side of the deed. I would also support the ability to create non-rectangular deeds, if that is ever possible. Maybe. 

As for the general air of speculation: the issue was almost entirely down to clash of personalities (as well as architecture style TBH). Attempts to collaborate & compromise on the shared space were unsuccessful. And that was that. 

As I have no desire to have a 3-tile wide highway running next to my backyard, I have elected to be the one that moves. Every Wurmian would agree it's a sucky situation; we love our deeds & our neighbors & we get invested in where we live.

But - as it's already been said - it's just a game. I've already found a new location with exciting building prospects of its own. 

 

 

First of all I think your posts have been well thought out and summed up things very well.

 

Anyway the bit in bold, I have to disagree with as i think being able to set the amount of perimeter on each side differently could cause problems, just like the deed cant be long and thin the problems with perimeter being able to be set like that could open the door to grief and yet more drama.

 

For example coast areas are so wanted by many players, it would be easy for a person to make a small deed and then grab a lot of shoreline blocking other people having a chance to settle there, causing drama for very little cost.

 

I think hand on heart the dev's and GM team after 15 years or so have seen what comes and goes and likely think this current system is the best if not perfect way for deeds to be handled.

 

With regards your current "problem / disagreement" All i can say is i had a local problem and I decided to move to be done with it and it was the best thing I could have ever done, we play the game to have fun and relax and just sometimes 2 people just cant agree or get along, in fact it ended up with my new home being more fun than the old.

 

 so i wish you the very best of luck and hope your new home gives you the game experience your after, as we are all here in wurm to just have some fun and relax.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Badvoc

[TheTrickster 2,284]

14 hours ago, Platyna said:

If I buy a kilo of raspberries and I will get a paper bag to it, even if I didn't directly pay for it, I wouldn't get it if I didn't buy the raspberries and the paper bag is mine

(emphasis added).

 

That bit I emphasized is key.   The paper bag is yours, to do with as you will.  It was originally a convenient way to carry a kilo a raspberries.  However, it is yours to use in any way at any time - long after the raspberries are gone.

 

The perimeter is a bit more like the 1.5m separation that our shops here have to enforce.  Yeah, it only exists because you are buying something, but you can't do anything with it and it ceases to exist when you leave the shop.

[TheTrickster 2,284]

13 hours ago, Darnok said:

Perimeter and deed are one because you can't have one without the other.

Co-dependence is not unity.

 

13 hours ago, Darnok said:

We pay for both of them, so they belong to the owner of the village.

 

First of, all, simply repeating the claim is not actually advancing an argument to support it.  You seem to hold this as axiomatic and therefore not needing evidence.  Secondly, the very fact that according to the game mechanics the perimeter does not belong to the deed holder falsifies the claim in the first place.  Here is how that works logically;

 

A=the deed owner pays for both the deed and the perimeter

B=the perimeter is owned by the deed owner

 

IF A THEN B

 

NOT B (according to the game rules, the game mechanics and official statement the game's owners).

 

therefore

 

NOT A

 

 

[Darnok 200]

4 hours ago, TheTrickster said:

Co-dependence is not unity.

 

 

First of, all, simply repeating the claim is not actually advancing an argument to support it.  You seem to hold this as axiomatic and therefore not needing evidence.  Secondly, the very fact that according to the game mechanics the perimeter does not belong to the deed holder falsifies the claim in the first place.  Here is how that works logically;

 

A=the deed owner pays for both the deed and the perimeter

B=the perimeter is owned by the deed owner

 

IF A THEN B

 

NOT B (according to the game rules, the game mechanics and official statement the game's owners).

 

therefore

 

NOT A

 

 

 

The producer of the game is also a seller who will preach what pays him off.

The fact that you buy a car, but the seller tells you that you have free wheels changes reality? You pay for both. A car without wheels is useless, and neither are wheels without a car. The fact that you cannot place a free perimeters token in the game proves that my argument is true, but you dismiss the argument and repeated yourself at least 2 times that it isn't.

 

[Oblivionnreaver 5,174]

20 minutes ago, Darnok said:

The fact that you buy a car, but the seller tells you that you have free wheels changes reality?

jokes on you theres a market for both

[Darnok 200]

42 minutes ago, Oblivionnreaver said:

jokes on you theres a market for both

 

Great, so when do we get token with just free perimeter in game? 😄

 

[Locath 528]

41 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Great, so when do we get token with just free perimeter in game? 😄

When you hit rock-bottom, STOP DIGGING!

[TheTrickster 2,284]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

The fact that you cannot place a free perimeters token in the game proves that my argument is true, but you dismiss the argument and repeated yourself at least 2 times that it isn't.

Refute does not equal dismiss.  I addressed it quite specifically.  Your reading comprehension is not something I can do anything about from here.

[Amata 400]

16 hours ago, Badvoc said:

 

For example coast areas are so wanted by many players, it would be easy for a person to make a small deed and then grab a lot of shoreline blocking other people having a chance to settle there, causing drama for very little cost.

 

This example makes a good point that I had not fully considered. 

Thanks 

[Kingsponge 78]

Let's be honest, how many people would actually lower their perimeter to 1 tile??

 

The whole reason I personally moved was to get away from neighbours right up my ass. Granted they were very nice people that I never had any issues with, I just didn't wanna be holding hands with them anymore. 

(Basically meaning the deeds felt too close for my liking as I was bumper to bumper with them)

[Etherdrifter 2,517]

Well; this is interesting...  One of my my earlier suggestions was pretty much this.

 

A perimeter is pretty much just a way to leave space between deeds and ensure that a set of small deeds do not lock off a large area of the map that hasn't been paid for indefinitely; they're basically a "guranteed bash/road" location.  Perimeters used to offer additional protection under the old "enclosure" rules (look them up, they are what existed before "deed it or lose it" took over and things went downhill), but now they don't really serve any form of benefit to their owners save to offer a buffer zone between "mine and thine" so to speak.

 

A 1-tile wide perimeter would do this equally well (since this would be 2 tiles of perimeter between adjacent deeds minimum) mechanically speaking; especially given that highways are but 2 tiles wide at the most.

 

There isn't really an argument about drama either way since if wurm's goal were to prevent drama it would be designed quite differently!  However there is an argument to be made about utility between people.  While cramped quarters are never going to be an issue with the old cluster, it is clearly a detriment to QoL upon the new one.

[Nekojin 197]

7 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

A 1-tile wide perimeter would do this equally well (since this would be 2 tiles of perimeter between adjacent deeds minimum) mechanically speaking; especially given that highways are but 2 tiles wide at the most.

This is incorrect. A 1-tile wide perimeter would allow for a road, but not a Highway unless the person had all of the right permissions from BOTH deeds. Placing a Catseye or Waystone checks everything in a 3-tile circle around it. If that radius would cross over into a deed where the planter has permissions, the Catseye/Waystone cannot be planted, and therefore the Highway cannot be placed. With a 5-wide Perimeter, it's always still possible to plant Highways on the outer edge of the Perimeter.

[Badvoc 204]

5 hours ago, Nekojin said:

This is incorrect. A 1-tile wide perimeter would allow for a road, but not a Highway unless the person had all of the right permissions from BOTH deeds. Placing a Catseye or Waystone checks everything in a 3-tile circle around it. If that radius would cross over into a deed where the planter has permissions, the Catseye/Waystone cannot be planted, and therefore the Highway cannot be placed. With a 5-wide Perimeter, it's always still possible to plant Highways on the outer edge of the Perimeter.

 

Interesting,

 

So a deed owner could in fact build a shack in the perimeter to block a highway on the outer edge, due to the way catseyes checks everything in a 3 tile circle? 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Badvoc

[Nekojin 197]

52 minutes ago, Badvoc said:

Interesting,

 

So a deed owner could in fact build a shack in the perimeter to block a highway on the outer edge, due to the way catseyes checks everything in a 3 tile circle?

 

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or maneuvering toward, but yes - building a 2-wide shack in your outer perimeter will prevent people from placing a highway there. But given how perimeters cause increased damage ticks to structures within them, that'd mean you'd either have to build the shack to at least medium QL, or keep going back and repairing it every few days, to  keep it intact. Just to keep a Highway out, and only a few more tiles away? Why? You could just as soon extend your Deed enough tiles to keep the Highway as far away from your main area as you want. If you're simply offended that people want to have a Highway in your perimeter, then you're falling for the same fallacy that so many of these arguments start from, assuming that the perimeter somehow belongs to you.

 

Note that they could still build a highway that runs right up next to the shack - that's not a deed, after all.

[Ekcin 2,406]

3 minutes ago, Nekojin said:

 

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or maneuvering toward, but yes - building a 2-wide shack in your outer perimeter will prevent people from placing a highway there. But given how perimeters cause increased damage ticks to structures within them, that'd mean you'd either have to build the shack to at least medium QL, or keep going back and repairing it every few days, to  keep it intact.

That is a myth. A shack in perimeter does not decay any faster that a shack in free land, and the deed owner could repair and improve it anytime. Only when the owner of the shack has not logged in more than 3 months, the structure will take dramatically increased damage.

[Nekojin 197]

10 hours ago, Ekcin said:

That is a myth. A shack in perimeter does not decay any faster that a shack in free land, and the deed owner could repair and improve it anytime. Only when the owner of the shack has not logged in more than 3 months, the structure will take dramatically increased damage.

Fair enough. I've seen people say it, and not be corrected, in the CA-Help channel quite a few times, including from people who are  CAs. But I'll take that as true for the moment. 

 

I still falls back to the point of what the purpose is. If you want to keep people away from your Deed, you can make a 1xsomething building, as long as your Carpentry can support, and keep people from laying a highway too close that way (or two at opposite ends of the deed), but that still becomes something that will require maintenance. And for what? Preventing a theoretical highway that may never exist? Or is the highway planning happening "now" and "you" just can't be bothered to communicate with the Highway planners to let them know your preferences? 

 

There's lots of ways to prevent problems, but combative "counter-building" isn't one of the good ways.  

Edited October 12, 2020 by Nekojin

[Amata 400]

9 hours ago, Ekcin said:

 

9 hours ago, Nekojin said:

But given how perimeters cause increased damage ticks to structures within them, that'd mean you'd either have to build the shack to at least medium QL, or keep going back and repairing it every few days, to  keep it intact.

 

That is a myth. A shack in perimeter does not decay any faster that a shack in free land, and the deed owner could repair and improve it anytime. Only when the owner of the shack has not logged in more than 3 months, the structure will take dramatically increased damage.

 

The fact that perimeter structures do not decay any faster than structures build on free land has led to something I noticed recently... and I'm not too sure that I like. 

 

Here's A Background Story

Given recent events, I decided to move from my (old) deed to an area where I can pay for more deed tiles as well as  wider perimeter. While traveling the land, "shopping" for a new area to call home, I began to encounter something that confused me at first - but once I realized what I was seeing, I became more than a little bit irked. 

I was finding large areas of land, clearly occupied with grand structures, castle keeps, manor houses, forges, smithies, kitchens, stables, and more. All these areas neatly fenced and gated... but none of it on-deed. Any time I approached an area and examined the ground I only found "wild lands of Wurm" over and over. Not even perimeter land of some deed contained within the fenced areas - just straight up free holdings. 

 

Sometimes, examining the structures confirmed a large amount of damage - suggesting the area is the soon-to-be ruins of a now disbanded deed. However, *most* of these holdings were in good repair, improved to the highest levels, and their interiors well maintained - fat and happy animals, fields of crops tended, orchards, decor, and roadways neat and clean. My guess is that homesteads built like this are relics from the old "enclosure" rules. 

 

What bothers me a tiny little bit is that Wurmians with means and high skill level can construct structures and fences at high QL resistant to decay and easily repaired exactly like this... and live entirely free. 

 

This also presents a strange situation - here is an entire ready-made, functional homestead, entirely on "free" land... setting aside the incredibly bad reputation it would garner with the community.... anyone could walk up and deed over the entire thing, giving themselves the rights to occupancy & basically evicting the actual homesteader right out. Technically, the deeder didn't do anything "against the rules" - as the land was free land and the builder/occupant did not have all or part of it "on-deed" .... Hopefully a GM would say that the sneak deeder violated the "play nice" rule - but that is subject to a GM's discretion on a case-by-case basis. 

 

Here's Some Thoughts About That Story

I'm not sure what to suggest or conclude about this situation.

(1) some Wurmians are able to occupy large homesteads with very little risk without investing in-game or IRL currency
(2) this option is not realistically available to all Wurmians

(3) some Wurmians "living free" do not assume risk of theft by virtue of Big Name status
(4) on the flip side, some Wurmians living on-deed and paying for it, have property stolen any time there is the slightest mistake in perms or forgetting to lock or any number of harmless, incidental this-or-that

 

If You Skip Everything Else - Read This Part

Personally, I think, "hey, it's a big sandbox to play in" ... personally, I think, "I want people to respect me and the space I'm playing in, so I need to respect them and the space they are playing in, too." I don't care if you are on deed, on perimeter, on wild land; if you've made a bit of space your own, I'll try my best to leave you to it. I don't even care if you have fenced it in and locked it - if you have made it known, made it obvious, that you are living on & cultivating an area, that's peachy fine with me. Have at it. I would hope that you'd extend the same line of thought to me. 

 

I genuinely don't care who pays and who lives free. I care that rules are followed and respect is given. I care that if someone speaks up about ideas for public land and community projects, that they are listened to and their contributions given consideration. I would hope that disputes could be settled through discussion with mutual efforts and good faith from all parties involved, not just one party. I honestly feel that "it is on my deeded land" should be the last resort in community interaction, the barest minimum that says to me, "I only respect your space and your property and your place here because there is some authority and some rule that says that I have to." 

 

I find it worrisome that it seems like some part of the Wurmian community doesn't see that as a rock-bottom line, but as the bar to pass. 

 

And I don't think mechanical adjustments to perimeters, or somesuch, is going to address that. 

 

[Badvoc 204]

On 10/12/2020 at 8:33 AM, Nekojin said:

 

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or maneuvering toward, but yes - building a 2-wide shack in your outer perimeter will prevent people from placing a highway there. But given how perimeters cause increased damage ticks to structures within them, that'd mean you'd either have to build the shack to at least medium QL, or keep going back and repairing it every few days, to  keep it intact. Just to keep a Highway out, and only a few more tiles away? Why? You could just as soon extend your Deed enough tiles to keep the Highway as far away from your main area as you want. If you're simply offended that people want to have a Highway in your perimeter, then you're falling for the same fallacy that so many of these arguments start from, assuming that the perimeter somehow belongs to you.

 

Note that they could still build a highway that runs right up next to the shack - that's not a deed, after all.

 

 

Just found it interesting is all,

 

not everyone wants a highway and if a person had two deeds side by side with 10 tile perimeter between them both its interesting to note It could be blocked in effect from "highway" builders just pushing one through no mans land if you didn't want one.

 

A more interesting concept which has been brought up is about who owns the perimeter, its easy to say no one when its just the 5 free tiles, but if a person pays for the perimeter doesn't that give them a point that they own it?

 

I also thought being able to buy extra perimeter muddies the water a lot in this regard and can understand how and why some people think they own they own perimeter, I mean it even states its "village name" perimeter.