An idea to combat base jumping (translation)

[Ltnicolas 60]

Hello there! I am writing on behalf of someone that asked me to do an English translation of his idea to combat base jumping, in connection with the public announcements made today. I am not the author, just doing the kind favor of translating and posting; the user in question is Eolion.

 

He proposes to forbid building closer than a certain distance to another person's deed in order to avoid base jumping; he said 4 tiles as a good starting point.

He will have this link for replies/suggestions/opinions, I will surely do replies in Spanish for him to read the translated messages (we have different timezones and can't reach him out at the same time)

 

Myself I found the idea quite good, but as always peer-review is always fundamental.

Thanks and please give your opinions to combat this exploit.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Ltnicolas

[Ekcin 2,407]

-1 This suggestion, in my understanding, misses the point.

 

The ban of base jumping, as far as I understand it, addresses a larger set of accessing areas otherwise forbidden or locked, including, but not limited to on deed structures and bridges. It is not possible without consent of the deed owner, to build anything in perimeter which is already 5 tiles off deed, not just 4. But base jumping is also possible e.g. into pens, or canal openings locked by gates, it also includes jumping into squatter donut houses' inner area, or walled pens. Further on, it is possible from cliffs above any of those structures, on or off deed. Also, accessible on deed structures may be abused to enter areas considered barred or locked by the deed owners. 

 

Personally, I like the simple and unequivocal message in the WSA stating that gaining unauthorized access by "base jumping", i.e. jumping from any higher point into restricted areas, is considered an exploit and will be punished. In my opinion, it would suffice to add that to Wurm rules instead of wasting development time for a solution which may bring new bugs and exploits.

[Ltnicolas 60]

Fair enough. did you mean this is already implemented in the deed perimeter mechanic? If so, the whole idea is pointless. Sorry but I'm not an experienced Wurmer, am only here for the guy that doesnt know Eng.

 

(Spanish translation for the guy)

 

-1 Esta sugerencia, a mi entender, no da con el punto.

El ban de base jumping, tal cooo lo entiendo, implica más que áreas prohibidas o bloqueadas , incluyendo pero no limitándose a estructuras y puentes en deeds. No es posible, sin consentimiento del dueño del deed, de construir nada en el perímetro que ya es 5 tiles de distancia, no 4. pero Base Jumping es tambien posible hacia pens, aperturas de canales bloqueadas por gates; incluso incluye saltar al centro de casas con forma de donut, o "pens con paredes" (walled pens). Más aún, es posible (saltar) desde acantilados sobre cualquiera de estas estructuras, desde o hacia un deed. Además, se puede abusar (del acceso a estructuras del deed) paar entrar a áreas consideradas bloqueadas por dueños del deed.

 

Personalmente, me gusta el mensaje simple e inequívoco del WSA diciendo que ganar acceso no autorizado mediante "base jumping", o sea, saltar desde cualquier punto alto hacia áreas restringidas, se considera un exploit y será castigado. En mi opinión, alcanzaría con agregar eso a las reglas de Wurm en vez de desperdiciar tiempo de desarollo para una solución que puede traer nevos bugs y exploits

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Ltnicolas

[crimsonearth 477]

As Ekcin says, it's not just on-deed but secured off-deed structures. Other security concerns aside, if someone makes it into a secured deed, perms probably still prevent them from taking or damaging anything, but an off-deed house which, by game mechanics, should reasonably protect anything it encircles (think of large donut houses with open courtyards in the centre, for example) would be circumvented by someone able to get past the walls and to that inner courtyard.

 

I suspect, (though haven't come across it much so may be wrong here) that on a PVE server, base jumping is probably more opportunist? i.e. it's less about someone building a structure to circumvent a properly secured area and more likely that nearby terrain and bridges make it possible to get to a height and fall over a fence or onto an upper floor of a building.

The way to fix it with fences, I imagine, would be to have the (invisible) barrier they provide to movement extend upward a significant height, but not sure about the mechanics fix for cliff diving onto upper walkways that aren't fenced around the edges.

Edited January 17, 2022 by crimsonearth

[Eolion 0]

Google translation

reducing the angle of displacement of the fall, to fall into the same tile from where you jump 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Eolion

[TheTrickster 2,284]

I accidentally fell into a secured area in my first week of Wurm.  It was entirely due to terrain, and I only managed to get out by likewise falling out of the area in another spot (not accidentally), but I was lucky that it was even possible. 

 

I can certainly see how an opportunist could take advantage, so a clear rule as stated is definitely a good thing.

[LionIX 354]

They need to fix trolls base jumping as well. When there’s a steep slope next to fences, mobs can be teleported down onto other side of fence.

 

Change would need to address falling from cliffs above walls (which I don’t know that there’s really a healthy way to address that without breaking some fun stuff like falling off mountain or dropshafts)

[elentari 2,660]

I remember once on Epic I got dc'd right next to a friend's deed (morroween's). When I managed to login a few minutes later, the game repositioned me in his house on his deed. Pretty embarassing stuff, but I have seen it happen twice to a couple of villagers over the years. Those small chances aside, not sure what mechanics can fix this, seems like a server positioning error. Those that had the misfortune of falling through the world know what I am talking about. 

[Brython 31]

Not sure on this one.  A deed's perimeter already forbids non-citizens from building around it, and the default radius of that is 5 tiles.

[Sheffie 1,120]

I don't think we need a "player rules" fix. We already have one of those. What's needed is a "game mechanics" fix.

[TheTrickster 2,284]

21 hours ago, Sheffie said:

I don't think we need a "player rules" fix. We already have one of those. What's needed is a "game mechanics" fix.

We just recently got the player rules fix, and it was pending a game mechanics fix, so the discussion seems to be two-fold.

a) Given a player rules fix, is a mechanics fix necessary?

b) what mechanics fix would be necessary?

 

EDIT: IMO the answer to a) is "probably not".

Edited January 19, 2022 by TheTrickster

[Ekcin 2,407]

Every game mechanics fix is risky, and this one is even risikier. Moreover, there is no way for a grand "catch all fix" as the base jumping issue is widespread over a large number of technical situations covering towers, bridges, cliffs, buildings, fences, walls, on and off deed situations. Changes would either be too loose, not covering all, leaving out significant areas, or too tight, restricting legitimate and funny things (like the jumping towers at player events by Stanlee, Shydow etc. in the past, this particularly covers ideas of restricting jump angles). Even worse, left loopholes might give malicious exploiters a sophist pretext to use them after such changes as "legitimate", and create a moving target for the devs.

 

In addition, there is a serious peril of introducing new bugs and side effects. So there are good reasons to inquire in a few, non intrusive, sensible changes, and implement them step by step after thorough testing. As base jumping rather is the activity of a few, normal players must not even feel any effect of those changes, and not be bothered with. Of course, addressing some known bugs and unpleasant side effects while implementing sensible fixes would be a boon.

 

A game rule is certainly the better, if not the best solution. It does not need any technical work, and does not create bugs or side effects. It is fairly easy to define illicit base jumping as intentionally gaining unauthorized and (by the owners) unintend access to deeds or other player occupied areas by jumping from any higher point. Defining that as an exploit would  suffice, case closed. It would not leave much space for pettyfoggers to complain.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Ekcin

[bigtree 102]

I'd suggest any secured structed come with an invisible 'roof' one floor above it's highest floor. The roof would be sloped so the intruder would naturally be push away from the structure as they fall. 

[Archaed 2,280]

I don't even understand what was a bug and what was rule breaking. 

 

Given that deeds protect unhoused land, and houses protect housed land, there's no loophole here that can be abused. 

 

If someone built a donut house around something off deed, it's the same as building a fence around it, the only guaranteed protection is deeding. 

[Cecci 1,609]

If I recall this right, this was not possible before bridges came out, and adjustments had to be made about that invisible wall that a fence was. Related to collision.

[Ecrir 887]

Just increase falling damage when jumping from a building, the higher the floor you fall from the more damage. Make the jumps required for this stuff lethal, problem mostly solved?

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Ecrir

[Ekcin 2,407]

Once more. Ecrir. -1. Some of the base jumps can be done from relatively low upper positions, others not. Adding fall damage would kill a lot of players who never intended or even knew of base jumping. Also, fun during events, e.g. mead events, Shydow's celebration, or Friendalong, would be killed. Moreover, a lot of balancing and rebalancing would be required. Just a wrong way to address a relatively minor problem. As said, a simple rule "base jumping is considered an exploit" would be enough.