Stone Circles for Fast Travel

[Sheffie 1,120]

I'll be sure to post some of the problems with the "empty place teleport" idea on its thread

[Coach 196]

21 minutes ago, Sheffie said:

I'll be sure to post some of the problems with the "empty place teleport" idea on its thread

The focus should be on how stone circles solve the concerns that raised by people, such as the Radircs's concern. 

If empty place teleport has problems, then u should provide a modification of how a modified stone circles can solve those concerns that raised by the people. Empty place teleport has problems doesn't mean stone circles teleport can solve the concern that raised by people. If stone circles teleport can't solve the concerns that people keep bringing, I can't see why stone circles teleport should be added.

Can people restructure their deed to cover the stone circles after the creation of stone circles? How can a modified stone circle teleport solve the Radircs's concern about someone might restructure their deed to cover stone circles?

On 6/7/2022 at 5:38 PM, Radircs said:

Another thing to keep in mind waht is with stone circles on deed? If I make my deed not passable for everyone but have a stonecircle on it that maybe was public accessible how to deal with this? I would realy feel cheatet when some one just restructure ther deed and now I am looked in after spending karma to go there. It don't even have to be malice it could just be the typical bad Wurm permission system acting up.

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Coach

[Sheffie 1,120]

The way you prevent stone circles being on deed is by forbidding them from being on deed. It isn't by allowing people to teleport to "any empty space" because that introduces further problems and complications.

 

The game engine already contains code that executes before a deed is created and resized, checking whether or not there is any reason to prevent that action. Currently it looks for other deeds, dangerous creatures, dens, etc. and it should not be a problem to add a check for stone circles.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Sheffie

[Coach 196]

Are u saying the stone circles prevent people to resize or expand over a stone circle, which it will make sure the stone circles would never be on deed?

On the other hand, if game engine check the destination is empty which is not on deed, people can teleport without the inconvenience to reach to a stone circle.

[Sheffie 1,120]

In general, a "solution" that introduces new problems, is not a good solution.

 

Problems with teleporting to a destination which is "empty" include: how do you specify a destination, and how do you define "empty", and, how expensive is it to check that the destination is "empty", and, how complex does the teleport code need to be in order to handle players trying to teleport to locations that are not "empty".

[Katrat 2,296]

8 hours ago, Coach said:

Are u saying the stone circles prevent people to resize or expand over a stone circle, which it will make sure the stone circles would never be on deed?

On the other hand, if game engine check the destination is empty which is not on deed, people can teleport without the inconvenience to reach to a stone circle.

Can Starter towns be deeded over? No. Isolating an area for public use only is not a new concept. I'm sure this could easily be done for stone circles as well. And I imagine it would use far less coding and memory than searching the data banks for an "empty" spot.

[Coach 196]

11 hours ago, Sheffie said:

In general, a "solution" that introduces new problems, is not a good solution. how do you specify a destination, and how do you define "empty"

On 5/21/2022 at 12:01 AM, Sheffie said:

a 3x3 tile flat area, at least 80 tiles away from the nearest active stone circle.

5 hours ago, Katrat said:

Can Starter towns be deeded over? No. Isolating an area for public use only is not a new concept. I'm sure this could easily be done for stone circles as well. And I imagine it would use far less coding and memory than searching the data banks for an "empty" spot.

Stone circles prevent people to create and resize deed over the stone circles. Meaning this stone circles for fast travel create a new problem which is the blocking people to expand or resize their deed if there are stone circles next to them. Imagine seeing a 3x3 sheds almost every 80 tiles all around the map to block the expanding and resizing. There are people on the forum request people to remove 1x1 sheds to expand and resize their deed, some of them never get a response and need to face the annoying shed to decay. The stone circles are annoying for the people who want to expand or resize their deed. 

On 4/29/2022 at 10:51 AM, MordosKull said:

At 5s, I'm tempted to start building sheds everywhere XD

jk

gl getting this resolved though

It seems like this topic are suggesting to start building sheds(stone circles) everywhere. Not everywhere technically, but almost every 80 tiles. Good luck to the people who want the 1x1 sheds to be gone.

 

On the other hand, the modified teleport check whether the tile is off deed or not before the teleport. Checking the tile is off deed or not, is not a new mechanic. I'm sure this could easily be done as well too. And it does not create a new problem which blocks people to expand and resize a deed.

14 hours ago, Sheffie said:

The game engine already contains code that executes before a deed is created and resized, checking whether or not there is any reason to prevent that action. Currently it looks for other deeds

 

Edited June 10, 2022 by Coach

[Katrat 2,296]

17 minutes ago, Coach said:

Stone circles prevent people to create and resize deed over the stone circles. Meaning this stone circles for fast travel create a new problem which is the blocking people to expand or resize their deed if there are stone circles next to them. Imagine seeing a 3x3 sheds almost every 80 tiles all around the map to block the expanding and resizing. There are people on the forum request people to remove 1x1 sheds to expand and resize their deed, some of them never get a response and need to face the annoying shed to decay. The stone circles are annoying for the people who want to expand or resize their deed. 

A hand full of stone circles would hardly be as restrictive as the countless 1x1's that fill a server. Plus the 1x1s don't provide a service to the public as the stone circles would. I personally would find it most convenient to have one close to my deed.

[Sheffie 1,120]

That number 80 could easily be changed. Indeed, players have suggested just that.

 

Perhaps we don't need to keep stone circles off deed.

We could, for example, warn players that their destination is on a deed and allow them to choose a different destination. Or we could prevent players using a stone circle as a destination if it's on someone else's deed.

 

It still seems a lot less problematic that allowing a player to teleport to any empty tile. How are they going to choose where to go?

Edited June 10, 2022 by Sheffie

[TheTrickster 2,284]

1 hour ago, Katrat said:

A hand full of stone circles would hardly be as restrictive as the countless 1x1's that fill a server. Plus the 1x1s don't provide a service to the public as the stone circles would. I personally would find it most convenient to have one close to my deed.

Question:  Can deeds be expanded over existing guard towers?  If not, then obviously a) there is a mechanic that works and b) we don't hear people complaining.  If you can, no loss either way.  I am just brainstorming. 

 

I would expect stone circles would be fewer and further between than guard towers.  It stands to reason, guard towers aim to protect the entire route whereas stone circles only have to cover two points near the ends.

[TheTrickster 2,284]

It is interesting that the argument has now moved on to being that stone circles will be such a pervasive grid on the landscape that they will inhibit deeding.

 

I am reluctantly starting to think the argument is merely trolling - possibly not even intentionally so much as enjoying an argument for the intellectual exercise.  Part of what makes me think that is the necessity of completely ignoring aspects of the original suggestion or inventing new aspects in order to fuel continued objection.

 

Job done, I guess.  Sadly, I am pretty confident that devs would wave off any suggestion that generates such a protracted argument..... It is a very meta kind of griefing in a way.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2022 by TheTrickster

[Coach 196]

2 hours ago, Sheffie said:

That number 80 could easily be changed. Indeed, players have suggested just that.

Perhaps we don't need to keep stone circles off deed.

We could, for example, warn players that their destination is on a deed and allow them to choose a different destination. Or we could prevent players using a stone circle as a destination if it's on someone else's deed.

It still seems a lot less problematic that allowing a player to teleport to any empty tile. How are they going to choose where to go?

2 hours ago, Katrat said:

I personally would find it most convenient to have one close to my deed.

Oh, u changed stone circles from on deed to off deed, then back to on deed again with a restriction that prevent player to teleport to the destination which is on deed.

This create a new problem. If someone build stone circle off deed for teleporting to their desire destination, but other people deed over the stone circle and change the permission to prevent players to teleport. Now the guy can't teleport to their desire destination anymore which they have built the stone circle. How much frustration they will have? Now they need to find other stone circle which is 80 tiles away. How much time cost to reach another stone circle? The modified teleport check the tile is off deed or not, if it's on deed with permission, they can simply teleport without the problems that the stone circles bring. How does the modified teleport seems a lot more problematic than stone circles teleport?
What is the number will u change from the 80 tiles? A precise number would be better for people to understand the mechanic more, as some people find it convenient to have one close to their deed.

 

Edited June 10, 2022 by Coach

[Nordlys 1,426]

I still dont understand the reason for all this discussion. Sure, some inputs are nice. But several pages of ranting because of someones suggestion?

 

This is a brilliant example of a good suggestion, with alot of information to go on. If you disagree thats ofcourse totally fine, and if you want to express that you can ofcourse do that also. Is it really necessary to disagree for 5 pages tho?

Everyone is free to suggest changes or additions to the game, and that has to be clear. Although it seems like many here think that this is a discussion about something that is going to be implemented based on whats written in this thread.

Frankly, i personally have much more faith in the developers than thinking they would just throw some feature in without trying to make it as good as possible for all players.

History tells me that any suggestion the devs have put in, they have done flawlessly - im sure if they where to concider this suggestion, they would make it (if possible) even better.

Then, and only then would it be right to discuss or complain the feature.

 

I will applaud the topic holder for keeping up with this tho.

I will also applaud anyone who makes an even better suggestion (in their own thread), even if its based off of this one.

Edited June 10, 2022 by Nordlys

[Ekcin 2,414]

I have troubles with attempts to censor/mute concerns or contradiction to a proposal. So far, I did not comment in either way just because I was undecided. On the one hand, the proposal sounds interesting. On the other hand, I always feel uncomfortable with potentially disruptive changes. And wanton teleporting may well be one of them. So there are good reasons to consider all concerns before game mechanics are changed and may break the game.

 

The mechanic proposed seems fairly complex, even allowing horses to be teleported along with the player. It is more than legitimate to think about possible avenues for exploit and abuse.

 

Just to mention: Yes, guard towers may be deeded over anytime. This can even be abused in case of a feud by deeding over a tower close to a "hostile" deed, and declare KOS for griefing. Fortunately, that does not occur too often.

 

Edit: If ever implemented, I would consider a minimum distance of 80 tiles ridiculously short. Minimum should be 400 tiles at least.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Ekcin

[Finnn 3,315]

1 hour ago, Ekcin said:

I have troubles with attempts to censor/mute concerns or contradiction to a proposal. So far, I did not comment in either way just because I was undecided. On the one hand, the proposal sounds interesting. On the other hand, I always feel uncomfortable with potentially disruptive changes. And wanton teleporting may well be one of them. So there are good reasons to consider all concerns before game mechanics are changed and may break the game.

 

The mechanic proposed seems fairly complex, even allowing horses to be teleported along with the player. It is more than legitimate to think about possible avenues for exploit and abuse.

 

Just to mention: Yes, guard towers may be deeded over anytime. This can even be abused in case of a feud by deeding over a tower close to a "hostile" deed, and declare KOS for griefing. Fortunately, that does not occur too often.

 

Edit: If ever implemented, I would consider a minimum distance of 80 tiles ridiculously short. Minimum should be 400 tiles at least.

that is why I suggested managed network of such teleports. based on trust

 

 

[TheTrickster 2,284]

8 hours ago, Ekcin said:

I have troubles with attempts to censor/mute concerns or contradiction to a proposal.

Also, that isn't what has been happening here.  Concerns have been addressed, in detail, repeatedly.  Some of the major concerns completely ignore the actual suggestion, and are called out for it.  "Wanton teleporting" is NOT what is being proposed.

 

  [side note; can I have an order of wanton's delivered, please?]