Sign in to follow this  
Sir Arowhun

Lock Please - Freedom National Parks

Freedom National Parks Poll  

49 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you agree with there being protected areas?

    • Yes.
      12
    • No.
      37
  2. 2. Should editing outside of deeds be allowed in protected areas?

    • No, editing should never be allowed.
      7
    • Yes, but only with GM consent.
      4
    • Editing should not be restricted in any way.
      2
    • I am against protected areas being added.
      36
  3. 3. Should deeds be allowed in protected areas?

    • No, they should never be allowed.
      9
    • Yes, but only with GM consent.
      4
    • I am against protected areas being added.
      36


Recommended Posts

Bit small-minded sir arowhun. You are basically limiting the vote to people who have a biased opinion. And what if I am being particularly crafty with my vote? By letting people deed all over the steppe or desert, perhaps hunters will seek other places to hunt like the forest near me where I always get attacked by mobs. This way, my life gets easier (people used to come hunt on maple island due to it's strangely dense concentration of mobs and low deed area)

I'm limiting the vote to people that would actually be affected by this. People who are not affected by something vote poorly on it because they have no idea. Many people prefer steppes and deserts over forests for hunting. Why do you think people settle near them to build hunting lodges?

I'm about to restart the poll again with this in mind. Hopefully people will be respectful to the poll rules.

Edited by Sir Arowhun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that plays the game is affected by this in one way or another. If they are the ones that wish to deed those areas or if they wish to hunt them or even if they are like Wraith and wish them to hunt in another area. I think you are just upset that the poll did not go the way you wanted it to go. People have shown by the vote that they do not want anymore protected areas than there already are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let people deed where they want to deed, this is a sandbox game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks like its over now.

Lock thread please.

Edited by Sir Arowhun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you give me 100S I'll set you up a real nice 'park' and fence the whole thing in except one tile. I'll build a shack there and you can charge admission. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People should only vote if:

a: You live in or next to a steppe or desert

b: You hunt in a steppe or desert

c: You plan on hunting in a steppe or desert in the future

If none of these apply to you, then why did you vote? Please remove your vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone who plays Wurm should vote, Just because they don't hunt actively doesn't mean they aren't entitled to an opinion. I know of some great spots that are in the middle of the forest, while the steppe is just packed with bison and wildcats.

It applies to everyone and just because people don't agree with you, doesnt mean they shouldn't have a voice.

Some people like the steppe and desert hunting areas because of the animals they contain. I'm not against people who don't agree with me. I am just against people who don't have anything to do with steppes voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Freedom is a sandbox, its a community sandbox
Edited by san_tropez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bam, there you got it. Now explain to me how locking vast amounts of land off NOT something everybody and their dog should vote on? Out of the 100 or so deeds placed on steppe across the server, there is like a whopping amount of 2? deeds used to cause drama and butthurt on the forum. There is nothing wrong with deeding on steppe, even though "death to steppe" might be a low blow, it is in no way worse than the massive abandoned deeds scattered across the servers who serve no purpose except causing grief to settlers and new players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had wanted to keep the steppe then you should have deeded it yourself instead of going off about how someone else had the idea to deed in the first place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had wanted to keep the steppe then you should have deeded it yourself instead of going off about how someone else had the idea to deed in the first place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could take up a collection and have the hunters using the land chip in on the upkeep if this is something they really want..

A minimum sized deed (11x11 tiles) with 40 perim gives you a 91x91 (8281) tile reserve of building free area for just under 42s to place (not counting 10s for the form) and 4.6s upkeep.

With the number of people who have posted or have come out in support of the "dedicated hunting" areas, should be easy to chip in a few copper/silver per trip if you want to use the land. Heck some of the local people might chip in just to keep these types of arguments off the forums! :lol:

It sucks that this is what you might need to do, as said by both sides, it's a sandbox game. But the system is what it is, deeded land usage is given priority over non-deeded land usage, so if one player doesn't deed it, another will and as long as they are not sculpting profane images into the country side, almost impossible to boot them out as long as they pay the upkeep.

Edited by Hussars
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't such a bad idea Hussars. Place a well and a hunter's shack with an oven or forge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I don't see any valid reason not to reserve some very few (!) special areas on a given server. A GM area that's protected, and that you cannot change in any way.

I'd restrict it to one or two large steppes on each server, maybe a tundra and/ or a desert, too. Just some protected areas, with special spawns, that are excluded from the sandbox, this wouldn't hurt anybody (but the few notorious griefers).

I have a bit a hard time understanding what's it that makes the opponents this vocal. It wouldn't do more but keep some "special areas" preserved for the community. There's still plenty of land to deed, wherever your heart desires.

Would it be such a burden for you if you couldn't deed on a few special spots, where your deed would waste the gaming experience of the community?

I'm quite sure I'm misunderstanding something here.

Have fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still disagree with reserving areas for parks anywhere is the server. Sorry if precious steppe tiles get deeded up but that is what happens. And you can't get at people for voting no against your changes because they play on the server too, the server is for everyone, anyone who wants to has a right to vote on whatever they want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I don't see any valid reason not to reserve some very few (!) special areas on a given server. A GM area that's protected, and that you cannot change in any way.

I'd restrict it to one or two large steppes on each server, maybe a tundra and/ or a desert, too. Just some protected areas, with special spawns, that are excluded from the sandbox, this wouldn't hurt anybody (but the few notorious griefers).

I have a bit a hard time understanding what's it that makes the opponents this vocal. It wouldn't do more but keep some "special areas" preserved for the community. There's still plenty of land to deed, wherever your heart desires.

Would it be such a burden for you if you couldn't deed on a few special spots, where your deed would waste the gaming experience of the community?

I'm quite sure I'm misunderstanding something here.

Have fun!

My personal opinion on it is, that this adds a restriction to the "deed anywhere" idea. In itself it allows for land capturing since you could deed close enough that your perim would block further building, making these "protected areas" bigger than originally intended. An issue that exists now that at least has to be paid for by way of upkeep on multiple deeds. In this version, I'd only have to pay my upkeep on 1 deed, in place of 2 or more.

What about travel paths through it, like Roads and Canals? Most of these areas tend to be in locations, or near locations, that are very suitable for these type of projects.

A lot of the supporting comments for protected areas reference the 2 deeds currently on the hot-spot for alleged "griefing" (alleged since none of the staff have enforced actions against these deeds). What about the other dozen that aren't? If someone wants to build in an isolated area that is tundra/steppe/desert/etc... why shouldn't they? They want an empty deed with only templars on it set to slaughter everything, why not?

In this same line of thought, why not protect water ways to keep people from raising land/changing islands? There has been at least one water path that has been altered or even closed due to deeding, and folks had to travel around the area to get to where they were going. Is this map alteration different because you can't hunt (grind FS) on the water, even though it is just as noticeable an impact on an area?

::edit insert:: If you want to keep the "to protect the server/resources" argument, you'll need to roll this in as well. Unless of course, it is really just about hunting grounds and making it easier to grind FS. I thought most of you were against things which are making the game easier? ::/edit::

If you want to "protect" the area, deed it. Want to protect a larger area, multi-deed it (as others have done).

Edited by Hussars
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but then animals can't spawn there.

Uhhhh..yeah they can, critters spawn on deed tiles all the time. Road type tiles don't have tile type spawns. Trees, grass, steppe, and sand do. I have champ crocs spawn from sand tiles on deed all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be slightly confused on some of my points. On others I have a different opinion and I will post it below.

My personal opinion on it is, that this adds a restriction to the "deed anywhere" idea. In itself it allows for land capturing since you could deed close enough that your perim would block further building, making these "protected areas" bigger than originally intended. An issue that exists now that at least has to be paid for by way of upkeep on multiple deeds. In this version, I'd only have to pay my upkeep on 1 deed, in place of 2 or more.

I don't see a problem with an empty line of land on the edge of the protected areas. It shouldn't get too large unless people increase their perimeters. If people want to have a huge perimeter and leave it all steppe, why shouldn't they? Its not like the protected area zone grows with the actual steppe. People can't plant steppe in places to prevent others from deeding. This would obviously be a bad idea.

What about travel paths through it, like Roads and Canals? Most of these areas tend to be in locations, or near locations, that are very suitable for these type of projects.

If you looked at the poll, you would notice I had options for permissions to edit the protected areas outside of deeds. With "GM consent," people could build things like canals and roads after a GM says its ok. Before a big project can begin the GM has to make sure the majority of the locals are fine with it. If the person who is doing the project griefs the protected area, the GM can quickly remove permissions.

If people could edit without GM consent, they could freely build anything besides deeds and maybe towers. This would be a bad idea imo since some people might try to plant forests and things that don't belong in the steppe. Perhaps certain actions could not be allowed to prevent things like forestation.

In this same line of thought, why not protect water ways to keep people from raising land/changing islands? There has been at least one water path that has been altered or even closed due to deeding, and folks had to travel around the area to get to where they were going. Is this map alteration different because you can't hunt (grind FS) on the water, even though it is just as noticeable an impact on an area?

Certain straits and waterways could be protected without code. If someone obstructs a main waterway then a GM can force them to reopen it. Protected areas could be good for public canals and highways. Only people with permission could edit these, meaning no more griefing.

A lot of the supporting comments for protected areas reference the 2 deeds currently on the hot-spot for alleged "griefing" (alleged since none of the staff have enforced actions against these deeds). What about the other dozen that aren't? If someone wants to build in an isolated area that is tundra/steppe/desert/etc... why shouldn't they? They want an empty deed with only templars on it set to slaughter everything, why not?

They shouldn't be built on because a large number of people settle around them to use them for hunting or simply to look at. I once asked someone if I could plant a deed in a steppe, and he said that I could but its considered common courtesy to leave them bare since many people like them that way. Guidelines are not enough to stop people from doing something. The deeds that settled in the steppe can settle elsewhere.

::edit insert:: If you want to keep the "to protect the server/resources" argument, you'll need to roll this in as well. Unless of course, it is really just about hunting grounds and making it easier to grind FS. I thought most of you were against things which are making the game easier? ::/edit::

When people say that they want it to be harder to grind FS, they don't mean that they want to deal with griefing and deeds on their favorite hunting spots...

Edited by Sir Arowhun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only good tree is one chopped up and fueling me forge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it like this:

My neighborhood has a homeowners association. Because of this, we have to deal with many annoying rules and regulations. However, this also helps to increase the value of our houses and to make the neighborhood a nicer place to live.

In contrast to this, the neighborhood next to ours doesn't have a homeowners association. People have garbage, toys, and other useless items thrown all over their lawns. A few people try to take care of their homes, but the people that don't ruin the neighborhood for others and lower the value of the houses.

Without regulation in commonly used areas, things will get changed and griefed to no end.

Edited by Sir Arowhun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am against the idea of protecting large areas in general and wish the game to remain as sandbox as possible. A way to “repair†tundra would be good though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am against the idea of protecting large areas in general and wish the game to remain as sandbox as possible. A way to “repair†tundra would be good though.

Doesn't casting Ice Pillar on an enchanted tree do this?

As to protecting areas that large number of players use.. is there any area in the game that wouldn't fall under this description? (Well maybe not Epic :P )

Or the relocating to other areas, eventually those other areas will become full. What then? New servers? Or if they weren't protected before, since by default they have become the only populations centers, wouldn't they then be considered areas used by a lot of players?

Once you put a limit in place based on a specific set of criteria. It becomes much easier to use the same argument in a different context. It is for this very reason that we have the practice of legal precedent.

Edited by Hussars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't casting Ice Pillar on an enchanted tree do this?

As to protecting areas that large number of players use.. is there any area in the game that wouldn't fall under this description? (Well maybe not Epic :P )

Or the relocating to other areas, eventually those other areas will become full. What then? New servers? Or if they weren't protected before, since by default they have become the only populations centers, wouldn't they then be considered areas used by a lot of players?

Once you put a limit in place based on a specific set of criteria. It becomes much easier to use the same argument in a different context. It is for this very reason that we have the practice of legal precedent.

Ice pilar creates tundra tiles, but its impractical and we need a faster method.

When a new server is created, some of the steppes, deserts, and tundra would be set aside for national parks. It would be up to the GM's and the dev team to decide what areas are going to be protected. On the current servers, the people that already settled on them should be considered if any areas are turned into national parks.

Edited by Sir Arowhun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be considered? Should be considered what? How would you like if a GM up and told you to move because your deed is in the way or something? I'd tell a GM to go jump.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly.... what is the benefit of a tundra? Answer me that, and maybe I'll consider supporting this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this