New Deed *placement* Perimiter Rule, Good Or Bad

[yarnevk 257]

that people could do things against it with putting a perimeter over it, to prevent repairing, which was only possible when created a new deed (which is very expensive btw to just use it as griefing from the deed owners side)

That is not the case you have it backwards, it was not possible thru deed creation (aside from bug exploits) to perimeter over a unowned writ, it was only possible with perimeter expansion after the deed was founded. I know because I acquired a decaying house plot this way only two weeks ago, and I was disallowed at creation from perimeter over the building, I could only do it at expansion.

That is how the system policed itself, if a land baron started using shacks to claim control without paying for it, a nearby deed owner could expand perimeter and force decay and put a stop to it, so it did not happen that often since those doing it knew they risked losing it, and thus this type of griefing was just temporary. In changing the rule to protect the f2p player shacking up, they also legalized the land baron shacking for control and nobody can stop them now. Griefing just extended from being a local perimeter issue to all the wilds of wurm.

A better solution would been to have kept perimeter expansion over unowned writs, but allow repair. That way the active new player does not have to move, the premium land baron can expand and be on more friendly terms with the shack and maybe convince them to allow village expansion to include the shack in the deed. DIsallowing repair is what made perimeter expansion over writs adversarial. Perimeter salvage claims like the one I recently did would then still be possible, because with an absent writ owner there is nobody to repair so the building falls and your deed expands.

Edited November 14, 2012 by yarnevk

[yarnevk 257]

I hear about potential griefing but as yet I see no proof of any and it probably won't be any worse than it's ever been

Funny how you say this right when this pops up in my recent topics sidebar....

http://forum.wurmonl...anics-exploits/

It will be worse griefing because now you cannot put a stop to it, perimeter expansion over shacks was the mechanism to put a stop to it.

Edited November 14, 2012 by yarnevk

[sunsvortex 599]

How about.

The default 5 tile perimeter is simply a buffer zone, perhaps we should call it just that a "Buffer zone".

Then if we think we want to enlarge the deed at some future time we plan a perimeter around the deed and the buffer then expands outside the perimeter. No one can build anything in a buffer zone, but only the deed holder can build in the perimeter.

What happens when deeds box each other in...still same problem no way to expand. Whats wrong with deeding the land you want and leaving it with a 1 tile perim /buffer for roads? Why does there need to be a system of...."well i might like to expand one day."? If a deed becomes inadequate for a persons needs...move to a different area. If it then becomes..well I have put a lot of work into this deed and I dont want to move..then from my point of view....the problem is / was a lack of foresight. I see no reason to have a game mechanic that rewards someones lack of foresight.

I still say do away with perims alltogether and put in a temp deed system. Dont allow anyone to build off deed and leave it at that. Let new players have a temp deed they can setup..limit its size and duration. If they dont convert to a real deed within a specific time period then the area is reverted back to originally what it was ( no fences ,buildings or items...animals are redistributed across the server, and terraforming is back to what it was originally) as the base assumption is they are no longer playing or are no longer interested in that area.

[Protunia 735]

It was discussed already to give new players a smaller type of temp deed that they could use to get started playing and have land without being harassed by older players trying to control land.

There will always be this game of land control and people pushing around other players with what ever means they can whether its buildings or deeds or perimeters, fences, etc....

The main thing is to give Newer Players an Opportunity to build and play the game enough and one day get premium if they like the game.

I think the new change does this to some degree even if some of the older players can't handle it and will run around the next month exploiting it to harass deed owners.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Protunia

[ReaverKane 363]

What happens when deeds box each other in...still same problem no way to expand. Whats wrong with deeding the land you want and leaving it with a 1 tile perim /buffer for roads? Why does there need to be a system of...."well i might like to expand one day."? If a deed becomes inadequate for a persons needs...move to a different area. If it then becomes..well I have put a lot of work into this deed and I dont want to move..then from my point of view....the problem is / was a lack of foresight. I see no reason to have a game mechanic that rewards someones lack of foresight.

This! So much this!

I built a deed a while after moving to Exo, i made a nice step-like deed on the face of a mountain. But then i started realizing that i might need A LOT of veggies and cotton for my priest and my tailor, but my existing deed was too small, and too close to my neighbour to expand (also not much room on a mountain face to make a decent farm). So i built a SECOND deed, not too far from the original one, and i'm doing great. I never even considered expanding my perimeter beyond the original 5 untill recently a guy put up a perimeter bigger than his deed over public mines that have been open since i first started on exo (about a year ago), and fenced them out. So i basically had to expand my perimeter so he wouldn't start fencing over any more stuff.

Edited November 14, 2012 by ReaverKane

[Keldun 335]

How about.

The default 5 tile perimeter is simply a buffer zone, perhaps we should call it just that a "Buffer zone".

Then if we think we want to enlarge the deed at some future time we plan a perimeter around the deed and the buffer then expands outside the perimeter. No one can build anything in a buffer zone, but only the deed holder can build in the perimeter.

I don't think it is a good idea to make the buffer into a dead zone, where nothing goes, between deed and wilderness, like a moat. It should rather be what it was meant to be, a buffer of wilderness between deeds. So it should be exactly like wilderness, everyone can build, destroy or repair anything in that zone.

That dead zone would for example prevent people from building those creature protected (walled) highways.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Keldun

[Ayes 3,715]

A better solution would been to have kept perimeter expansion over unowned writs, but allow repair. That way the active new player does not have to move, the premium land baron can expand and be on more friendly terms with the shack and maybe convince them to allow village expansion to include the shack in the deed. DIsallowing repair is what made perimeter expansion over writs adversarial. Perimeter salvage claims like the one I recently did would then still be possible, because with an absent writ owner there is nobody to repair so the building falls and your deed expands.

"A better solution would been to have kept perimeter expansion over unowned writs, but allow repair."

This was proposed earlier in this thread (forget by who exactly) and I pointed it out as the best solution to the so called "problem" of deed perimiter being placed over existing houses. Anyway, keep up the good fight, as your posts clearly define the negative consequences of this change, which far outweigh the positive benifits. After a time it gets tedious to me to point out the obvious negative repercussions, even though it is the best interests of the player base to have this brought to their attention. Some may not agree but at least they have this information available to review the negative impact on gameplay.

=Ayes=

[Protunia 735]

"A better solution would been to have kept perimeter expansion over unowned writs, but allow repair."

This was proposed earlier in this thread (forget by who exactly) and I pointed it out as the best solution to the so called "problem" of deed perimiter being placed over existing houses. Anyway, keep up the good fight, as your posts clearly define the negative consequences of this change, which far outweigh the positive benifits. After a time it gets tedious to me to point out the obvious negative repercussions, even though it is the best interests of the player base to have this brought to their attention. Some may not agree but at least they have this information available to review the negative impact on gameplay.

=Ayes=

Yeah I agree with the repairing option as well for all sides compared to the limiting perimeter expanding some will still want the control of making a quick deed and perimeter over people to stop them from living there, but they will have to accept that its not going to be that way again.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Protunia

[Darkmalice 242]

I now see it more as an attempt to have players increase their deed space, rather than grant rights to froobs.

Don't want squatters? Better bump that deed size up!

Oracle is right about renaming the 5 tiles to 'buffer zone', that's far more accurate.

I miss AoC.

[joedobo 1,187]

How about.

The default 5 tile perimeter is simply a buffer zone, perhaps we should call it just that a "Buffer zone".

Then if we think we want to enlarge the deed at some future time we plan a perimeter around the deed and the buffer then expands outside the perimeter. No one can build anything in a buffer zone, but only the deed holder can build in the perimeter.

If only the deed holder/villagers can build in perimeter then that means its effectively as good as a deed tiles. We saw this with AOC where denying people access to land with fences effectively made it almost as good as deeded tiles, size 5 village suddenly is a size 55.

--------------------------

The best choice is to make it so no one can build fences, mine door, or structures in perimeter. This way villages will find it harder to utilize the perimeter(a negative balance with the cheaper price) and squatters can't build on it either. It will let deeds prepare for deed expansion or give folks a border to keep others away. The next best would be to fix perimeter to 2 to 5 tiles, no more no less.

As I see it, the problem is that their are too many choices over how we can use perimeter.

-Generally when people pays for something they expect to be able to control it. No matter how many times the rule makers try and say what perimeter is, it won't change this predisposition.

-Since perimeter is cheaper people try to turn it into a deed or at lest an extension of a deed.

-Game mechanics don't stop non villagers from building fences and such in another's perimeter and this seems to make the deed owners angry. This leads to disputes between deed and foreigner (I'm betting is often new player). Its a lack of foresight on the dev's part to let ignorant new players do things that will make established players angry. Or give griefers tools to go after the fact that they can build on land some deed holds don't wan them buiding on. Further, remember some people think payed for (even if that amount is at a discount) should equal more control then those who payed nothing.

[Sarcaticous 338]

Leave it as is. Has worked fine for all this time.

[Hussars 511]

Part of the problem is also spawn areas. Deeded land tends to have at least reduced spawns for hunting, so some folks do over perimeter their deeds to ensure there is hunting in their area. Or to cover "public" mines they maintain to ensure no one builds an enclosure on the entrance. It's these fringe cases that make it difficult to adjust against, because they do provide a service to more players than just the deed owner/citizens.

With all of the recent.. discussion.. about "protecting" new players and F2P players, you'd think these types of things would be taken into consideration. It's even funnier when you look at the folks who were advocating this protection when it didn't impact their deed, but are now on the other side of the fence.

Again, with real world money involved, there is no way to truly be fair. You either favor the folks spending money or you favor the folks who are not.

Some Server Stats for Inde alone:

Total Premium Account

Current Purchases of Premium Time

Number of Settlement/Deeds

Considering it is a minimum of 1s in upkeep a month, this means there is at least 1K silver (which equates to $1k euro at the Bank of Rolf rates) a month from just upkeep on Inde alone at "base" upkeep values. If you figure even only 25% of those deeds are 2s or more in upkeep, that is a lot of money going into the coffers.

On top of new deed purchase.

On top of premium purchase to place those deeds.

Tell me again how paying customers should not be protected at least as much as F2P?

::edit insert:: To be fair, I do agree F2P and new players need to be protected, I just believe that the compromise needs to be as fair as possible. but I do not think this one aspect of the game is the only place for this balance to occur. Between these discussions and the previous "give more use to F2P account" discussions, it appears that the balance is trying to be tipped in favor of the F2P accounts.

When looking at all of the recent changes in the systems as a whole, it just tends to reinforce this perspective. F2P accounts now have more control over the game world then ever in the history of Wurm as far as I can tell. This is not a bad thing, as long as there remains a point to going P2P beyond higher skill caps. Currently, personally, I'm starting to have trouble seeing that. ::/edit::

Edited November 15, 2012 by Hussars

[yarnevk 257]

I now see it more as an attempt to have players increase their deed space, rather than grant rights to froobs.Don't want squatters? Better bump that deed size up!

A failed attempt if it was since it only takes a little time vs. money calculations to realize if shacks are now protected, and fence enclosure are long protected, that you don't need a deed expansion to claim land, if you have a stockpile of stone and time on your hands. The main benefit from the change will be free loading land barons, and not the Wurm devs getting deed expansion funds.

Edited November 14, 2012 by yarnevk

[Sarcaticous 338]

Yeah, that's a chunk of change.

[Ayes 3,715]

It seems to me that Rolf makes the bulk of his income from the deed process, as premium subscriptions would pale in comparison to this, so I am a bit confounded as to why he would sacrifice this income by reducing the desirability of deeds and their useable perimiters by deed holders. I recently made a small deed tile area with a very large perimiter because I enjoy terraforming and planting the area out to make a pleasant surrounding environment. All this of course paid for by me, which makes sense because that is pretty much how life works outside of the old socialist failing models. If deed perimiters are made *unbuildable* for the deed owner, citizens and allies, then I will certainly let this deed go down as I will have no further interest in doing anything with it.

Not to demean Rolf but the fact is that he has made other rash decisions that have reduced the enjoyment of his paying customers with the side effect that they have stopped playing the game. This perimiter deed functioning change has been worse in that it threatens much more directly the main source of his income from this game, deeds and expanded perimiters. Now to even further follow ill advised restrictions to perimiter use would only compound the loss of income as people such as myself will disband their deeds with large perimiters as they will no longer server the intent for which they were placed. A very *unusual* way to try to perpetuate an online game, enhance the enjoyment of its paying customers, make the game attractive for future subscribers that try it out and provide a reasonable income for its creator and main developer.

All this hubbub has not come out of thin air by players with some unknown mysterious agenda but rather are comments directly related to this change, a cause and effect sort of commentary. Perhaps be thankful enough that some of the player base have been concerned enough about this perimiter change and see that there is some logic to their comments. I played WoW for many years but never even once did I make a post in their forums. I simply didn't care enough about any *nerfs* made to game play to bother to comment about them. I just went with the flow and made the best of what was offered; but the negatives of some of the changes made are just too obvious for me to restrain myself from making comment as they dimish the parts of the game that I most enjoy participating in.

I don't take it upon myself to be a business adviser to Rolf nor do I have any interest in doing so but common sense makes me see these negative side effects of a change that was actually intended to help and protect the player base. Sad to see that the powers that be seem to be shortsighted in this respect. I will comment further as the spirit moves but no doubt I will tire of it over time and give some the relief of not hearing any more disturbing comments coming from my little mote of dust in the universe. But until then remember, the Ayes have it!

=Ayes=

[AndreC 48]

It seems to me that Rolf makes the bulk of his income from the deed process, as premium subscriptions would pale in comparison to this, so I am a bit confounded as to why he would sacrifice this income by reducing the desirability of deeds and their useable perimiters by deed holders. I recently made a small deed tile area with a very large perimiter because I enjoy terraforming and planting the area out to make a pleasant surrounding environment. All this of course paid for by me, which makes sense because that is pretty much how life works outside of the old socialist failing models. If deed perimiters are made *unbuildable* for the deed owner, citizens and allies, then I will certainly let this deed go down as I will have no further interest in doing anything with it.

Not to demean Rolf but the fact is that he has made other rash decisions that have reduced the enjoyment of his paying customers with the side effect that they have stopped playing the game. This perimiter deed functioning change has been worse in that it threatens much more directly the main source of his income from this game, deeds and expanded perimiters. Now to even further follow ill advised restrictions to perimiter use would only compound the loss of income as people such as myself will disband their deeds with large perimiters as they will no longer server the intent for which they were placed. A very *unusual* way to try to perpetuate an online game, enhance the enjoyment of its paying customers, make the game attractive for future subscribers that try it out and provide a reasonable income for its creator and main developer.

=Ayes=

I feel that you're missing the point. I understand where you're coming from, the idea that squatters can completley halt the expansion of your deed with a single half-finished shack, but at the same time you need to understand that this is lableled as a long-term bug. Like many other "Game breaking" bugs that were recently fixes that inconvenienced the majority(I cant think of the one, but you may know.). So, because this is a bug it had to be fixed eventually now that it's come to light. Imagine if the game had come up on the idea of not being able to perimiter over buildings, we would probably be fine today.

I find this as a win-loose situation. The intention of the perimiter was that you purcahsed it to plan expansion, lets say a 10 perimiter + the buffer. Thats 10 tiles out that you can expand in each way, maybe because you couldn't afford the deed if you owned all of it, or maybe you feel you dont need it yet, but you know you will in the distant future, this is the original intent of perimiter. Buffer zone was just to keep deeds from dry-humping eachother.

Im sure you already understand this, but think twice before letting a fixed bug ruin the game for you.

[joedobo 1,187]

If deed perimiters are made *unbuildable* for the deed owner, citizens and allies, then I will certainly let this deed go down as I will have no further interest in doing anything with it.

I understand you want to use your perimeter but we need to find some way of imposing a negative on deed holders to balance the reduced cost of perimeter. Right now its limitations (some of which you can easily break) the Rules try to impose. Well that's not working apparently. It doesn't surprise me at all. When it comes to land ownership in a building/crafting game expecting your players to do the honest, just and considerate thing is naive.

----------------------------

I don't understand why we can't give a small deed to people. Keep in mind traders give out multiple gold coins a month and that a 5x5 (size 2) would cost about 50c. If we reduced the minimum size deed to a size 3x3 (size 1) and removed the round up to 1s upkeep thing then new players could claim a small chunk of land and be protected with game mechanics. We'd likely need to put limits on how big perimeter can be in relation to deed size for this to work. Also change the deed writ cost to 1s, refund all unused upkeep on disband, refund none of the 1s writ form or funds used to purchased additional tiles.

*edit*

Since new players would have a way to protect their area, we should be able to reinstate the ability to use perimeter to take over off deed structures As I remember it, when custom deeds came into being everyone new you could use perimeter to take over undeeded area and it wasn't a bug then. That bug clause is just a excuse(imo) to change deed behavior because new players are having unpleasant experience and consequently leaving never to return.

Edited November 15, 2012 by joedobo

[yarnevk 257]

Why are people still arguing about perimeters as if they matter anymore? Yes the change was deeming a 'feature' to be an 'exploit' which was 'bug' fixed had to do with perimeter expansion over writs. But what most people do not understand is that this simple change fundamentally changes the game mechanic to the point that perimeters are now irrelevant, the complete opposite of the intent of the change notice.

For those who do not understand the finer points of game mechanics, 'Deed it or Lose it' became 'Fence it or Keep it'

You no longer need to pay the reduced cost of a perimeter. Put in a tower guard and a fence (or shacks if you prefer passable land) and you have a stronger land claim than a perimeter for only time and materials, no upfront/monthly fees and not even a premium fee is required (optional for higher QL for less decay).

The nice thing is about the financial charts being available is that we will be able to see how many people realize this and track the bottom line and see how long it takes devs to react. Hopefully to reverse direction, declare the bug fix to be a bug, and add the feature of perimeter over writs back with the new feature of enabling repairs. Otherwise Wurm will be an uglyness of fenced shacks, which had already been in use at the risk of being perimetered over, now there is no risk of that so there will be more fences and shacks making land claims. Nobody will be using perimeter anymore, so there really is no point discussing changes to perimeter use.

Edited November 15, 2012 by yarnevk

[Shiraek 464]

The nice thing is about the financial charts being available is that we will be able to see how many people realize this and track the bottom line and see how long it takes devs to react. Hopefully to reverse direction, declare the bug fix to be a bug, and add the feature of perimeter over writs back with the new feature of enabling repairs. Otherwise Wurm will be an uglyness of fenced shacks, which had already been in use at the risk of being perimetered over, now there is no risk of that so there will be more fences and shacks making land claims. Nobody will be using perimeter anymore, so there really is no point discussing changes to perimeter use.

I'm betting 2 iron that there will be almost no impact and this thread is so much hot air

As for nobody using perimeter... I'm still using it and no intention of stopping anytime soon.

Cheers,

Shiraek

[Sarcaticous 338]

I understand you want to use your perimeter but we need to find some way of imposing a negative on deed holders to balance the reduced cost of perimeter. Right now its limitations (some of which you can easily break) the Rules try to impose. Well that's not working apparently. It doesn't surprise me at all. When it comes to land ownership in a building/crafting game expecting your players to do the honest, just and considerate thing is naive.

So let me understand what it sounds like you are saying. Impose limits on paying customers because you somehow think they need to be reduced in abilities and make them the same as people who pay nothing to support the game. Because you somehow think that something isn't working with perimiters now. Obvisouly you are hallucinating.

What negative are you going to impose on people who pay absolutely nothing since you SAY you are all about balancing? I still don't see a problem with perimiters. No one has ever given a logical reason for PUNISHING paying players for supporting the game.

Tell ya what. Let's all become free to pay and see how long all the servers stay up. All you who want to somehow limit perimiters in one of several ways for some illogical reason can pay to keep them up for everyone.

[Nimba 16]

I'm getting more confused by the minute.

Can people build in the land I pay monthly to reserve to expand into when I have saved enough?

Meaning I can't deed it if they do, meaning I have been ripped off?

Edited November 15, 2012 by Nimba

[yarnevk 257]

As for nobody using perimeter... I'm still using it and no intention of stopping anytime soon.

OK lets hear why you think perimeter is better than shack fences. In the past you could have said you risk losing your shack fence claim, but that is no longer the case now.

Preserving deed expansion room? Not a benefit because shack fences do that now, instead it is a choice of time and materials vs. silver and expediency.

If inaccessible terrain then you don't really need to perimeter it since it is by nature safe from development, and likewise too difficult to fence shack.

Spirit Templars leaving carcass for you if deeding your perimeter expansion area (if you can find the carcass) but wiping out hunting or unwilling to help you vs. Tower Guards if you ask for it they come running, otherwise they leave some hunting for you.

Giving money to developers with deed/expansion fees? You can contribute premium alt subs and buy silver to purchase materials to accomplish that goal.

Shack fences are ugly but are also have utility of safe storage for your mining/hunting stuff, and keeping critters in or out.

That is my short list pro vs. con of perimeter vs. shack fence, what else is there?

Edited November 15, 2012 by yarnevk

[hoof2000 278]

i think i have read all the 8 pages of comments and now i would like to give my two cents as well. i can live with with perimter thingie, what bothers me more is the fact the you can fence of/inf a 50 by 50 area without paying a single euro. the game knows when you are trying to build a house that is too largeg for your skill. the game knows who bashed through your fenced off area. wouldn't it be possible for the game to tell you, that the area your are fencing off/in is too large? lets say you need a certain amount of skills for example farming, carprentry and masonry add them together devide thatt by 3 and that is the amount of tiles you can own/fence off/in for free. so for a f2p account that be 20 tiles (non prem cap) if you want more get a least a prem month imp your skills and add more tiles to your plot. this would encourage player to go prem without having to buy a deedform. but i guess that is not possible. just an idea... but will keep my deeds for sure and i will not disbanded and fence it all in for free...

[Kegan 3,926]

I'm getting more confused by the minute.

Can people build in the land I pay monthly to reserve to expand into when I have saved enough?

Meaning I can't deed it if they do, meaning I have been ripped off?

Well they change things everyday but other people can't build a house but they can build a fence that is connected to an off perimeter house making it part of an enclosure so the fence then is protected by the enclosure rule. They can't repair the fence and it will decay away but if it is made out of stone that could take months to decay away. Even if you expand you can't bash it down as it is part of an enclosure so your stuck with waiting for it to decay away before you can build on your own land.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Kegan

[Garis 210]

I'm betting 2 iron that there will be almost no impact

I laughed, this reminded me of the xkcd comic from a few days ago: http://xkcd.com/1132/