Sign in to follow this  
Protunia

Enclosures Should Not Be Valid In Perimeter Period! ( Oracle )

Recommended Posts

Now I am getting told that GM's have said enclosures over rule deeded property....this is absolutely nuts and is giving Free DEEDS control over PAYING DEEDS?

Well this was before the change but i expanded over a house and enclosure and part of the fence was now on my newly expanded deed. I called a GM and he told me i had to wait to even bash the fence that was now on my deed until an off deed section of the enclosure had decayed or one of the house walls decayed.

We need complete clarification of this RIGHT NOW!

It's time to make a rule that enclosures cannot be in perimeter or any part of the border.

In fact it is time to make more rules about enclosures period.

Enclosures must have some rules on them as well if you are going to start changing rules about deeds as enclosures are nothing but pseudo deeds with no costs.

Why? because they are trying to claim land they will never own at the time because it is the deed's perimeter.

Just as others cannot build a house in perimeter or deed over perimeter, Enclosures are nothing more than another form of a deed, but for free they are also an extension of the house and should be held up to the same rule that no houses may be built or the rule that you cannot perimeter into another deeds perimeter.

Also you cannot deed in another deeds perimeter. There are so many things wrong with allowing enclosures to act as deeded property on someone else deeded area compared to what the new deed system was about in the first place.

Enclosures should be declared invalid now and in the future if they are in any part of any deed's perimeter. The only People who should be allowed to use enclosures in perimeter are the citizens of the deed and the mayor.

The 5 free Perimeter and any perimeter should be there to provide space between other Deed's as well as space from Enclosures ( Free Deeds )

This idea that enclosures can claim reserved land for their use is simply not balanced at all when you have one person paying monthly to reserve land while another can use mobile free deeds by the way of enclosure to claim this reserved land without paying a dime.

Enclosures are in fact Deeds just of a different kind.

Edited by Protunia
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in the other topic and sent it to Oracle as well but will post it here too..

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 missed this post yes this would be best keep the expansion rules and add this sounds like it would be fair for everyone.

With not being able to expand the "buffer zone" over any existing houses and adding the above quote form Oracle the only thing left would be griefing by adding a 1x1 by the "buffer zone" blocking deed expansion but i guess then that could be handled by the GMs case by case. I think it would be easy enough to tell that was griefing and what is actual players living there.

I think this is the best we can do having a fair system for everyone.

Edited by Kegan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in the other topic and sent it to Oracle as well but will post it here too..

I missed this post yes this would be best keep the expansion rules and add this sounds like it would be fair for everyone.

With not being able to expand the "buffer zone" over any existing houses and adding the above quote form Oracle the only thing left would be griefing by adding a 1x1 by the "buffer zone" blocking deed expansion but i guess then that could be handled by the GMs case by case. I think it would be easy enough to tell that was griefing and what is actual players living there.

I think this is the best we can do for in having a fair system for everyone.

The fairest system is enclosures ( pseudo deeds ) should not be allowed to touch any perimeter IMHO.

It is past the point of allowing houses to block perimeter for me after hearing what happened to you.

Well this was before the change but i expanded over a house and enclosure and part of the fence was now on my newly expanded deed. I called a GM and he told me i had to wait to even bash the fence that was now on my deed until an off deed section of the enclosure had decayed or one of the house walls decayed.

Enclosures are in fact just like deeds and control land and should be held to the same rules when expanding.

The difference is you paid monthly for tiles for the rights to expand the enclosure did not.

Any enclosure that is on a deed or its perimeter unless it is owned by that deed should be considered null and void.

If a mayor wants to allow it then thats fine, but he should be given an option.

Edited by Protunia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree the whole deed/enclosure rule set needs to be revisited altogether to reduce or eleminate the confusion and rule conflicts, I've not seen a notice from GM's ruling on an enclosure over deeds as described. Could you provide links or references to it please? Because if it has happened, there is likely to be a lot of blow up over it.

The current change is more than slightly annoying (as in down right pain in the backside for deed owners with random shacks built at deed corners), but I can see the value in trying to offer some form of protection for undeeded houses from agressive deeds.

I still do not agree with this path though, as it increases the ability for people to play forever for free and does not offer incentive to promote up into a paid account. It is too easy to have a high skilled mason come out and plan/build your house for you. You only need the skill to build it, not repair it.

Edited by Hussars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave it as it is. Perimiter is wilderness usable by anyone. The only one who can make a building in a perimiter is the holder of the settlement deed. If you don't want someone making a fence in your perimiter fence off the perimiter. Simple as that. If you are too lazy to fence it off and make gatehouses then you pay the price.

I'm also having trouble with this buffer thing. If you really need a buffer or a place to make a road/egress between deeds then one tile for each side of a deed's perimiter is plenty. That would leave a two tile path between neighboring deeds. Why would you need more????

Also, lots of people, and I mean LOTS, have already built in this potential buffer. Are you going to make them just throw out all the time and effort they put into their perimiters?

Now that I think about it, a one tile buffer per side of a deed would probably be a good idea. I see a lot of areas that are completely blocked off by fences around perimiters. But, the same would have to be done with enclosures. No fences from one enclosure or deed can join a fence of another enclosure or deed.

Edited by Sarcaticous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enclosures should be declared invalid now and in the future if they are in any part of any deed's perimeter. The only People who should be allowed to use enclosures in perimeter are the citizens of the deed and the mayor.

There are 2 uses for perimeters; expansion of the deed and gap between deeds. By allowing the deed owners special permission to build in the perimeter but no others you just make it so perimeters are "cheap deeds" similar to the "free deeds" that you are against.

I think nothing should be allowed to be built in the perimeter by anyone. This would allow the perimeters to be used for what they are supposed to be, while at same time discouraging people from making massive perimeters to support a cheap kingdom.

Edited by Pollo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave it as it is. Perimiter is wilderness usable by anyone. The only one who can make a building in a perimiter is the holder of the settlement deed. If you don't want someone making a fence in your perimiter fence off the perimiter. Simple as that. If you are too lazy to fence it off and make gatehouses then you pay the price.

I don't think so.

Enclosures need rules too just like deeds if they are going to be given authority like deeds.

They are being used to control land like deeds and should in no way be able to expand or count at all in another deed's Perimeter.

As a deed owner I cannot expand into someone else's Perimeter ever and neither should enclosures be allowed to be a part of Perimeter.

Edited by Protunia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2 uses for perimeters; expansion of the deed and gap between deeds. By allowing the deed owners special permission to build in the perimeter but no others you just make it so perimeters are "cheap deeds" similar to the "free deeds" that you are against.

I think nothing should be allowed to be built in the perimeter by anyone. This would allow the perimeters to be used for what they are supposed to be, while at same time discouraging people from making massive perimeters to support a cheap kingdom.

I would go for that too myself if that is what has to happen to stop enclosures from being on perimeter.

Edited by Protunia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2 uses for perimeters; expansion of the deed and gap between deeds. By allowing the deed owners special permission to build in the perimeter but no others you just make it so perimeters are "cheap deeds" similar to the "free deeds" that you are against.

I think nothing should be allowed to be built in the perimeter by anyone. This would allow the perimeters to be used for what they are supposed to be, while at same time discouraging people from making massive perimeters to support a cheap kingdom.

If we want cheap land we would just use the enclosure rule and have it for free. we pay for the perimeter because we plan on using that area at some point so it should be mine to decide what gets built there if anything.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amg I'm agreeing with Protunia - never thought I'd see the day. That is a firm point. If paid deeds cannot do it (expand into another's perimeter/buffer) there is noooooooo reason for unpaid enclosures to be able to set up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want cheap land we would just use the enclosure rule and have it for free. we pay for the perimeter because we plan on using that area at some point so it should be mine to decide what gets built there if anything.

Of course you should this is why The Idea you posted here and Oracle suggestion might be the best outcome, but I want to make sure these enclosures are 100% invalid on anyone's perimeter for the simple reason they are being used like deeds without paying.

I mean really what's next??

You cannot Deed/Perimeter over fences? because they are a perimeter of the free enclosure deed??

Really??

Edited by Protunia
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont care what the rules ends up being. I just dont want to see anymore 50x50 enclosed eyesores dotting the land, almost always from people paying nothing to near nothing. At least if it is deeded then they are paying the full price for it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you should this is why The Idea you posted here and Oracle suggestion might be the best outcome, but I want to make sure these enclosures are 100% invalid on anyone's perimeter for the simple reason they are being used like deeds without paying.

well if they can't build an enclosure on the perimeter then i guess we have nothing to worry about. If you happen to expand and cover the fence of an enclosure i would hope the fence then falls under the same rule set and then belongs to the perimeter/deed. If they want a secure enclosure then just need to build houses on all four corners and have the "land" part in the center of the four. With not being able to expand the new "buffer zone" over the house then they don't have to worry about anything. We as deed holders just need to make sure we clam enough land with at least a perimeter to ensure we have what we might need later.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont care what the rules ends up being. I just dont want to see anymore 50x50 enclosed eyesores dotting the land, almost always from people paying nothing to near nothing. At least if it is deeded then they are paying the full price for it.

I agree on this one there needs to be a limit as to how big an enclosure can be i think a 10x10 max would be plenty but that is for them to decide. Maybe a total tile system would be best?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont care what the rules ends up being. I just dont want to see anymore 50x50 enclosed eyesores dotting the land, almost always from people paying nothing to near nothing. At least if it is deeded then they are paying the full price for it.

agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I am getting told that GM's have said enclosures over rule deeded property....this is absolutely nuts and is giving Free DEEDS control over PAYING DEEDS?

We need complete clarification of this RIGHT NOW!

It's time to make a rule that enclosures cannot be in perimeter or any part of the border.

In fact it is time to make more rules about enclosures period.

Enclosures must have some rules on them as well if you are going to start changing rules about deeds as enclosures are nothing but pseudo deeds with no costs.

Why? because they are trying to claim land they will never own at the time because it is the deed's 5 tiles of perimeter.

Just as others cannot build a house in perimeter or deed over perimeter, Enclosures are nothing more than another form of a deed, but for free. Also an extension of the house and should be held up to the same rule that no houses may be built.

Enclosures should be declared invalid now and in the future if they are in any part of any deed's perimeter. The only People who should be allowed to use enclosures in perimeter are the citizens of the deed and the mayor.

The 5 free Perimeter and any perimeter should be there to provide space between other Deed's as well as space from Enclosures ( Free Deeds )

I guess you MISSED the part where he expanded OVER the house?

The enclosure wasn't built on the perimeter, he put perimeter over the enclosure.

Its exaclty this kind of mess that the new perimeter ruling is meant to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you MISSED the part where he expanded OVER the house?

The enclosure wasn't built on the perimeter, he put perimeter over the enclosure.

Its exaclty this kind of mess that the new perimeter ruling is meant to avoid.

Enclosures are not paying to reserve land and have no rights to it if it is deeded with tiles over the fence.

Forget about the house all together I dont care about whether or not you can't perimeter over a house.

Fences are not deeds period and I don't care if you have a fence up if I deed over it I now own it and you lose the rights to it because.....

You did not deed it.

Saying fences are like deeded property without paying is simply not acceptable.

Deed tiles over rule fences period in my book and yes even if the fence is part of an enclosure.

Edited by Protunia
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so.

Enclosures need rules too just like deeds if they are going to be given authority like deeds.

They are being used to control land like deeds and should in no way be able to expand or count at all in another deed's Perimeter.

As a deed owner I cannot expand into someone else's Perimeter ever and neither should enclosures be allowed to be a part of Perimeter.

Enclosures have to be fenced in to prevent someone from using the tiles. Perimiters are no different. I see no problem with the way they are now.

Actually there two changes I could accept. A one tile zone around the deed for passage and no fences from neighboring deeds/enclosures meeting anyplace ever.

Edited by Sarcaticous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enclosures have to be fenced in to prevent someone from using the tiles. Perimiters are no different. I see no problem with the way they are now.

I see a HUGE Problem right now.

Enclosures are not paying for the rights to anything at all period.

Enclosures are being used like deeds, but have options to be built into other deeds perimeter something a deed owner cannot even do to another deed.

Enclosures were meant to help new players not give swaths of land as far as the eye can see.

Enclosures are being exploited and abused by the player base to the point there needs to be more rules controlling them.

Enclosures are being given rights like deeds even when they are on another players deed.

All of this is a BIG PROBLEM to me

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enclosures are not paying to reserve land and have no rights to it if it is deeded with tiles over the fence.

Forget about the house all together I dont care about whether or not you can't perimeter over a house.

Fences are not deeds period and I don't care if you have a fence up if I deed over it I now own it and you lose the rights to it because.....

You did not deed it.

Saying fences are like deeded property without paying is simply not acceptable.

Deed tiles over rule fences period in my book and yes even if the fence is part of an enclosure.

And apparently you forgot the part where a enclosure needs to have a house for it to be legal and protected? So he had to expand over a house, which again, is prevented by the new rules.

If there had never been a bug that allowed him to expand perimeter on top of the house this would never be a issue.

I see a HUGE Problem right now.

Enclosures are not paying for the rights to anything at all period.

Enclosures are being used like deeds, but have options to be built into other deeds perimeter something a deed owner cannot even do to another deed.

Enclosures were meant to help new players not give swaths of land as far as the eye can see.

Enclosures are being exploited and abused by the player base to the point there needs to be more rules controlling them.

Enclosures are being given rights like deeds even when they are on another players deed.

All of this is a BIG PROBLEM to me

Actually the big problem was SOMEONE putting his deed ON TOP of a existing enclosure. Not someone building on a deed.

The deed URSUPED the enclosed land WHICH ON FREEDOM is PROTECTED.

Don't like ti go to Epic.

Edited by ReaverKane
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And apparently you forgot the part where a enclosure needs to have a house for it to be legal and protected? So he had to expand over a house, which again, is prevented by the new rules.

If there had never been a bug that allowed him to expand perimeter on top of the house this would never be a issue.

The fact remains deeded tiles are superior when it comes to player ownership to non deeded tiles.

The day we start saying deeded tiles which ARE paid for do not count at all in ownership....

is the day Wurm starts to die.

Why? because this is a land based game and ownership of deeds is where a lot of the funds come from.

You start taking away rights to land that is paid for from deed owners you start losing deeds and customers.

Edited by Protunia
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the house facing the deeded expansion or was the fence?

The new rule stops you from expanding over the house, not the fence, and I think is the point of this. You can expand over fences, previously up to and over the house, now, one tile short of the house. If there is a 10x10 "field" within this fenced area with the house on the edge away from the deed, the perim would be able to expand over 10x8 of it. Well into the 5 tile boundry and potentially onto deeded land if there is no additional perim purchased.

Under the current discussions, at least a portion of this 10x8 section of the enclosure is now on deeded land but still protected under the enclosure rules.

On bigger enclosures, this becomes a larger problem.

::edit insert::

If fences are given the same "rights" as deeded tiles/perim tiles, this removes most of the need to deed anything except for the decay resist and spirit templars.

The templars are less of an issue since you can build guard towers. The down side, there is a radius requirement for the tower as to how close they can be.. so now you introduce another form of griefing in the way of blocking towers for some homesteads.

Again, the entire system needs to be reevaluated from the ground up, and handled as 1 system, not 2 or 3.. remove the rule conflicts, and clearly define what falls under protection and what doesn't.

Ideally, we're all mature enough to deal with others.. but this is the internet... so there need to either be clearly defined rules, or no rules at all.

Edited by Hussars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are superior on THIS situation.

Because he forced his deed on the enclosure.

I do agree that some people are abusing enclosures, specially when you see several 50x50 enclosures dotting the land.

BUT THIS? This is a bad example.

This is you turning a situation around. He tried to take over existing property and it blew back on his face.

Was the house facing the deeded expansion or was the fence?

The new rule stops you from expanding over the house, not the fence, and I think is the point of this. You can expand over fences, previously up to and over the house, now, one tile short of the house. If there is a 10x10 "field" within this fenced area with the house on the edge away from the deed, the perim would be able to expand over 10x8 of it. Well into the 5 tile boundry and potentially onto deeded land if there is no additional perim purchased.

Under the current discussions, at least a portion of this 10x8 section of the enclosure is now on deeded land but still protected under the enclosure rules.

On bigger enclosures, this becomes a larger problem.

Hussars, same difference, he had to know the enclosure was there, i certainly doubt he accidentaly overlapped the enclosure. And i believe its right for the GM to protect that.

But the game needs a revision on enclosures, that i do agree.

Also a way to identify and get rid of inactive and abandoned houses should be implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, If your disallow all enclosure than even DEED owners would not beable to put up enclosures in thier perimeters. I have 3 Tree farms, and a Farm field all on off deed (but in MY perimeter) enclosures.

-1000000000 to this idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, If your disallow all enclosure than even DEED owners would not beable to put up enclosures in thier perimeters. I have 3 Tree farms, and a Farm field all on off deed (but in MY perimeter) enclosures.

-1000000000 to this idea.

I said.....

Enclosures should be declared invalid now and in the future if they are in any part of any deed's perimeter. The only People who should be allowed to use enclosures in perimeter are the citizens of the deed and the mayor.

And more or less the general topic was to stop anyone else from building enclosures in a deed's perimeter and claiming enclosure rights.

The reason being the enclosure's are being used like deeds to claim land, but have special options deed owners do not have like being able to claim land in perimeter.

When you own a deed you cannot expand into another deeds perimeter.

Enclosures are nothing more than free deeds and should be held to the same rule.

Mayors and Citizens would not have to use this enclosure rule because it is part of their own perimeter and deed.

Edited by Protunia

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