Sign in to follow this  
AndreC

Perimeter Vs. The Established

Recommended Posts

As you can tell, the recent mixup, and then reclarification of the purpose and ability of the perimeter has stirred up the deserts and sand has been flying in eyes about the would-be change to them, and ways to circumvent this. Well, I have a solution that involves no script changes, and quite frankly works like a lawsuit.

Forum heiarchy

  • Perimeter Appeals
    • Accepted
      • To be served (Optional sub-subforum of Accepted)

      [*]Denied

CM/CA/GM moderator access of the forum to move, lock and edit title topics.

Now that that is done, for the real gamechanger.

What I'm getting at it is to make it so an established freebee can stay put, and actually have the chance to win in the case that they are overlapped, minus fence area if that's all they were overlapped at. I'm not saying a noob shack sits as qualified, but a proper image based definition and a forum is all that we would need. That'd be easier, and probably simpler than changing game mechanics just for this to happen. Simply post a picture of your place and where the perimeter is overlapping, and have it approve/reviewed by a CM, etc.. Then if deemed, it will be forwarded to a GM if direct contact with the deed owner doesn't help. Simple hierarchy instead of going "GM HELP IM IN PERIMETER HE FORCE ME OUT"

  • Established freebee settlements can't have their building(s) perimetered over.
  • Should this happen, contact the deed owner directly; Try to work a solution, if fails, move to next step
  • Go on a (would be) forum section and post a picture of your place, where perimeter goes over buildings, and explain the situation and the deed owners response to you
  • CA/CM would look at them, deem if they're able to receive GM help, using requirement template as a reference (Optional: Try to convince the deed owner to work something out with the freebee)
  • GM would give a ruling on the situation based on responses, case by case.

Example requirement template:

  • 2 buildings minimum (4+ tiles each) or one large
  • Legitimate enclosure with farmland or two+ animals
  • Bed
  • Basic containers (Large chest, Large barrel, Forge or Oven, Food storage bin, Bulk storage bin)
  • Screenshot of conversation with deed owner (Chat logs also suffice)

That would be my base minimum as established. If you just made a 3 tile shack and all you have is a BSB and a forge, well you don't apply. Getting the bed would be the first problem with no help, requires fur and only bears and wolves give those. Killing one as a player with no armor at the time is not easy at the beginning.

Basically, you can't win just because you've been there for a week, and have 2 houses with nothing in them but 2 chests, a bsb a forge and oven. I'm only considering this as an idea because I don't know how that would work in the end. Sure people will be pissed at the idea because of "Deed it or loose it" will become "Deed it, build up, or loose it" which means exactly that. Deed it, or build it up to the would-be standard of established, or loose it. While I hate to make it a formal thing, because this is a sandbox game, and paid rules non-paid, but there needs to be balance. I don't like the idea of having GM's tell paying players that they're in the wrong for going over someone elses mini-village thing, but something needs to be done or else this will happen, and I've been in that situation before, it aint fun.

Just a picture reference just so people see a better idea.

deedoverlap.png

The white overlay is where deeds CAN overlap perimeter, not only because the game will allow it, but because its not over their established buildings. Everything NOT in that white overlay would have to remain untouched in order to allow them to keep their buildings in repair. This is also a decent example of an established enclosed freebee area.

Now, imagine gatehouses on all 4 corners. That wouldn't be considered a part of the undeedable rule I'm trying to establish, or else that would be constituting the noob shack Armageddon that people can easily do to deeds these days.

I already know there's the people will hate this because paid should always rule over free, but if we did that in every situation we would never have new players. Hell, just force them to pay to play. Both as premium and a freebee at some time, I felt that the idea of that was unfair, because some guy could come over and decide to deed and just extend perimeter over you just because he can, and you couldn't do anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too much GM/CA work, way more contentious as they will have differing opinions as to what qualifies when rules are way open to interpretation. Just give undersized free deeds for new players is a much simpler solution. What if I do not want to play farmer but get it all from trade from working in the mine, I don't qualify because I do not have fenced pens and farm tiles? This is a sandbox, you cannot try to define what people will do with their sand.

Edited by yarnevk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No -1

Explain why or else you're not telling me anything.

Too much GM/CA work, way more contentious as they will have differing opinions as to what qualifies when rules are way open to interpretation. Just give undersized free deeds for new players is a much simpler solution. What if I do not want to play farmer but get it all from trade from working in the mine, I don't qualify because I do not have fenced pens and farm tiles? This is a sandbox, you cannot try to define what people will do with their sand.

It's not. Its really very little actually, but considering how often this has the chance to happen, this will allow it to be contested without it going straight to GMs. its not hard to look at a post, see that the person is defending a 1x1 shack and deny it without going any further. As for what you mean by your sand and such, I get that and I was just laying out something that I would consider, not what I'm saying is going to be considered a settled location. I never had farms when i was freebee, but I had enough buildings clustered together, Im just throwing examples around so people get the jist of what i'm saying. And yes, 'minideeds' would be better, but im trying to come with a solution that doesn't involve changing the script in such a big way. Plus imagine the greif that that could cause if someone spammed alts, gave them some silver for the mindeed and planted them everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is you are asking GM/CA to be judge judy on TV by posting contentious lands in public, they prefer to conduct their biz in private. And do you really want a CM moderating the forum community as game judges?

It also creates the problem of how to get the map, the one being accused of griefing is not going to ever make a map to be judged, and the person making the accusation may not be able to get past the fence to make the map. It would be logistically simpler to give GMs the ability to view terrrain in-game as a 2-D map if they can't already...we know Rolf can do it as he puts out terrain maps occasionally. Then they will prefer to say they use their discretion in determining what is a legal fence enclosure or not, as they do with all their rule enforcements being done in private.And discretion means different ones will have different rulings, meaning people will still post 'I B griefed and GM says SOL'

Is giving a mini-deed anymore difficult than giving the welcome silver in the bank? Just give them a settlement form with different survey limits coded (instead of <=50 from token do <=2 from token as limit) and make it a non-tradeable item, use it or lose it. And by player I did not mean alt, I mean player. Sure that can be worked around with IP/email games, but I suspect they already have those checks in place to catch people trying to work around bans.

Edited by yarnevk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about those cases where they meet your requirements and have control on 2 or more of these things in a deed perim area?

Or just have a slew of them over 1 or more servers?

This proposed mechanic only drags the process out and makes it even harder to deal with those cases of perim griefing (from F2P OR P2P accounts)

The current mechanic has been detailed to the point that you know perim tiles can be expanded over non-deed tiles that do contain a house. Deed tiles cannot expand over a completed house (unless there was a change in there I missed).

You can not repair a house on perimeter tiles unless you are a citizen (or mayor) of that deed with permissions to do so.

You are warned by the system that building a house outside of deeded land is invitation to have "your property" messed with and that you have no recourse when it happens (outside of enclosure violations).

So plan your enclosures with at least one house wall on each face so perim does not extend over your fence if you want to drag it out. But if a choice needs to be made in favor of money to the game/server for increased deed sizes/number of deeds vs non-paid for use of game resources, I'd vote in favor of the money in hand over the 2 in the bush as it were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look, another perimeter/enclosure thread. This idea is horrible because it is setting a bunch of arbitrary criteria that are open to interpretation, and thus any conclusion the moderators choose would be debatable and make at least one side of the argument have more distrust for the moderation team. That's before we go into the amount of time required, the problems with making arguments public, and probably a dozen other problems I didn't spot in the time it took to skim over the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nvm...miscounted the tiles

Edited by Hussars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look, another perimeter/enclosure thread. This idea is horrible because it is setting a bunch of arbitrary criteria that are open to interpretation, and thus any conclusion the moderators choose would be debatable and make at least one side of the argument have more distrust for the moderation team. That's before we go into the amount of time required, the problems with making arguments public, and probably a dozen other problems I didn't spot in the time it took to skim over the idea.

Considering that it's open to interpretation, isn't the freedom code of conduct one big open book then? As well as just about every decision made by GMs in the game. I mean, its not hard to determine what an established area is. One way or another, someone has to make a decision in the end of the day, and if people don't want to be bothered to publicly disclose the information, which is neither of a monetary or security risk to them, it must not be that important to them and they can move on. The idea here is that the cases that do come through are for a legitimate reason, not just because they made a house and a fence and don't want to move.

And for the problems that come with moderating a forum... There should be zero distrust. If they come to the forum knowing that they're a free player, or a paying player with no deed then they should understand that they're already at a loss if they decide to go forth with the appeal. If there's really that thin of a line in disclosing minor disputes like this, then I wonder why 90% of online community's that have public ban appeals haven't collapsed because they feel the administrators are unfair and abuse their power. If you're in a position to assist players, I'm sure you can do so following a base template, collaborate even. You're looking at it from a head-on approach where you're looking for the problem, which is fine, if things didn't have problems we wouldn't need suggestions to fix them. Either way moderators are there for just that, to moderate, and while your role is still your average player with some chat warning powers in game, it shouldn't change the outlook of how the community views moderators just because they were denied their appeal.

Looking at it at the day's end, this entire situation could be avoided if the deed owner was either willing to compromise, or to assist the person in moving, assuming its not across the whole freaking map, so this is more or less a fallback in the case where direct interaction does not help, or makes the situation worse. Of course if you're hot headed while asking them to remove their perimeter, probably swinging foul language across the chat, I wouldn't expect them to want to either.

The problem is you are asking GM/CA to be judge judy on TV by posting contentious lands in public, they prefer to conduct their biz in private. And do you really want a CM moderating the forum community as game judges?

It also creates the problem of how to get the map, the one being accused of griefing is not going to ever make a map to be judged, and the person making the accusation may not be able to get past the fence to make the map. It would be logistically simpler to give GMs the ability to view terrrain in-game as a 2-D map if they can't already...we know Rolf can do it as he puts out terrain maps occasionally. Then they will prefer to say they use their discretion in determining what is a legal fence enclosure or not, as they do with all their rule enforcements being done in private.And discretion means different ones will have different rulings, meaning people will still post 'I B griefed and GM says SOL'

Is giving a mini-deed anymore difficult than giving the welcome silver in the bank? Just give them a settlement form with different survey limits coded (instead of <=50 from token do <=2 from token as limit) and make it a non-tradeable item, use it or lose it. And by player I did not mean alt, I mean player. Sure that can be worked around with IP/email games, but I suspect they already have those checks in place to catch people trying to work around bans.

I still like your idea with the deed thing as the scripted substitute of this.

Anywhoo, no it's not a Judge Judy thing. Its a simple pre-pass on to GM decision making. It should be no problems for CM's to moderate the game via forum , as they are trusted enough to earn the title, they should be trusted enough to not be bias and just say no to everyone becuase they didn't have a deed. And I only used the 2-D overhead map as an idea since I don't have an ingame screenshot of what I would call established. And as above, people come to the forums knowing they're already at a loss. They should know this and understand they can't win just because they live there for a couple of weeks.

Edited by AndreC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is too conditional for my liking and I would much prefer that perimeter cannot expand over buildings or fences and buildings and fences cannot be built in a perimeter by non-citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is too conditional for my liking and I would much prefer that perimeter cannot expand over buildings or fences and buildings and fences cannot be built in a perimeter by non-citizens.

I think this too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this seems overly complicated and prone to more trouble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anywhoo, no it's not a Judge Judy thing. Its a simple pre-pass on to GM decision making. It should be no problems for CM's to moderate the game via forum , as they are trusted enough to earn the title.

The whole point of the CM title is they moderate the forum only, people would be severly PO if they start making decisions that have an impact on the game. And it leaves them open to accusation of forum moderation actions taken because of in-game decisions. In every MMO I have played the CM are not the GM for these very reasons. You could say OK then have a CA do it because they are involved in /support, but you already had one tell you they would not do this.

You need to go with the KISS principle, as in 'keep it simple stupid' Defining fence enclosure as a completed lockable fence around a completed lockable house is not subject to interpretation. Saying deed can break the fence and perimeter can decay the house is not subject to interpretation. Every GM/CA and player can understand that rule like it or not. A mini-deed is also a very simple solution requiring only a code change to make another game object that is a copy of another with a change to the maximum.

I have reviewed your template and my lands do not qualify, my pasture is not a contiguous fence with the house lands, it is set aside for the simple reason I was raised on a farm, you do not build the barn near the house and use the pasture as your yard, and any farmer knows why. I don't even have a house because I live on a tree farm and do not want to block the view with walls and was waiting for beds to be fixed so I can build an arched pavilion, then hope to upgrade to multi-story for the balcony house on top of that. My fence is protected by deed, but if not for the deed that tree farm would not be a legal enclosure because the house that was there decayed.

The biggest problem I have though is it does nothing to save the noobs with their starter shack and farm, and even they would not qualify for your enclosure protection as that clearly is a temporary structure not an established farmland. I squatted on two tile shack and four tile fenced farm as a noob, that was enclosure rule protected, but your established enclosure does not cover that.

A problem with the min-deed idea is they may get the notion they can expand to a full deed, then find they are boxed into their mini-deed. Possible solution is to make it the same 21x21 perimeter of a min full deed but have a smaller deed than 11x11 inside it, or give them a discount to encourage them to upgrade to full deed.

Edited by yarnevk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KISS is deed it or you will eventually lose it.

New players had a far worse time when we did not have enclosures and people would kill the horses, steal stuff, etc...

I would say right now is actually pretty darn good for a New player and those that choose to F2P.

The game is a Pay for land control game and its never going to change into a free land control game.

If anything the more issues and gripes made about things regarding those who do not want to pay for land would lead to a more deed it or lose it type of game to make it even simpler so people could understand not the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of the CM title is they moderate the forum only, people would be severly PO if they start making decisions that have an impact on the game. You could say OK then have a CA do it because they are involved in /support, but you already had one tell you they would not do this.

u seem to be very confused about the staff, Community Assistants(CA) have no power,other than colored text in ca help.Chat Moderators(CM,former community managers)have chat moderation powers and are involved in support tickets(tickets usually go trough a cm before going to a gm),most forum moderators if not all of them are gms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why do CA answer my /support to screen me from the GMs? Is the game mislabeling CM as CA in the CA chat tab? As I cannot recall seeing the CM label in game, which is why I thought they are for forum not game chat. I will look more closely next support ticket then as I must have been confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why do CA answer my /support to screen me from the GMs? Is the game mislabeling CM as CA in the CA chat tab? As I cannot recall seeing the CM label in game, which is why I thought they are for forum not game chat. I will look more closely next support ticket then as I must have been confused.

CM's retain their CA status. So CM's are also generally CA's, but not the other way around.

Edited by Seara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK you can see how that was confusing, when the CM that answered my /support is the same CA that said take it to /support....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is too conditional for my liking and I would much prefer that perimeter cannot expand over buildings or fences and buildings and fences cannot be built in a perimeter by non-citizens.

I'd prefer this too but then you'll have people who own deeds get shacked up by experienced, or even noob players, literally stopping them from expanding.

this seems overly complicated and prone to more trouble

Its very simple, imagine it like /support... Which I just now understood after reading the above, since I've only had to use it once and a GM was there (Boat in cave problems =/). Simple hiearchy, CA to GM so i'm guessing your looking at the complicated portion as the template. I think I need to clarify that this is MY sample template, the actual sample template(s) would be made by GM's in collaboration just so there's a base to go off of.

The whole point of the CM title is they moderate the forum only, people would be severly PO if they start making decisions that have an impact on the game. And it leaves them open to accusation of forum moderation actions taken because of in-game decisions. In every MMO I have played the CM are not the GM for these very reasons. You could say OK then have a CA do it because they are involved in /support, but you already had one tell you they would not do this.

You need to go with the KISS principle, as in 'keep it simple stupid' Defining fence enclosure as a completed lockable fence around a completed lockable house is not subject to interpretation. Saying deed can break the fence and perimeter can decay the house is not subject to interpretation. Every GM/CA and player can understand that rule like it or not. A mini-deed is also a very simple solution requiring only a code change to make another game object that is a copy of another with a change to the maximum.

I have reviewed your template and my lands do not qualify, my pasture is not a contiguous fence with the house lands, it is set aside for the simple reason I was raised on a farm, you do not build the barn near the house and use the pasture as your yard, and any farmer knows why. I don't even have a house because I live on a tree farm and do not want to block the view with walls and was waiting for beds to be fixed so I can build an arched pavilion, then hope to upgrade to multi-story for the balcony house on top of that. My fence is protected by deed, but if not for the deed that tree farm would not be a legal enclosure because the house that was there decayed.

The biggest problem I have though is it does nothing to save the noobs with their starter shack and farm, and even they would not qualify for your enclosure protection as that clearly is a temporary structure not an established farmland. I squatted on two tile shack and four tile fenced farm as a noob, that was enclosure rule protected, but your established enclosure does not cover that.

A problem with the min-deed idea is they may get the notion they can expand to a full deed, then find they are boxed into their mini-deed. Possible solution is to make it the same 21x21 perimeter of a min full deed but have a smaller deed than 11x11 inside it, or give them a discount to encourage them to upgrade to full deed.

CM's are still moderating the forum. They're not going in game and forcing them to change their perimeter just because, and they can't. This is simply a forum based situation. Players who literally don't own the land because they have no deed, come to the forums seeking a solution. Quite honestly, I think solutions should be made in game with the deed owner, and that it shouldn't involve CM or GM. But the problem there is that nobody with money wants to compimise with someone with no money, or nothing to offer them, other than the land they're trying to aquire. If i was as active as I used to, I wouldn't mind helping new players move away from the situation, help them build a shack elsewhere. I've done it before, and those players actually stayed playing the game, instead of quitting because of the total loss and having to start again. And your land may not fit MY template, but I literally thought of that in 30 seconds, I put it up as a personal example, not saying that your place wouldn't meet requirements, but this was made a an ENCLOSED established area. Your area is open and free, which could still apply in most cases, up until your buildings. And as I said a bit earlier, I'd I'd prefer protecting too but then you'll have people who own deeds get shacked up by experienced, or even noob players, literally stopping them from expanding, so this isn't to save noob shacks.

KISS is deed it or you will eventually lose it.

New players had a far worse time when we did not have enclosures and people would kill the horses, steal stuff, etc...

I would say right now is actually pretty darn good for a New player and those that choose to F2P.

The game is a Pay for land control game and its never going to change into a free land control game.

If anything the more issues and gripes made about things regarding those who do not want to pay for land would lead to a more deed it or lose it type of game to make it even simpler so people could understand not the opposite.

Deed it or loose it is a remedial term. I could make a few 60 ql stone houses around and it just became deed it or get shacked. Now, since I'm not sure how often this happens nowadays, this still probably doesn't happen enough for this to happen, and unless we have that, this is just a sitting suggestion. Most new players don't have this problem (From what I see) because they stick around the spawn area (Essert, in this case) and nobody really wants a deed that close to spawn, especially the fact that fence and house remains prevent them from putting one down. And as you stated, this is a pay for land, not a free-i'm-here-first-so-its-mine land game. As in the title, Perimeter vs the ESTABLISHED, not vs the noobshacks. Deed or or loose it would still stand, just not in some situations, if it's being made out to be a big "Am I really loosing my expansion plans to a noob shack with a 10 tile farm?"

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