Suggested changes to enclosure and highway rules

[Shidoni 84]

If someone goes to an expensive resteraunt and decides they can't afford to pay for a meal should the other diners pay out so he can eat? No, they make room for a paying customer to come along and eat an expensive meal while the poor guy goes home and has a tin of soup. 

 

Horribly false equivalency.  This is a game, not a restaurant.  Rolf gets revenue just by people talking about and playing the game.  He's also marketed it as free to play.  That is the model he CHOSE to sell it as.  If a restaurant says it's free soup for everyone, but all other entrees will cost money, whether or not I buy an entree with my free soup, I expect to be able to eat my soup without another patron jumping on my table and peeing in it.

[Busted 289]

Let's see.  I maintain 6 deeds.  5 on Deli and 1 on Release.  I know this is by far not the largest number held by a single person.  I also have 4 premium  accounts, again not the most accounts I am sure.  I do however get the feeling that I am one of those "least valuable assets this game has."  I have some enclosures using the space between 2 of my deeds and an off-deed mine entrance that is in an enclosure.  I am in the process of relinquishing all such spaces and fortifying my deeds.  However, I enjoy the PVE experience.

 

 

You pay for your accounts and you maintain several deeds so you are paying into the system so no, you're not one of the least valuable. The least valuable are those who don't pay fairly into the system by either having a large homestead and land without a deed. It's not a slight against them personally, it's a commercial fact regardless of how nice they may be. If they are not paying into the system and their actions are preventing those who could be paying into the system from doing so they are a detriment. 

 

New players are valuable as long as they don't fall into the culture of entitlement that is rampant in freedom. I don't think anyone has anything against those who try the game and play it in the spirit trials are intended but you can't have two rules to govern the problem without GM oversight and that's what doing away with the enclosure rules will deal with.

[Busted 289]

Horribly false equivalency.  This is a game, not a restaurant.  Rolf gets revenue just by people talking about and playing the game.  He's also marketed it as free to play.  That is the model he CHOSE to sell it as.  If a restaurant says it's free soup for everyone, but all other entrees will cost money, whether or not I buy an entree with my free soup, I expect to be able to eat my soup without another patron jumping on my table and peeing in it.

 

Free to play does not mean free to have the save rights and privileges as a paying customer. It's free to play with restrictions. As it stands a f2p player can't level beyond 20. In the future it will also mean they have to take their chances with any off deed enclosures as well. They can circumvent this issue by deeding and paying into the system or joining a village. If they don't it's their choice but they don't deserve the same perks as a paying customer. Having protected enclosures is basically the same as having a paid for deed for all intents and purposes. That's not fair on paying customers and doesn't really do much to convert f2p to paying players.

 

Not really rocket science.

[Pollo 146]

Free players add to the game, either as people to talk to when the servers are low, or as slave bulk labor.  They are the pool from which many future premiums can come from (if they can put up with this game as non-premium, then they are likely to premium when they have a chance).  This thread is not trying to limit free players, but rather come up with better protections for them, because they deserve to protect their stuff also and the legal enclosure rule is not adequete.

 

This game is a sandbox also, so people should be able to do things in a manner that they choose, like placing fences in the wilderness.  In this case however, there should be some risk, to take a large portion of land without paying for it should not be for "free". 

 

The legal enclosure rule can not be maintained.  Either an area is completely guaranteed protection (which generally has been from paying for it) or it attempts to let players sort things out for themselves.  Legal enclosures try to do a little of both and a lot of neither.  IMO, legal enclosures was worth a try but is a broken concept.

 

Highways on the other hand work reasonably, but over time you can see that the map becomes overrun with them.  Even though people and deeds might change, the highways are always there.  There probably is a better way of dealing with the highway rule.

[Arwyn 30]

You don't pay for peaceful, you pay for access to the server and the ability to interact with the world and people within the confines of the games rule set. You got peaceful as a byproduct of your choices, the choices of those around you and pure chance. As such, it's your choice to put up with potential difficulties or walk away from the game because of those same potentials. If you think there will be drama, just don't watch it. Again, a choice.

 

If you want to be able to take the law into your own hands campaign loudly enough for it and you may eventually get your way. Lots will support you (I would), most won't but that's Wurm for you.

 

Simple rule for survival anywhere. Adapt or perish.

Wrong. I do pay to play peaceful. That is why I am on Indy. Where I don't have to worry about people busting crap everywhere. If I wanted things to be a huge fight, I would be on a PVP server. Many people on Indy feel the same way I do. Its not right to tell players, "You can play this way" and then after they pay to play, "You can no longer play that way. Now you will play in a way that people want to play on different servers." That is why we will likely take our business elsewhere. Don't tell me why my family and I play.

[Busted 289]

Wrong. I do pay to play peaceful. That is why I am on Indy. Where I don't have to worry about people busting crap everywhere. If I wanted things to be a huge fight, I would be on a PVP server. Many people on Indy feel the same way I do. Its not right to tell players, "You can play this way" and then after they pay to play, "You can no longer play that way. Now you will play in a way that people want to play on different servers." That is why we will likely take our business elsewhere. Don't tell me why my family and I play.

 

Well, now you do so get used to it. Chances are if you've been left in peace you still will be but there's no guarantee - just like before. Doing away with enclosures protection does not mean the world ends it just means you have to make provision to better protect your stuff if you have off deed enclosures.

 

Btw Rolf has every right to tell you how to play the game. It's his sandbox, his rules. You can live in his world based on those rules or you can leave because of some imagined threat. Either way you didn't pay for peace and quiet, you paid for access. What you do with that access is up to you but you already got what you paid for every time you log in.

[Hussars 511]

Free to play does not mean free to have the save rights and privileges as a paying customer. It's free to play with restrictions. As it stands a f2p player can't level beyond 20. In the future it will also mean they have to take their chances with any off deed enclosures as well. They can circumvent this issue by deeding and paying into the system or joining a village. If they don't it's their choice but they don't deserve the same perks as a paying customer. Having protected enclosures is basically the same as having a paid for deed for all intents and purposes. That's not fair on paying customers and doesn't really do much to convert f2p to paying players.

 

Not really rocket science.

 

No it's not rocket science, but it is marketing (which is its own science)

 

Going with your food example, it is more like the restaurant making a vat of soup, you get a cup for free or pay for a bowl.  It's the same soup, just the quantity you get differs based on the price you pay.  If you want bread, a salad, a drink, or other things, that will cost you.

 

The problem is that Wurm's version of the "cup" comes with free refills.

 

It's not that the cup is offered, just that the rest of the menu isn't attractive enough for some people add on to their order.

 

What is being discussed is that "cup" sized sample being brought down to a tea cup size, but still offering those free refills.

 

So how do you make the rest of the menu attractive?

[Ronguor 12]

While I understand perhaps the path to this decision, I totally disagree with this choice as a way to fix the problem; and would like to offer my own views.

 

First, I am not a free to play player. In fact since November between my wife and I we have spent over $150 in order to get our deeds the size we wanted and where we wanted. Keep that in mind when making your decisions.

 

So here is my take, We pay to play this game, the semblance of protection and support from the GM's is a huge part of WHY we started to play. Since the deeds are not large enough for the price you pay, and more importantly, the shapes/perimeter available make it impossible to really cover the land we would like to, we have relied to the Enclosure rules to provide some level of protection for our off deed farms and buildings.

 

While we do have a good amount of land off deed which we use, I certainly don't feel as if we are not entitled to it. To us the point of this game is to build and create beautiful places that we can share and admire. The Enclosure rule has offered us peace of mind in doing so. If you remove it nearly half of our work will be at risk.

 

The rules are cut and dry as far as I was aware, making the GM's responses simple. If a rule was broken, then punishment follows. This should be accepted as the job of the GM volunteer or not. 

 

Now for the abuse of the enclosure rules: I am not denying that this happens, in fact I'm sure of it. I honestly don't know what you need to do about this, but I'm sorry it isn't really the players place to decide that. We could come with several possible solutions, but I doubt they would be heard. The truth is, we paid for a game based on established rules and mechanics that we like. It is up to YOU - who we paid our hard earned money to- to protect our interests. If you need to come up with some way to ensure that people don't use the enclosure rule to simply grab up a bunch of land they aren't going to use, then do so in a way that will not completely screw those of us who have dedicated so much of our time and money into the game as it is now.

 

I've walked around our map, and there is still plenty of land to be had. So I'm not really sure what the problem is there, and even if land was a problem is it really that difficult to open another server? Surely you can afford it if your GM's are all volunteer.

 

Bottom line is, changing the Enclosure rule is in my opinion a bad move. My wife and I have already talked, and this would for sure cause us to leave, and take our money with us. I happen to know we are not alone. Many veteran players, (and payers) have agreed with us as well. Since this announcement we have seen an incredible decrease in activity in our alliance alone. You really need to come up with ways to attract and retain players, not push them away.

 

Please don't make these changes, find another way to address the problem.

[Ballad 79]

Wrong. I do pay to play peaceful. That is why I am on Indy. Where I don't have to worry about people busting crap everywhere. If I wanted things to be a huge fight, I would be on a PVP server. Many people on Indy feel the same way I do. Its not right to tell players, "You can play this way" and then after they pay to play, "You can no longer play that way. Now you will play in a way that people want to play on different servers." That is why we will likely take our business elsewhere. Don't tell me why my family and I play.

 Oh, but he tells anyone what and what not they can do, how and how not they can play, even the famous "quit if you don't like it".

Makes me sick.

 

Busted, you're not the only one paying to play this game; stop being such an (you fill in), and let us offer feedback, nobody cares if YOU THINK a player should PAY OR LEAVE THE GAME.

Not to mention this is entirely negative attitude for any outsider possible reading these forums. You cannot tell anyone to quit just because you can't stand f2p players.

 

Thank God is not your game, thank God you're not my neighbour, my relative or my co-worker (or employee, in this particular case).

 

I pay for my deeds, on FREEDOM server, to play peacefully, and I didn't hire you to tell me how to play, on MY deed, I pay for.

 

Can you leave people offer feedback and suggestions to make the change more supportable for anyone? we're not on a debate contest. You're smart, you proved it, now stop cluttering the thread with unnecessary comments?

 

I'm trying to read others suggestions, but every two posts or so I stumble upon your mischievous comments, with no other purpose than to make people shut up fearing you will attack their opinions.

 

And if ROLF tells me I should play the game a way or another, I'd be alright with him or leave the game, since is HIS game; but BUSTED has no right to tell me how to play it.,

Edited April 4, 2014 by Ballad

[Arwyn 30]

Well, now you do so get used to it. Chances are if you've been left in peace you still will be but there's no guarantee - just like before. Doing away with enclosures protection does not mean the world ends it just means you have to make provision to better protect your stuff if you have off deed enclosures.

 

Btw Rolf has every right to tell you how to play the game. It's his sandbox, his rules. You can live in his world based on those rules or you can leave because of some imagined threat. Either way you didn't pay for peace and quiet, you paid for access. What you do with that access is up to you but you already got what you paid for every time you log in.

Yes, and the entire family has a right to leave if we want to. Its like you don't know how to read. I'm pretty sure I said that already and then you argue with me saying the SAME EXACT THING. Take a look in Indy For Sale... People are already leaving.

[KunAlt 844]

I'm no Freedom player so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems to me the reason highways work okay on Epic is because majority rules.  If the majority of people living in an area want that road left alone, griefing it will get you hunted and killed, potentially on repeat.

 

But you don't need the violence, on Freedom can't you just have it majority rules?  Like, everyone gets to right click any highway within 5-10 tiles of a deed they belong to and "Vote to keep".  Anyone can also "Vote to destroy", and only a highway with a higher "vote to destroy" count can be destroyed.

 

Having a higher Destroy count does not destroy the highway, only removes the "indestructible" protection.

 

just a thought

 

The problem with PVE servers is you can´t do nothing against a griefer, we can´t hunt/kill the griefer, and thats why we need some kind of hard rule to avoid certain behaviors that can´t be stoped by a game mechanic, but yet can´t be allowed to happens freely for the sake of keeping a healt gaming experience for the majority.

 

I really understand the poor situation the GMs are standing on rigth now. Seems like there is no an easy way to hardcode a flawless solution in game mechanics to either allow the highways to be freely created while at same time disallow the use of highways as a griefing tool per see.

 

Highways on freedom can be both a bless for people that travels and comerce a lot, and a curse for people that get the expansion of his deed crippled by highways.

Edited April 4, 2014 by KunAlt

[Hussars 511]

PVP vs. PVE, F2P vs. Premium, Deed vs. Enclosure, Amounts we've spent, none of this matters at this point.

 

What matters is that there is a chance to take a difficult to enforce, and easily exploited rule (Enclosures) and to get it replaced with something easier to enforce and more difficult to exploit (either a rule, a mechanic, or some combination of both).

 

For highways, any short term solution will likely require longer term support.  The idea of a GM highway tile is likely to be the most workable.  Yes it will mean that the staff need to replace/go over the road tiles to be modified, but it is a one time impact.  If it takes 1 GM, lets say 5 hours a week for 3 weeks, how many of the support calls would doing so remove over the course of the first year alone?

 

The core concept of Wurm is the "long game", you do work now for future rewards later.  While unfortunately it would fall to the staff to do it, the longer term reward is no one can modify those tiles without a GM's agreement.  Policy can be whatever the staff feel is fair on how to request changes, but you get rid of the random destruction as well as the calls about it.

 

For enclosures, the defined area idea Spellcast put forward, as well as the other variations on it, appears to offer the best balance between protection and support.  If you exceed that tile count, you lose the protection.  Just make sure only the owner can modify the enclosure, or you will have folks adding to it, just so they can bash it.  Even if it is only 1 person, it will happen.

 

Finally, migrate some of the FCC guidelines into the rule set.  If there is behavior the Dev Team doesn't want in the game, say so.  Don't expect people to play by the "golden rule" concept.  Even in PVE, some people take pride and joy in pushing boundaries/skirting/bending/twisting the rules just to see if they can.

 

We're all gamers, by definition, that is what we do.  Some are more or less extreme in what we do in given situations, but we all do it at some point.

 

Why do you all think there is so much argument about legal enclosures and how big they should be allowed to be?

[Busted 289]

 Oh, but he tells anyone what and what not they can do, how and how not they can play, even the famous "quit if you don't like it".

Makes me sick.

 

Busted, you're not the only one paying to play this game; stop being such an (you fill in), and let us offer feedback, nobody cares if YOU THINK a player should PAY OR LEAVE THE GAME.

Not to mention this is entirely negative attitude for any outsider possible reading these forums. You cannot tell anyone to quit just because you can't stand f2p players.

 

Thank God is not your game, thank God you're not my neighbour, my relative or my co-worker (or employee, in this particular case).

 

I pay for my deeds, on FREEDOM server, to play peacefully, and I didn't hire you to tell me how to play, on MY deed, I pay for.

 

Can you leave people offer feedback and suggestions to make the change more supportable for anyone? we're not on a debate contest. You're smart, you proved it, now stop cluttering the thread with unnecessary comments?

 

I'm trying to read others suggestions, but every two posts or so I stumble upon your mischievous comments, with no other purpose than to make people shut up fearing you will attack their opinions.

 

Listen, I'm not telling anyone how to play the game I'm telling you the choices you will soon have with regards to off deed enclosures. You can either deal with the changes or you can quit. I'm not telling you to do either I'm pointing out options based on what Rolf is going to do. You don't agree with the changes but that doesn't really matter if they go ahead, now does it? Will you stay or will you go? Frankly, I don't care and it doesn't matter. 

 

It's clear a lot of people don't like the idea of not having their off deed enclosures guaranteed to be protected anymore. Does that mean the change shouldn't go ahead? No. No change means no solution to the primary problem - which is the hoarding. Whether you are guilty of this or not I don't know, don't care. You wan't security, you pay for it. You don't and you take your chances. that's not me dictating how you play the game, that's the game rules. Big difference, please learn to distinguish before taking things so personally.

 

I'll be losing enclosures too you know. Difference is I don't feel like I'm entitled to them.

[Audrel 2,223]

Btw Rolf has every right to tell you how to play the game. It's his sandbox, his rules.

 

Deleted. On second thought, who cares what I think.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Audrel

[Biervampyr 97]

I dont think that legal enclosure are bad. Im my area the Problem is that there are 2 huge dead deeds ( i mean huge like 50x50) everytime they are near disbanding someone loggs into and put in some Silver to let it stay. So this is really blocking New Players to geht some space to settle. On the other side we manage a huge off deed Farm wich looks nice, is in use and needs a lot of maintanance! So please tell me whats a bigger problem. Huge abondend deeds wich are not in use or some enclosures who are used all the time?

[Busted 289]

Yes, and the entire family has a right to leave if we want to. Its like you don't know how to read. I'm pretty sure I said that already and then you argue with me saying the SAME EXACT THING. Take a look in Indy For Sale... People are already leaving.

 

I can read perfectly fine, thank you, but since you've run out of intelligent things to say and are instead ranting I'll just leave you to it. Enjoy the new rules on Indy. Or not. I don't care.

[Geddingwood 98]

And also ... fellow wurmians, maybe refrain from comments like "deed it or lose it", "we pay to play, free players should pay themselves", "is not my problem if you cannot spend as much as I can", "if I can bash your fences, I will do it".

This thread wasn't intended for trolling, personal attacks, PvP against PvE, or posting only because you feel the need to "hear" and "see" yourself talking and writing without having anything constructive to say.

 

HERE HERE.  SO SICK of those kinds of comments.

 

But you see... They don't have to. That is the point. Nobody is telling those players to go compete with the rich. Some people dont need a deed to enjoy the game, you are not required to make your deed to play the game. You are making it sound like that in order for everyone to enjoy the game they have to make deeds, buy silver etc... They don't. It's why its a sandbox. There are no goals. 

 

Except that you're wrong.  We're basically being told that if we want any protection at all from now on, we HAVE to pay.  And that's beyond what we already pay to be premium.  Personally I think all premium players should get a free deed of 15x15 and deed costs and upkeep should only apply beyond that point if you want it bigger.

 

 

Mines .. how many times we seen a public mine people were using for ages suddenly closed, and without any clue of who closed it? I know deed owners living in far north with mines in far south, only mines, they don't even visit in months, but they closed them only because they could. A 1x1 high level shed, public access removed (who asked everyone in the area if they needed that mine or not?), and a place which cannot be deeded over properly.

 

I think mines should still be protected.  When you deed in this game, you're giving yourself exclusive mining rights to the area.  But what if you find out you only have two kinds of veins in the entire area?  You're basically forced to go out and find a place to make another mine.  And you want it protected, because that's your hard work.  I can understand people slapping buildings on old mines (I myself have done this recently, but the mine is near my deed and used to be owned by me over a year ago anyway) being a problem, but I don't think it's as big a problem as people make it out to be.  Maybe we need a new kind of protection for mines?  Honestly I'd be willing to code new stuff for the game if given the opportunity...

 

I'm so tired of seeing people play the "I'm poor so you should let me keep my enclosures" card. If you can't afford to pay for a deed to protect your stuff then you will have to take your chances and hope your off deed pens don't get broken into. For that matter if you can't afford a deed then how is it you are managing to pay for Premium every month? For many bemoaning about the changes to the enclosure rule it's not about being able to afford to pay for a deed it's about being too cheap to.

 

People are so used to being able to pay an absolute minimum for all their sandbox freedom and still have vast areas off deed "protected" by enclosure rules that they never have an incentive to actually invest a bit more money to secure their assets.  The problem is one of attitude more than personal wealth. You feel "entitled" to go about your business without contributing much to the overall health of the game by paying for your experience while those who aren't penny pinching so much actually spend money to subsidize your game play. 

I think this is a ridiculous comment.  People are paying for premium, they are paying for deeds.  I am premium and have a deed, and I still don't want enclosures gone.  There are tons of people who have put tons of money into this game, and you're basically calling them cheap because they don't like that the PVP crowd wants to once again ruin Freedom, which is the only REAL sandbox in Wurm.  People on Freedom (who aren't abusing the rule with huge enclosures) use enclosures to protect their mines, create offdeed animal pens, reclaim areas near them which were taken by others but are now falling down prior to deeding them, etc.  It's a timed-tested tool of Freedom.  Removing it will fundamentally change the game.  If you argue on that point....well, you're wrong.

 

To put it another way:  Not everyone is rich.  I'd imagine the richest people in Wurm play on the PVP servers, because they need a lot more money to maintain their ongoing wars.  And isn't it a coincidence that the PVP people have no problem with this but the Freedom people do.  Hmm.  I've contributed hundreds of dollars to this game.  I currently have no job and my premium may in fact run out.  This game is at least twice as expensive to play per month as any other online game, and it's entirely because there are two brackets you have to pay into - premium and deed.  Show me one other online game that takes $25 a month to play to get the full experience.  It's too expensive, and that's why people are upset.  If I could throw in $10-15 a month and have it pay for my deed and premium (like ANY other game), I wouldn't even be arguing in this thread right now.  I love Wurm, and I love the peaceful servers and have no desire to ever participate in what passes for PVP here.  Please don't ruin them because trolls and those with questionable morals want to be able to break and steal stuff on a peaceful server for the "lulz".

[LorraineJ 1,099]

Btw Rolf has every right to tell you how to play the game. It's his sandbox, his rules. You can live in his world based on those rules or you can leave because of some imagined threat. Either way you didn't pay for peace and quiet, you paid for access. What you do with that access is up to you but you already got what you paid for every time you log in.

 

Wrong. Rolf is providing a service which I have paid into. At this point I've invested a significant amount of money, for a game, with my traders, merchants, premium accounts, tools/weapons, deeds, etc. We have a right to cry foul when we make a large investment on the understanding that we will enjoy the service under certain rules. I play games to have a relaxing diversion, not a constant worry that the things I've put time and real money into might be taken away at any moment. If I had known that the animals I enjoy having would one day be vulnerable no matter what I did, I would not have invested in the game in the way I have. I would have stopped playing long ago. What business has the attitude of "come pay for this, but it's mine and I can do whatever I want with it after you invest."

[Geddingwood 98]

Again since some people seem to have missed it:

 

Enki

 

I appreciate the understanding that most of you are showing in this matter.  To the rest of you who are all "the end is nigh"...  We are not simply throwing away everything or tossing your efforts to the wolves so to speak.  If you will read Rolf's post properly you will see this is about suggestions for improving the current situation.

 

 

As he said, read properly. They don't want to get rid of the enclosures and highways itself, they want to replace the current rules about enclosures and highways with something that works better.

 

So stop whining how you are abandonned, when in fact you are about to get an increase in security.

 

And no matter what they do, be it special tiles, special deeds or special writs (still my favourite) it will likely be a mechanic that can't be broken, short of a bug, opposed to a rule that can only rely on good will.

 

Again since you seem to have missed it:

 

The suggestion is to remove these rules, and replace the newbie situation with another solution. There are quite a lot of good ideas floating around. You should consider making preparations for them being removed within a month, unless we see a showstopper for these.

 

Meaning they're getting removed in a month whether we like it or not.  I doubt all these comments on this thread will make them change their minds, as it never has in the past.

 

Oh, and mechanics that can't be broken?  Like the building houses on roads (depave the tile) or the building fences on roads (depave the tile) or the prevention of messing up the slope (depave the tile)?  Yeah, those are really unbreakable.

 

And where is it ever stated in any of their posts that removal of these rules will result in an increase in security?  Quote that one for me.

 

 

You don't pay for peaceful, you pay for access to the server and the ability to interact with the world and people within the confines of the games rule set.

Except that this game is billed as a free game with premium benefits.  Removing enclosures will make it a paid game only on Freedom unless a VERY good replacement system is created.  I just think we should be clear and stop calling this game F2P if it's going to require you to pay to get any kind of protection at all.  

 

And once again, I have no problem with contributing to Wurm.  I just think the game is WAAAAY overpriced atm.

 

 

In the meantime, not buying another dime of silver until there's a satisfactory response about this that'll be fair to deed-owning CUSTOMERS (key word, here).  Not gonna spend money on a silver that can be randomly devalued to 70 copper because the poor little griefers aren't being pampered enough by their mommies or the devs.

 

I'm with you on this one, brother.  The only way we as people(customers?) really get to speak is with our dollars.  I haven't even logged in since I found out about this.  I may do it just to tend my farms later, but I certainly am too pissed off at the moment to want to play Wurm.  I've spent 3 months building a highway for nothing if this change goes through.  That would be the end of Wurm for me.  I've got my own games to code.

[Geddingwood 98]

Trouble is the mindset of most freedom players is that any kind of player violence (against deed, property, persons etc) is a deal breaker. If this hangup wasn't getting in the way I'm pretty sure Wurm would be a lot more lively and a long way short of the complete murder fest the drama llamas prophecised.

 

Pretty easy to sit in your high tower and insult people when you're not the one who's going to be affected by the changes.  Since you don't play on Freedom, you have no idea what this rule change would mean for us.  People who were only minor annoyances will turn into throbbing sores on the face of the world.

[Geddingwood 98]

It's not being elitist, it's being sensible. If someone goes to an expensive resteraunt and decides they can't afford to pay for a meal should the other diners pay out so he can eat? No, they make room for a paying customer to come along and eat an expensive meal while the poor guy goes home and has a tin of soup. 

 

If the poor guy can't afford to eat at a resteraunt he shouldn't be entitled to go there anyway and fill up on bread rolls. He lives within his means and not to the detriment of other people.

 

If you wanna sponsor a poor guy who can;t afford his own deed feel free to open up your village or wallet to make this happen.  Don't force the state to pick up the tab for those who aren't contributing to it.

 

The problem with your metaphor (and to continue using it) is that this game used to be a McDonald's, and now its The Olive Garden.  People who were used to spending $5 on a meal are now spending $15-20.

 

This is a game.  Games are there to escape from real life.  I play games to be able to be happy and use my imagination to be able to imagine a better life.  I'm very distressed by this trend in games recently of rewarding the rich and screwing the poor.  It's too much like real life.  The rich have enough good going for them in their lives - they don't need an advantage in games simply because they're rich.  Your mentality is part of the problem with this planet.  That capitalism is the only way and to be poor means you're either a fool or lazy.  I bet I know which political party you stand with.

[Busted 289]

Pretty easy to sit in your high tower and insult people when you're not the one who's going to be affected by the changes.  Since you don't play on Freedom, you have no idea what this rule change would mean for us.  People who were only minor annoyances will turn into throbbing sores on the face of the world.

 

Ok well, actually I do. I maintain several deeds on freedom, don't play on Chaos and pay nearly 40s a month for upkeep of land for those deeds while allowing a lot of f2p types to live there and explore the game peacefully. I also have some off deed enclosures that will now be vulnerable to being broken into and taken over. This includes mines and tree farms. I accept this, I don't feel like I'm having my stuff stolen from me as I'm not paying for the right to have exclusive access to it like you get with a deed form.

 

As for annoyances, I've had plenty of them from land hoarders and road builders so I have a pretty good perspective on these things and this is why I am very much for this change not to hurt newer players or those with reasonable off deed enclosures but to those who take the piss. There are plenty of them out there and there are plenty of people using a little extra land on top of their deeds but we can't have it both ways and that's why for the greater good automatic enclosure protection must go. People will just have to adapt whether they think it's fair or not. If you want to blame someone for this, blame the people that hoard the land for making this a thing.

[KunAlt 844]

Maybe we need to stop discusing if enclosures/roads are good or bad and start to contribute with ideas about how to improve the situation.

[rixk 830]

...

 

I'll be losing enclosures too you know. Difference is I don't feel like I'm entitled to them.

Yet you do feel entitled to the land, which someone else has secured with their enclosures. Even so much, that the rule has to be removed.

Edited April 4, 2014 by rixk

[Belrindor 663]

That is the thing, newbies are only one part of the problem(bigger one of course). But I think majority of Wurm players have at least one-two enclosures. That is how the game is played, you can't have full Wurm experience, when you are sitting on your deed. For example, when I live inland and want to grow reed/rice, I simply need to go to coastal area and have an enclosure, or want to have a hunting lodge, animal pens etc.. stuff like that. Enclosures give options, when you force every player on their deeds, you take away those options.

And that is the problem about Wurms direction. Instead of giving players freedom to let them play how they want. The devs lately only put up more boundaries and make the players play as they "envision" completely ignoring how the players WANT to play.

 

And this is it completely. I don't pay you to play the way YOU want me to play. I pay you to pay the way *I* want to play. Before I signed up on a Freedom server and not Epic, I read the wiki for DAYS on end and decided where I wanted to be. I read about the enclosures rule and saw it was the law of the land. These were the rules I joined by.

 

When I placed my first deed, I couldn't place it where I wanted to, because of someone's gigantic perimeter. I couldn't  even put it where I wanted to further west because of MY forced 5 perimeter tiles prevented me from putting my deed flush up against that other perimeter. So don't anyone DARE sit there, player or dev, and tell me the perimeter is 'wild land' and not part of our deed, when it's forced upon you and included in the purchase price.

 

If legal enclosures go away it means I have to redo all of my fences, and that anything beyond my deed that is fenced in on my perimeter is fair game. There goes my off-deed critters and tree farm and crops.

 

As for expanding my deed to cover these tiles? Well as soon as you boys get your act together and allow us to expand in ONE direction, it MIGHT be possible. Or would have before some land grabbing wanna be baron with a dozen alts snapped up the land just northeast of me before the corpse was even cold. Now, even if one direction expansion is ever made, I think I'm pretty much trapped between that and the gargantuan, unused, land-sucking monstrosity/obscenity that is Journey's End.