Alternative to Enclosure Rule based on Permissions (Claims)

[Marshlander 188]

I'd like to put down an idea that came to my mind while thinking on the Enclosure Rule and possible alternatives. My personal view on reading the discussion thread about the topic and seeing what was happening in Wurm was that:

 

Major Con: More land is currently occupied by established players using the Enclosure Rule to grab real estate without paying for it compared to actual newbies who establish a small homestead, preventing any other player from entering and thus creating huge no-go zones.

 

Major Pro: Something like Enclosures are needed for players to take an active interest in the world around their deeds, to shape parts of the lands around them, to have areas of interest that promote travel and interaction as well as access to off-deed resources.

 

The following idea is something that kept creeping up on me, and I want to put it out here for discussion as well as to see if it could be balanced well enough to address most concerns.

 

Claims and their Permissions:

 

The core idea is to remove protected fences as the main mechanic, and to instead allow players to create areas (working title: "claims") where they can apply a subset of permissions just like they can do on deeds, while not actually giving them full ownership and allowing for more player-to-player interaction on this land. This would remove the need to close off entire areas to other players, while giving 100% protection in certain aspects - for a cost and under some restrictions.

 

These "claims" (to give this idea a working title) would always be limited to certain aspects of gameplay, limiting the types of permissions the player can impose:

 

1. woodcutting (and planting sprouts, enchanting trees) OR

2. mining (and strongwalling) OR

3. farming (and enchanting grass) OR

4. taming and leading animals (and enchanting grass)

 

(not sure the last one is needed due to the negative consequences of off-deed breeding)

 

Claims would always protect against terraforming, building or bashing by other players, whereas the claimholder could do so. Anybody can forage and botanize, which will help newbie survival. There would be no permissions setting to prevent item pick-up.

 

A claim would have no effect on decay.

 

Claim Overlap and Competition:

 

Because claims are not the same as land ownership, different types of claims are allowed to overlap (but not by more than one third - or two fifths? - the claim size in one dimension). This means: one player can claim woodcutting rights, while another can claim farming rights overlapping up to half of the first person's claim. Immediately upon placing the second claim both players would be prevented from further building on the overlapping area (unless they got along and gave each other permission). Both the farmer and the woodcutter could now utilize the overlapping area, and as long as they replant after harvesting, the tiles on their claim could not be interfered with by the other player. Both players would be allowed to bash in the overlapping area.

 

A claimholder would have an area in the center that is guaranteed to be free from this kind of overlap competition (and this is where they should build if they intend to do so, unless they're certain to have no claim encroaching on one of the sides).

 

Similarly, deeds cannot be placed or extended over claims, but their perimeters may extend over them (and would need to be able to do so in order that claims cannot block deed extension indefinitely).

 

Claim Placement:

 

A player would purchase an item (perhaps a sign?) from a trader for the type and size of claim (perhaps three general sizes?).

 

A player would need to be a villager of an existing deed in order to place a claim. This is necessary to associate a claim to a deed to prevent anonymous claims placed simply to block other players. (A new player would have to be taken in to and thereby vouched for by the existing community). There would be a limit to the number of claims that can be placed by the members of one deed.

 

The placement of the claim would only be possible if at least half of the claim's area did not overlap with existing claims and deed perimeters (and none of it may overlap with existing claims of the same type). This means that if a deed extends its perimeter over a claim, the claim could not be placed in the same spot again.

 

On placement, a claim would always last three (four?) months. During those three months, the claimholder may place another claim of the same type to replace the current claim. This would ensure that claims cannot be used to just reserve land for extended periods of time as is possible with deeds.

 

A claim would be visible on examining the claims tiles.

 

Claim Limitations:

 

I already mentioned the limit on claims associated to one deed and that they always last a fixed period of time, during which they can be extended.

 

There would also be a per-character limit of the number of claims that they are on the permissions list of (that includes being the claimholder of course). This ensures that multiple alts and deeds cannot be used to extend your claim permissions beyond what is alloted to one account.

 

Balancing and Discussion:

 

Does this idea limit the current use of Enclosures, or does it provide a more simple and immediate means to grab land?

 

This would depend on the balancing (cost and limitations per deed and character) of the implementation. I think if it was balanced right it could

• establish player's rights to privileged use of land outside of the deed mechanic
  
• limit this use of land in an effective way, thus not giving those with the skills and resources to do so the means to claim practically unlimited amounts of land
  
• ensure that there's a small cost and activity requirement involved
  
• provide a strong permissions-based mechanic for protection as well as interference by other players
  

Could it be used to grief deeds and player interests?

 

Pretty much in the same way current Enclosures can, with some important differences:

• placement of claims are subject to limitations, unlike putting up 1x1 shacks
  
• claims are not anonymous, they are linked to existing villages and accounts
  

Does it help new players enough?

 

Probably not, due to the limitations of claims per deed. A new player would have to strike up quite a good relationship with the existing community in order to be trusted with a part of their claim allowance. Then again, deeds not wishing to establish claims might very well use the mechanic to get a new villager to set up somewhere before deeding up.

 

Since I don't believe that the Enclosure Rule primarily helps new players I don't think this is much of a problem. New players will always have to get along with their neighbours or be faced with someone who is more established to use existing game mechanics against them.

 

Won't claims lead to more land shortage and less places to deed?

 

Unless they are limited reasonably, quite so. The time period a claim lasts would need to be balanced against how long a shack lasts on perimeter, in order to prevent claims from being an advantageous tactic. Over time, claims cannot prevent a deed from extending.

 

On the other hand, the limit on claims could be as low as 2 per deed and character (meaning no more than two claims associated to one deed, and two claim permissions per character).

 

What are the advantages of this idea again?

 

This idea would be enforced by game mechanics similar to those for deeds (and not require totally unique game mechanics).

 

Protecting land using these rules would allow players to open up their claimed areas to visitors and the public. Fencing-in would be optional (for aesthetic or paranoia-based purposes) and not entirely protected from interference.

 

It would allow for different kinds of usage scenarios ranging from private housing and resource access to public facilities and heritage sites.

 

Land-grab under these rules would be limited and subject to some cost (much lower than deeds though). It would not include the concept of land ownership.

[Kegan 3,926]

Well i liked most of it i would take out the overlap part altogether i don't want to be forced to share an area with someone else. Make it so claims can only be set on the deeds perimeter and since we are paying a monthly fee for the perimeter already then the claim flag needs to just be a one time purchase.  

 

Well i guess if you think about it we just need perimeters to be reworked to include the options you posted about.  Why put in a new system when we already have perimeters? They just need to improve them a little and they would do all you are suggesting except the overlap and i think that is a bad idea anyway. 

Edited April 14, 2014 by Kegan

[Marshlander 188]

Well, I guess every deed owner cares about their perimeter, the previous discussion has already revealed that. I believe deed-owners do not own perimeter and that it is a kind of nature preserve around our deeds & buffer zone if you will.

 

If enclosures only mattered on deed perimeter, I would agree with you - why have another mechanic.

 

Do you think adding other points of interest - canal entrance, tunnel site, safe houses along the road, off-deed mine, off-deed plantation, etc - into this game mechanic is not viable?

 

Because this idea is specifically aimed at creating limited protection for off-deed projects that are not meant as a place where anybody lives, or is a villager (and yes, I think some people already use deeds for this purpose, while others use enclosures).