Bericht 31–40 van 47
door
Hummm4 jaren geleden
The only down side of my idea [no claim after Wonder button] is that it doesn't directly protect non-wonders, but it's a good first pass... I also suspect that people (noobs) are getting to Moniq's (glorious, best in-game, but non-wonder builds via a TP from a wonder) ... which it does solve.
door
4 jaren geleden
I agree with Frank, the no claim radious gives as much if not more power to the grieffers and makes things worse more than it would fix things. On the other side, Hummms idea is something very worth considering...and yes, Mentto and Weaboo came to Moniq's lands using a linked wonder.
door
4 jaren geleden
What about that a player A can claim right next to player B when: 1) they are friends 2) level of the player A is at least at [player B level - XX] level All builds will be safe from newbies when you will be at level XX+10. But others can still rise level and be able to claim.
door
Firefly4 jaren geleden
Proposing technical solutions at this stage detracts from clearly defining what the problem is. Let's first get a good idea of what the problem is. Who is running into what problem because of which preconditions? I'll try to define my view of the problem in broad and neutral language. I will use 'minor set' meaning less than 50% of a group and 'major set' meaning more than 50% of a group. Statement 1: A minor set of all players ("Builders") want to exclude a major set of all players ("Players") from claiming a minor set of all lands ("Lands"). Statement 2: Each of the "Builders" has a desired set of rules ("Policy") for defining which "Lands" must be excluded from claiming by "Players". We run into problems with Statement 2—there's infinite ways of defining which lands should be claimable or not (as demonstrated in this topic), but it all boils down to a finite set of "Lands" not being claimable. So I think we must have the "Builders" (Statement 1) enforce their own "Policy" (Statement 2) using in-game claims. That is the only unambiguous, language-neutral way of signaling: I don't want this land claimed. Just like being able to build what they want by arranging blocks in-game, "Builders" are able to enforce their no-claim "Policy" using in-game land claims. It takes a bit more time, but it's the most flexible, fair and foolproof way to do it. This also saves confusion by avoiding criteria like 'TPed to a wonder'. That is either abusable (TP a hero to a wonder, TP alt to hero) or very non-transparent. Account level differences are also very non-obvious and undesired (on Striped Road).
door
4 jaren geleden
So basically you suggest me to claim all ~6000 claims (because I dont know yet where and how much my builds will expand) as solution with the negative efect that no one else will be able to claim there even on places that are ok for me now? I am not satisfied with that, thats why we talk here. I want to prevent new players who will never come back to block nearby claims (that they will never use anyway). In better option, they will never touch it. In worse they will "create a mess" and then never touch it again. Ad 1) Wrong, I look for a rule that will serve every current or future builder and will prevent blocking right next to my existing builds. You can easily call every suggestion (new rule) non-translarent (also because of lack of documentation).
door
Rob124 jaren geleden
I'm going to way in on this and back Firefly. Even though I have suffered a similar fate to Moniq and had griefers claim land right next to very sensitive areas, that I either hope to build on and expand into in the future or have already. The game still needs it's basic FREEDOMS for all to be able to do the same things and not make rules for some and not others. So yes it makes me mad that some idiot would do what they do by claiming right next to us, but on the other hand I should not have been so open and friendly and let them know what I was doing in the beginning. I should have played smarter, but as soon as I realized what was happening I completely changed my game. No more letting anyone build on my land anymore full stop and Not being as friendly, which is sad for the game I'm afraid and one of the side effects of griefers misconduct on genuine players and thirdly I went and got some alts and claimed enough land to expand into for months, after which I probably wont need anymore land as I would have run out of ideas. So although griefers have bad effects on genuine players, it is still up to each player to play the game their way and that means if you want to block claims then you must claim yourself. That was not the way I first thought of it though but I changed my mind, because I listened to what Firefly told me and I think he is right. So Firefly if you come to look at those two claims I told you about, I wont be too concerned if you don't revert them. If worse comes to worse I will build a wall of clouds around them.
door
Hummm4 jaren geleden
As a mostly "non-builder" my personal take is a bit different. But I greatly sympathize with the builder community because, ultimately, an unwanted claim destroys the intentented purpose (present and future). I have an area ~ 50x50 that I like to hunt on. Because claims prevent creature spawn, and I'm there to kill creatures, any claims, by friends or griefers, destroy "my" land's intended purpose. I've suggested this more than a year ago, and I think it solves the problem for both communities. A new "protected" state, where a claim is protected by a player, it can be released by the protector, and then claimed or, left indefinitely as protected. A protected claim behaves just like an unclaimed land; creatures still spawn, players can't modify, creatures can cause damage, with the exception that it can't be claimed (by anyone). Only the original protector can un-protect it, either they don't want it anymore or they're ready to claim it. The question then becomes, how many claims can one account protect, and how much should it cost? ... I'd like to protect about 2500 claims! ouch! (it's actually less than 1/2 of the 50x50 square, so perhaps only 1200 claims) If the price point was set properly, you wouldn't need a cap on the number, because cash on hand would be the limiting factor. I propose 5000 to protect a claim, and only 3000 is refunded on the unprotect. (protect wisely, loss of 2000) At that price point, you will prevent even me (@ 3.3M coins on hand) from protecting even half of 50x50 area. (1200 * 5000 = $6M, and 50x50*5000 = $12.5M) ... even if the unprotect was a full refund, cash on hand quickly becomes a limiting factor to the number of protected lands a player can "grab".
door
4 jaren geleden
Im with Rob and Frank, no more special rules...claim what you need and done. I have been affected by claim grieffing as much as the next person, if not even more, since I do have a thick ring of other players accounts around my wonders, preventing future expansion...but I will live and adapt to it, I intend to create a mountain range around the whole thing to cover other builds so random d!cks wont break the vibe Im going for with the build. Around Ekplixi Ill do something similar and surround it with a custom forest. As for my "non-builder" standpoint, I used to hunt in a pretty amazing area...the path was around a huge mountain and I would just circle around it...killing mobs. I always told everyone to not claim there when they tped to meI Including but not limited to Marijn, Zephia and Spectrum all claimed there before I even left this game. When I came back a year ago I found that they claimed even more.I got over a million gold there, was the first to get to 500k there, same for 1M. It really upset me that I lost that place, and even worse, it was to people who I had friended. If I ever decide to go crazy with grinding again I'll just find a new area, not hard ever since we got the map. Theres no need to claim 6000 chunks, if you really cant expand anymore cuz of random grief claims, which is a lot less likely if your build isnt in thw wonder list..just start a new area.
Bericht 31–40 van 47
GODkinjal
