Bericht 61–70 van 70
door
5 jaren geleden
Hello all ! I arrived here a little later after the war, but I'm still curious about what if you would have been working on the claiming system. First of all, sorry if I missed some information about the problem, the claiming system, etc..., I still carefully red like 90 % of the topic. English is not my native language. I think it's very hard to fight against griefers, but you still can act against the claiming system. Even if DND mode is not a 100 % solution, I think that the solution is as perfection is : (maybe) not 100 % reachable, but we still can get the closest possible ! If I understand the issue, in some words, it would be a mix with those words "griefers claiming close to people who, then, wont be able to expand". - So, why not allowing people to expand BEFORE griefers come ? By preventing other people to claim in the x64 radius of the first claim (sorry, I'm pretty sure I didn't get the claiming system yet, I'm a new player, but you surely get me), so it's like pre-claiming without allowing player to build right now in the whole radius that still had to be purchased later. This option is asymetrical where it doesn't allow 2 players to be first to claim a place (anyway 2 players cant... that makes me realize that the problem, with more precision, is that griefer can claim between your first claim and your 64th claim. If I'm not wrong. and so a solution would be something that prevents griefers to claim between those first actual claim and last future claims). - Why not also pre-claiming in a way that griefers still can claim close to you, but you still can expand whatever another people dared to claim close to you ? Plus, those later claimers close to you would have been warned when they claimed late that the could be overclaimed by the guy who claimed first in his own x64 radius ? Well, if the claiming system allows you to have 64 lonely claims, it would involve giving player reservation on 64x64 areas or something. Same for griefers, but is it a problem ? And which one is the most important ? I aim to give ideas that get you closer to a solution, and even if the problem seems solved with DND, I'm still curious to have your opinion about what I'm thinking. Anyway thanks for your efforts and for your presence, even if I'm still new and missing a lot of things about this game and his environment !
door
Firefly5 jaren geleden
Hey Sylvoute, thanks for taking the time to go through the entire topic and writing a constructive reply. First of all: I really don't mind changing or tweaking claiming and claims, but I dislike putting in effort without working towards actual solutions. Your first idea of "expanding before griefers" / "pre-claiming" sounds like Moniq's suggestion of having an N-claim wide border around your claims that is not-claimable by others. This seems to play into the first-mover advantage, but at the same time it makes a griefer equally more powerful at preventing expansion. The odds remain the same, you just play with bigger pieces (3x3 instead of 1x1). So this does not seem to be a solution. It also hampers communal building like on the Striped Road. Your second idea of being able to "overclaim" someone would eventually allow a griefer to overtake parts of your build without any recourse. You'd think it won't happen, because the original player has "the oldest claim", but this property shifts around based on where you look (for instance NxN claims), since you don't want to check the entire world for "the oldest claim". In practice there will be some area—"A"—in which the griefer can make sure he holds the oldest claim near your build, before you were able to expand there. And after you expand into "A", the griefer can invoke his right to overclaim you (even weeks or months later) and take control or destroy your work there. This would be an invisible time bomb. "Overclaiming" also doesn't align with my core view of Angeldust. From the start of the game I held the belief that players should feel that the game world is permanent and that their claims and work are permanent. This gives meaning to your presence and buildings. Taking that away makes the experience feel disposable and cheap. Next, I'm quoting one line for clarity: > Well, if the claiming system allows you to have 64 lonely claims, it would involve giving player reservation on 64x64 areas or something. Same for griefers, but is it a problem ? This falls under only wanting to spend time on solutions and not doing work just to appear busy. DND was a "solution" because it gives you better than 1:1 odds against unknown adversaries. Making each claim count for 8x8 still gives you 1:1 odds, while giving the griefers 64x more power. They can now preemptively claim (parts of) the entire world 64x as easily. That's not a step in the right direction.
door
Angelio5 jaren geleden
Wow, I can not even read everything so it's long and complicated to understand. But as good as me also I share my opinion and experience to maybe (hopefully) advance the subject. There is a great probability that what I am saying has probably been said before, but I can not read everything. For starters, I think there are 2 categories of people who claim: Those who claim to build something that is very likely to have nothing to do with other buildings around. But I do not want to talk about it in detail, what I'm going to talk about the most is the second category that you probably do not think to think about and have a reflextion, it is those who claims only to "register the places". But then you would say, "But why claim to register land when it can already do it?" Well just to get back to it later, but also to use these functions in other places where he or she can not do because a lot of groundwork will be required. Here I also wanted to tell you that there is not only a claimant to build thinking to be "friendly" but also to return to a place where he is not supposed to be able to do. I apologize for the errors if there are any because this text is so long that I am forced to use google translate Cordially, Angelio
door
5 jaren geleden
I don't understand how "This seems to play into the first-mover advantage," and "but at the same time it makes a griefer equally more powerful at preventing expansion" can match here. Maybe because I didn't understand the claiming system, I must be missing something. For me, it was thanks to pre-claiming that nobody could grief you. If you have reserved all the claims, how could they take them. Right now, I'm wondering : claiming limit is really 64 ? Or can we claim infinitely ? In other words, can i have infinite lonely claims that can be expandable to x64 ? Or can i claim one per one 64 times max ? (if think its the case). After more reflexion, overclaiming would (maybe) allow player to get back his rights to claim, which is probably not wanted. And "preventing people to claim here" is surely better than "allowing to do it until it would be unclaimed", so let's stay on this first sight. Maybe I'm repeating myself, but I don't see how griefers can prevent people to expand, when they have already pre-expanded ? If it brings in new issues as "a new player wouldnt check forever any claimable place", well, it's (maybe) still better than the griefing issue. In my opinion, same with a new issue that is "griefers can prevent people to claim x64 faster", because the world is more infinite than the number of griefers, so there still will be some place to claim (I was talking about the first claim before expanding). Anyway, if the goal is precisely to "prevent griefers", it seems very possible. But, if there are some under-goals like avoiding some complicaitons, which is understandable, it's another problem, that is also solvable. Each problem has it solution, the funniest part is the roadtrip to this solution :) Let's say that you're not only looking for a solution, but also looking for no more complications (or switching the big one with some less important). If "It also hampers communal building like on the Striped Road.", and if I understand what you're talking about, why not, in add with pre-claiming, allowing players to ask pre-claimers to claim in the pre-claimed area ? Binaries rules are hard to manage, because they cant satisfy all players, but letting those players choose which rule to apply could be a piece of solution to this. As DND is ;) I will look better to understand the claiming system.
door
Firefly5 jaren geleden
@Angelio: I think your point was already brought up by @Lucy- in post 57 here. It's a good point and definitely something to consider for the future. @Sylvouete: First of all: there is not much to understand about the current claiming system. You buy "claimable land" from the shop, then move to an unclaimed area, then claim it and then it's yours. No magic at all. You can have 64 pieces of land (at 32x32 blocks each) per account in total. The problem we're discussing here is that other players can and do claim next to you. I'm not going to repeat what I already wrote about pre-claiming or a non-claimable border for each claim. You play the same game/math against griefers, just with larger pieces and at a slight disadvantage since you still need to claim adjacently, losing some power there. The core problem I think is that some players don't know or care what they are going to build. So you can toss huge numbers around like 8x8 pre-claims, but eventually those players will say that they actually "needed" 200x200, so that nobody could come close to them. And they don't want to pre-claim land themselves, but expect the game to be clairvoyant and other players to be telepathic mind-readers. To be absolutely honest, I will not ever be able to implement or guarantee those conditions. > Maybe I'm repeating myself, but I don't see how griefers can prevent people to expand, when they have already pre-expanded ? That is the issue. You already could, already can and forever will be able to pre-expand. But again, some players do not care or want to plan or pre-expand. Instead they opt to hand their problem over to me post-hoc. That leads to the part where I say I have no technical solution [yet]. Aka: this topic. > Anyway, if the goal is precisely to "prevent griefers", it seems very possible. Awesome; I appreciate your unwavering energy and enthusiasm! Now that we're hopefully clear on the goals and expectations, I'm looking forward to your thoughts. Just to be sure I'll recap what I see as a solution: "A solution is (for me) an approach that improves the 1:1 odds against the bad guys." And one more random tidbit: the Striped Road was a successful, long-running building project where players jointly built a striped road all across the world. Along the road anyone is free to claim land and build something beautiful next to it. So any future claiming rules must allow for this kind of openness.
door
5 jaren geleden
Thanks for your patience :) In effect, i get it better now, so I will only reformulate the idea : pre-claiming would be something automatic so people won't have to anticipate (as long as their first goal is surely not to expand but to build or only to hunt). You first claim an area, so it would auto pre-claim the 63 next areas, we can imagine, in each direction, so it would be a 127x127x32x32 (so 4064x4064 blocs) blocs preclaiming... after you only claim one area. Well... my idea now seems a little too much ahah ! (even if it still solves the issue of griefers in my opinion). DND is surely better because it doesn't involve the game to mutate too much. Also, instead of pre-claiming, is it feasible to make griefers ask for a confirmation to claim in a "expandable by another guy close" area ? It "seems" less too much, so it's still too much. Plus, it adds griefers/trollers the possibility to claim, as you said before, parts of land so people, even if still able to expand, wont be able to claim easily some places. To be forced to go faaar away to claim is not a good thing. Maybe another kind of solution would be to allow people to move where their claim is, without erasing their builds (as my avatar is actually loading my house if I'm right). But it's more a healing than a prevention, which is what we are looking for.
door
5 jaren geleden
Oh, one idea. But let's first add accuracy to the issue(s). There seems to be 2 type of griefers : - post-griefers, you first claim then they prevent you to expand by claiming ; - pre-griefers, which don't prevent you to expand but worse, to claim at an area where you even would like to expand one day (anticipating after one year ingame for example). And maybe that even non-griefers are an issue this way in some rare cases. Well, those pre-griefers would gain advantage from pre-claiming features which would be a solution only against post-claimers. In any way, pre-griefers take benefit of claiming rules, so it doesn't seem possible to act on claiming rules to solve the issue. Now, the idea : when claiming, auto pre-claiming (still same idea) but with a variation : if player 2 or griefer claims in the pre-claimed area, ok, let's not prevent it, but let's make the "later" claimed area be visible/interactible) only for the late claimer, so the first claimer still can expand, build on the same area... they would only share the same starting area. OK, it's a crazy piece of idea, and another sort of mutation for the game, maybe it would break the game's concept... But maybe something to explore here ? At least it counters both type of griefers. Indeed it also brings other issues as preventing players to see other's people builds. -> so why not restricting the visibility/interactibility thing only to players who claimed on the same area ? I'm curious :)
door
Mayckon Mz3 jaren geleden
@Ruank4 na minha opinião,vc não errou em nada,o erro foi desse jogador que reclamou terra.
Bericht 61–70 van 70
fatih+
