Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
uli

And it starts

Recommended Posts

What they need to do is make a hybrid limited claim / hex grid system.

Go through each island and create a hex grid overlay of the land.  Allow companies to claim a hex grid region, but limit the amount of claims they can have.  No need for upkeep, just limit the number of claims.   Make sure that certain hex grids are not claimable to preserve key resources (i.e. metal nodes, etc.) from being blocked in.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Oak said:

What they need to do is make a hybrid limited claim / hex grid system.

Go through each island and create a hex grid overlay of the land.  Allow companies to claim a hex grid region, but limit the amount of claims they can have.  No need for upkeep, just limit the number of claims.   Make sure that certain hex grids are not claimable to preserve key resources (i.e. metal nodes, etc.) from being blocked in.  

All the metal, crystal, salt and coal nodes on our island are on the tops of mountains. we have a sprawling ramp and bridge system in place to make these resources accessable.

Your idea would mean our only access would be climbing picks. No thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered talking to him about removing those walls? I don´t think changing the system because of 0,5% idiots in this game is a way to go ... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jack Shandy said:

All the metal, crystal, salt and coal nodes on our island are on the tops of mountains. we have a sprawling ramp and bridge system in place to make these resources accessable.

Your idea would mean our only access would be climbing picks. No thanks.

We had similar issue with a foundation spammed mountain top, no way up, but needed the metals.  The cliffs were pretty steep, so what we did, was have a temp container at the bottom of the mountain, where my company mate was located, and we realised that one of us could grappling / pick to the top, harvest and drop / sling the metals over the cliff, where the packages were landing at my colleagues feet..  he just scooped up the packed and loaded it in to the box for temp storage.

Granted it's a bit of a Laurel and Hardy thing to do, but, it worked perfectly.  Got all the metal needed, jumped off with a glider, did some sightseeing, helped load the stuff on to the boat.

😄

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Vorxius said:

We had similar issue with a foundation spammed mountain top, no way up, but needed the metals.  The cliffs were pretty steep, so what we did, was have a temp container at the bottom of the mountain, where my company mate was located, and we realised that one of us could grappling / pick to the top, harvest and drop / sling the metals over the cliff, where the packages were landing at my colleagues feet..  he just scooped up the packed and loaded it in to the box for temp storage.

Granted it's a bit of a Laurel and Hardy thing to do, but, it worked perfectly.  Got all the metal needed, jumped off with a glider, did some sightseeing, helped load the stuff on to the boat.

😄

We did a similar thing before the ramps were constructed, wouldn't want to go back.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tbh it's really refreshing to see land owners building ramps for visitors on bears to reach things like treasure chest locations.  Part of me inwardly appreciates, and extends warm wishes to ones considerate enough to do this.  It actually makes me feel less resentful for the 20% tax...  happy to contribute to considerate owners.

I do digress, however...   Lawless is a farcry to the above though, you're lucky to be able to start a ramp among the wash of foundations and posts  😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after a set time as it is now then your stuff is safe

, there should never be a way for island owners on a whim to remove established players , Or as seen on these forums players leave the island new owner takes over and decides he doesn't want the player that has been on the island since day one, 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Willard said:

Have you considered talking to him about removing those walls? I don´t think changing the system because of 0,5% idiots in this game is a way to go ... 

Yes and he refused, so my ally placed foundations close enough to his constructions to stop him building anymore, not really the route that was wanted but blocking off portions of island from land travel for no reason other than because that can is not good for the game 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Oak said:

What they need to do is make a hybrid limited claim / hex grid system.

Go through each island and create a hex grid overlay of the land.  Allow companies to claim a hex grid region, but limit the amount of claims they can have.  No need for upkeep, just limit the number of claims.   Make sure that certain hex grids are not claimable to preserve key resources (i.e. metal nodes, etc.) from being blocked in.  

Yea, there's so much lag already - I don't even want to consider the overhead of a "hex overlay" across the entire map.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why shoot down an entire idea because of current implementation of things.   If most metal nodes are on top of mountains and it's in a no build grid, why not suggest the nodes be moved to the base of the mountains instead?  Sure, leave the biggest and best ones up there for those willing to climb, but also make it enough down below that people can build what they want and need with just a little more time investment to wait on respawns.

As for "overhead" for a hex system, only the devs could tell us if that would be an issue or not.  Only islands would have such so there's no need to do the entire zone since we can't claim water anymore.  I don't see this being any more resource intensive than when folks placed dozens of claim flags all over islands.  Would probably be much less and definitely easier to control.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 5:42 AM, Myk said:

The actual phrase is, "so it begins" .... not "and it starts," c'mon now.

It's actually: "And, so it begins..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Oak said:

Why shoot down an entire idea because of current implementation of things.   If most metal nodes are on top of mountains and it's in a no build grid, why not suggest the nodes be moved to the base of the mountains instead?  Sure, leave the biggest and best ones up there for those willing to climb, but also make it enough down below that people can build what they want and need with just a little more time investment to wait on respawns.

As for "overhead" for a hex system, only the devs could tell us if that would be an issue or not.  Only islands would have such so there's no need to do the entire zone since we can't claim water anymore.  I don't see this being any more resource intensive than when folks placed dozens of claim flags all over islands.  Would probably be much less and definitely easier to control.

 

The problem I see is the islands are not designed to be broken into hex's so they would have to redesign so all the claims have resources, access to water that supports ships, and a shipyards with land to build a base.  So look at the current islands and try to figure out a hex that is the same size for large, medium, and small islands that has those things. You also need to make sure that the good resources don't have the ability to be claimed. To me it just doesn't seem possible. This also doesn't address what happens to the claims when people come and go from a company.

5 hours ago, uli said:

after a set time as it is now then your stuff is safe

, there should never be a way for island owners on a whim to remove established players , Or as seen on these forums players leave the island new owner takes over and decides he doesn't want the player that has been on the island since day one, 

 

 

 

So the guy that wanted to join my tribe that was declined because some of the people in the tribe didn't like him, then demanded to know who said they didn't want him in, when I refused to tell him he said to me, "I will figure out who it is and I will track their IP then I am going to take my AK-47 and go to their house and shoot the people inside", gets to just be on our island forever because he has been there long enough? Or the one that told me that, "I hope the @%[email protected] chinese rape your daughter", he gets to stay on our island too cause he's been there a while right?

 

The rules for Lotus Land are simple, don't be toxic and don't build on resources. If you can't do that then I should be able to kick you out regardless of anything else.

~Lotus

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL; DR:  Rights need to be better balanced between settlers and settlement owners. Lotus has good ideas.

I don’t believe that there is a perfect answer that will make everybody happy.

I think that overall the new system fixes more issues from the old system than it creates itself. It allows most people to have a space to build, even if they cannot find an island for themselves.

Before I go into details, yes, our company owns a small island in the south-eastern tropics. There are no metal nodes on our island, minimal fiber, a fair amount of trees and stones , a good amount of crystal, and tons of three kinds of saps.

To me, the largest issues that it creates is the potential for friction between the owners and settlers.

We welcome settlers on our island, and do appreciate when they ask us about where it’s ok for them to build and where not to build. Our company is made up of four small companies or couples to get the island, and each of the groups has their own small base.

We have one German settler on our island that one of our members was able to do some basic communication with. He built a nice base near one of our groups, and doesn’t cause any troubles.

On the other hand, we have another settler that started building a massive base right where our main forest is. I’m not even sure what language he was speaking, as he only tried communicating once, but I tried to communicate non-verbally for him to not build in the woods. I removed the sections that he had put down in the trees, they were only a few at that point, and put up some billboards thinking that he would get the message. 

He didn’t. He built bigger into the trees, even up to and beside the billboards. He also built a massive pen cutting off the easiest path between the small island we’re on and the island he was on with the trees. He also built a large, walled in section, presumably to keep that area for himself, that cut off travel for all on that side of the island. I removed the offending structures and then put a few pillars down to prevent him from expanding into those areas again. There is still a large area around him to expand into, and he has built that way now, but he also started foundation spamming in the water around his base.

There are several boat building bases and traps that have been left on our island, but the owners periodically come by and refresh them so we can’t remove them. We’ve asked them to remove them, and they just give a non-comital response and leave them there.

I can’t really exaggerate how small our island is. On the map it looks like it’s small-medium sized, and it cost 47 points to buy, but it’s really one small island with 5 smaller islands around it, with a lot of the water being either too shallow to build a boatyard or anchor a ship leading to being too deep for a shipyard or to anchor a ship. We’ve found several shipwrecks in the shallows, and put up buoys when we find the ones extending out into the water. 

I think that there needs to be a rebalancing of the rights from the settlement owners and the settlers, at least in PvE. It’s too easy for the settlement owner to get screwed over by a settler for either taking a day off patrolling, or just taking a day off. At the same time, the settlers do need some form of protection from settlement owners that would just arbitrarily destroy their buildings.

I think that Lotus has a great idea for a starting point by allowing the settlement owners to specify who can build on the island, and if alliances were increased for PvE then the owner could have an alliance to invite settlers to, once they have both spoken to each other and both parties expectations have been agreed upon.

I also think that increasing the time for a settlement owner to be able to remove offending structures should be increased. I’d like 5 days to account for reduced play time during the week, but even 3-4 days would be adequate.

If the settlement owner felt the need to evict a settler, there could be an option to flag all of a settlers buildings for demolition. That could start the 10 day destruction timer, and during that time the owner of the structures should be able to remove the structures themselves and get full resources back to rebuild in a new location.

Another of Lotus’ ideas that I agree with is to increase upkeep in general, but especially for larger companies that own multiple islands.

To also incentivize these companies moving to larger islands as they grow, settlement owners should be able to pickup or destroy their own structures at any time for full resources. This removes the need for them to start over again on their new island with half of the resources they already had, which is another reason for them to just stay where they are currently.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been following posts by Lotus and Salty, and tbh, if land owners (landlords sounds too clunky), were like this more often then they should be given the grace to manage as they see fit.  Problem with great responsibility, comes the old cliche of great power.  If players could wipe all structures belonging to morons, then the world would be a much much nicer place...  however, you give that power to a moron, and, quite quickly you get giant swathes of real estate uninhabitable.   How to filter the morons, from the honorable?   Quite frankly you can't, unless there's some form of democracy involved, but how the hell that would work, i genuinely have absolutely no clue.

Lotus and Salty, keep up the good work, sounds like you have nailed the spirit of land occupancy.  You guys should write the book on island management!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 12:50 PM, Lotus said:

 

So the guy that wanted to join my tribe that was declined because some of the people in the tribe didn't like him, then demanded to know who said they didn't want him in, when I refused to tell him he said to me, "I will figure out who it is and I will track their IP then I am going to take my AK-47 and go to their house and shoot the people inside", gets to just be on our island forever because he has been there long enough? Or the one that told me that, "I hope the @%[email protected] chinese rape your daughter", he gets to stay on our island too cause he's been there a while right?

 

The rules for Lotus Land are simple, don't be toxic and don't build on resources. If you can't do that then I should be able to kick you out regardless of anything else.

~Lotus

Someone really said that?  I hope you reported them.

I see your point, but what if the new island owner IS one of those two guys?  Should they be able to start kicking people off an island they've been on for 6 months or a year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 2:21 PM, Salty Del said:

TL; DR:  Rights need to be better balanced between settlers and settlement owners. Lotus has good ideas.

I don’t believe that there is a perfect answer that will make everybody happy.

I think that overall the new system fixes more issues from the old system than it creates itself. It allows most people to have a space to build, even if they cannot find an island for themselves.

 

I think that Lotus has a great idea for a starting point by allowing the settlement owners to specify who can build on the island, and if alliances were increased for PvE then the owner could have an alliance to invite settlers to, once they have both spoken to each other and both parties expectations have been agreed upon.

I also think that increasing the time for a settlement owner to be able to remove offending structures should be increased. I’d like 5 days to account for reduced play time during the week, but even 3-4 days would be adequate.

If the settlement owner felt the need to evict a settler, there could be an option to flag all of a settlers buildings for demolition. That could start the 10 day destruction timer, and during that time the owner of the structures should be able to remove the structures themselves and get full resources back to rebuild in a new location.

Another of Lotus’ ideas that I agree with is to increase upkeep in general, but especially for larger companies that own multiple islands.

 

I agree with some of what you say,  but I'm not sure we can say that the new system allows most people to have a space to build yet, because the servers are nowhere near fully loaded.  When this new change came in, a number of us predicted that everyone would think it was fine afterward just because so many people have gone.  It looks like we were only half right about that.  We had listed all the ways this new system was unfair to both landlords and tenants, and all the things that would annoy each group.   It turns out that the things that are unfair to landlords are evident even without a fully loaded system, so now we're seeing the landlords' complaints and suggestions for changes, each of which make the tenants situation worse.  But the tenants won't speak up until the population numbers are up, so it's a bit unfair to not consider them.  I'd wait to see what it's like when/if the server numbers come back up.

To put some of these suggestions in perspective, you have to review what happened and how we got here:

The first claim system had smaller unlimited claims with no upkeep.  The earliest people grabbed all they wanted and later people reported they couldn't find land to claim.  After a while the player numbers started dropping and various expiration timers were put in place for claims.  It became a little easier to find a claim, but the fact remained that fully loaded servers wouldn't have a claim for everybody.

The devs came up with a change designed to allow everybody not to have a claim, but to have a place to build.  The idea was not popular, as what people really wanted were claims,  and this change made even fewer claims available than the last system.  So the devs new philosophy of "build anywhere"  was implemented.  Not only was it unfair to both landlords and tenants, but there was no way to resolve any of that without making it even more unfair to the other group.

 

You and Lotus are both approaching this from the standpoint of how to be more fair to landowners, but your solutions make it even less fair to tenants than it is already.

Of course it's not fair to landowners that they only get 24 hours to remove structures.  It's ridiculous.  People need to be able to be away from the game for as much as a couple weeks at a time for various things.  But if you change that, it's even more unfair to a tenant who has spent a lot of time starting to put a base together and then has somebody just wipe it all out.

The idea of being able to set permissions of who can and can't build is even more unfair to tenants on a fully loaded server, and it just won't fly under this system, because the whole system is based on the devs' idea that anybody can build anywhere.    That's the whole bit that made it possible to have fewer and bigger claims and still give the other players a way to play the game.  They promised people they could build anywhere.    (They never really meant it though, or they wouldn't have given other players the power to keep people from doing just that.)  Doesn't matter..that is as much a part of this new system as claiming an island is.

If you do away with "build anywhere" by using permissions, and then give the land owners an extended destruction timer, then what does the complete new claims system look like?  It looks like the old system, with far fewer claims than before, with claim caps and upkeep.  You still haven't got enough claims or now even enough land for all the players on a fully loaded server, and you've put over half the players subject to the whims of the other group who get to own the claims.

It's like we said back at the beginning of this change - there are things in it that are going to make both groups very unhappy, and it looks like the devs had a goal of making everyone unhappy equally rather than making everyone happy.  The unhappiness is balanced.  If you start tinkering with that balance in favor of landlords, you'll make tenants unhappier and vice versa.

I do applaud the ideas about making alliances a lot more useful.  I think they were designed with pvp in mind, but for pve they are the "town structures" in the game, and need a lot more detailed permissions, chat options, etc.  I also think the idea about increasing upkeep is good, but needs more discussion.  There needs to be an incentive for bigger companies to take fewer bigger islands than more smaller ones.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you’re right as well, Winter Thorne. And as you’ve said, a lot of the issues were pointed out to the devs before the changes were made. But, I don’t see the devs changing the claim system anytime soon.

For now, the best we can probably hope for is for them to make adjustments to balance better between the owners and the settlers. I would say that as they currently are, they strongly favour the settlers, at least in PvE.

Yes, the proposed ideas do make it less fair for settlers, but currently it favours the settlers too much. Even with a land owner that tries to block settlers, it’s very possible to build there, and now you have a situation where the owner and settler lead to a combative situation. The settler spends more time trying to carve out a slice of land from the owner, and the owner is actively trying to find them and tear them down.

The sad thing is, most of these issues could be eliminated if people would actually talk to one another.

The alliance only option forces this discussion, if the person wants to build on a specific island.

The increased upkeep costs give the owners incentive to accept settlers, or pay more to keep the land to themselves.

I still think that a better solution would have been the original system with limited claims and no sea claims, at least as far as PvE is concerned.

They could even have added the upkeep that the new system has, and I think it would work quite well. Simply fast travelling between claims means little if you can’t take the gold with you to pay the upkeep.

But, as I said earlier, I don’t see the devs making drastic changes to the claim system any time soon. They’ve made their bed, and now we have to lay in it. Doesn’t mean we can’t ask them to fluff the pillows, or maybe change the sheets. I do kind of expect them to short sheet the bed instead though. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Salty Del said:

I think that you’re right as well, Winter Thorne. And as you’ve said, a lot of the issues were pointed out to the devs before the changes were made. But, I don’t see the devs changing the claim system anytime soon.

 

They won't have any reason to even start rethinking it until or unless the servers start filling up again.  That's when the settler complaints will come in.  I think it only seems more unfair to landowners now because there are so few settlers that if a landowner is a jerk to them, they can easily find someplace else to go.  If the servers were full, and all the islands were claimed, and every landowner could set his island to alliance only,  the settlers, especially new ones would be miserable.

As a landowner, just as a rough guess, what percent of the people looking to settle your island do you consider to be unsuitable?  (Meaning, you don't trust them not to trash the place, or to be civil to your other tenants?)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, our island is quite small, as I’ve said. It is quite limited for resources, which I believe is a large part of why we don’t get many active settlers. 

We had one small group join our company as we were claiming the island. I believe we have three small groups that have built on our chain of islands, not including the taming pens and single foundations with beds, shipyards, etc.  that we can’t clear out because they keep getting refreshed.

Of the three groups that have settlements and are active, only one was problematic, but seemed to have calmed down. So 33% of the active settlers were/are what I would define as problematic.

If you want to count all of the companies that have built single foundations, four foundation bases and shipyards, taming pens and then abandoned them, or worse keep refreshing them, then the percentage goes well above 50%, probably closer to 67%.

And of all of the companies, which I think was about 12-15, only 2 spoke with us at all, and that was after we approached them. One was building his own base, and wasn’t doing anything that would obstruct others. The other had built a small base after his schooner was sunk on one of our shallows. I actually made him all of the base pieces he would need to rebuild his schooner, and I dove to salvage his old ship for him because of the sharks. We had all of the mats, so it didn’t take me more than a few minutes, and I wanted to make him feel welcome.

The only caveat here is that we have been on holidays the past week and a half, so I don’t know if the situation has changed much until we get back late tomorrow.

As an aside, I really don’t understand that mentality. You take the time to harvest the resources to build these structures, and then just abandon them when you could get half of those resources back, if not for the better reason of not just creating random clutter for others to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vorxius said:

Been following posts by Lotus and Salty, and tbh, if land owners (landlords sounds too clunky), were like this more often then they should be given the grace to manage as they see fit.  Problem with great responsibility, comes the old cliche of great power.  If players could wipe all structures belonging to morons, then the world would be a much much nicer place...  however, you give that power to a moron, and, quite quickly you get giant swathes of real estate uninhabitable.   How to filter the morons, from the honorable?   Quite frankly you can't, unless there's some form of democracy involved, but how the hell that would work, i genuinely have absolutely no clue.

Lotus and Salty, keep up the good work, sounds like you have nailed the spirit of land occupancy.  You guys should write the book on island management!

For PvE not having tenants should make a huge difference IMO. That way people can't be toxic cause they have the land. It should be more of a civil service to help people not something you go on a power trip with.

4 hours ago, Winter Thorne said:

Someone really said that?  I hope you reported them.

I see your point, but what if the new island owner IS one of those two guys?  Should they be able to start kicking people off an island they've been on for 6 months or a year?

If they want to remove people it's crappy but that is why I want upkeep to be brutal for land with no tenants that way they can kick people out but they are just owning themselves by doing so.

The one guy said it in game and the other guy said it in discord. I reported both.

3 hours ago, Winter Thorne said:

I agree with some of what you say,  but I'm not sure we can say that the new system allows most people to have a space to build yet, because the servers are nowhere near fully loaded.  When this new change came in, a number of us predicted that everyone would think it was fine afterward just because so many people have gone.  It looks like we were only half right about that.  We had listed all the ways this new system was unfair to both landlords and tenants, and all the things that would annoy each group.   It turns out that the things that are unfair to landlords are evident even without a fully loaded system, so now we're seeing the landlords' complaints and suggestions for changes, each of which make the tenants situation worse.  But the tenants won't speak up until the population numbers are up, so it's a bit unfair to not consider them.  I'd wait to see what it's like when/if the server numbers come back up.

To put some of these suggestions in perspective, you have to review what happened and how we got here:

The first claim system had smaller unlimited claims with no upkeep.  The earliest people grabbed all they wanted and later people reported they couldn't find land to claim.  After a while the player numbers started dropping and various expiration timers were put in place for claims.  It became a little easier to find a claim, but the fact remained that fully loaded servers wouldn't have a claim for everybody.

The devs came up with a change designed to allow everybody not to have a claim, but to have a place to build.  The idea was not popular, as what people really wanted were claims,  and this change made even fewer claims available than the last system.  So the devs new philosophy of "build anywhere"  was implemented.  Not only was it unfair to both landlords and tenants, but there was no way to resolve any of that without making it even more unfair to the other group.

 

You and Lotus are both approaching this from the standpoint of how to be more fair to landowners, but your solutions make it even less fair to tenants than it is already.

Of course it's not fair to landowners that they only get 24 hours to remove structures.  It's ridiculous.  People need to be able to be away from the game for as much as a couple weeks at a time for various things.  But if you change that, it's even more unfair to a tenant who has spent a lot of time starting to put a base together and then has somebody just wipe it all out.

The idea of being able to set permissions of who can and can't build is even more unfair to tenants on a fully loaded server, and it just won't fly under this system, because the whole system is based on the devs' idea that anybody can build anywhere.    That's the whole bit that made it possible to have fewer and bigger claims and still give the other players a way to play the game.  They promised people they could build anywhere.    (They never really meant it though, or they wouldn't have given other players the power to keep people from doing just that.)  Doesn't matter..that is as much a part of this new system as claiming an island is.

If you do away with "build anywhere" by using permissions, and then give the land owners an extended destruction timer, then what does the complete new claims system look like?  It looks like the old system, with far fewer claims than before, with claim caps and upkeep.  You still haven't got enough claims or now even enough land for all the players on a fully loaded server, and you've put over half the players subject to the whims of the other group who get to own the claims.

It's like we said back at the beginning of this change - there are things in it that are going to make both groups very unhappy, and it looks like the devs had a goal of making everyone unhappy equally rather than making everyone happy.  The unhappiness is balanced.  If you start tinkering with that balance in favor of landlords, you'll make tenants unhappier and vice versa.

I do applaud the ideas about making alliances a lot more useful.  I think they were designed with pvp in mind, but for pve they are the "town structures" in the game, and need a lot more detailed permissions, chat options, etc.  I also think the idea about increasing upkeep is good, but needs more discussion.  There needs to be an incentive for bigger companies to take fewer bigger islands than more smaller ones.

There;s other changes they should put in. The current problem with land is some of the bigger tribes did take more land than they should have. (I have seen 1 tribe with 4 small islands) I believe that they should have to pay an extra 250% upkeep on each island for that. If you make it so having a bunch of small islands costs you a lot on top of not having tenants a lot of the smaller islands will clear up. I have also noticed people trying to sell islands which is wrong imo. They should make it so you don't want to hold extra land because it hurts you too much. Gold is far to easy to come by and so people can afford to pay it in hopes of getting something you can't currently buy. If that island was costing somebody 1-2k a day they would want to drop it asap which they should.

With that said the rules would look like this:

Upkeep = 20x point value.

Settlers = 25% discount each.

Extra island = 50% increase on upkeep per island.

So

35 point island = 700g/day, 1 settler 525/day, 2 settlers 394/day

70 point island = 1400/day, 1 settler 1050/day, 2 settlers 788/day

105 point island = 2100/day, 1 settler 1575,  2 settlers 1181/day

This is where the sliding upkeep system screws the greedy guys (There's a lot of them) with +50% per island.

2 x 35 point islands = 2100/day, 1 settler on 1 island would make it 1837/day , 1 settler on each island would make it 1575/day, 2 settlers on 1 island  with 0 on another would be 1641/day.  The breakdown of this would be (35 x 20 = 700 x 1.5 (cause 2 islands) = 1050 x .75 (settler) = 788 x .75 (settler) = 591) + (35 x 20 = 700 x 1.5 (2 islands)= 1050) = 1641.

70 + 35 point islands = 3150/day

3x35 point islands = 4200/day

4x35 point islands = 7000/day (Just wanted to put that in there cause screw people that do stuff like that)

 

The idea is that having 1 big island should be cheaper than a bunch of little islands. The other thing they need to do though is make the islands more balanced where the bigger islands have more variety so they are worth more. Currently though abusing the lawless system is the current meta but that is a discussion for another time.

 

~Lotus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont even put effort in designing a system.

We get the PVP crap. They implemented not even half of what they said, upkeep is a joke!

 

10 days everywhere is a game changer tho.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lotus said:

The idea is that having 1 big island should be cheaper than a bunch of little islands. The other thing they need to do though is make the islands more balanced where the bigger islands have more variety so they are worth more. Currently though abusing the lawless system is the current meta but that is a discussion for another time.

I agree that having more islands should cost more in the way of upkeep and agree that some islands could use a resource re-balance, but I also think that they need to do a point system rebalance MORE then the resources.  There should be a formula for each island where it's starting point value is figured by it's over-all size, slightly adjusted up/down based on resource types, quantities available, and creature spawns, but then also more heavily influenced by the Biome that it's in.  Nobody lives in Polar and few live in Tundra or Desert, so why do those islands cost as much or more then several of the islands in Tropics or Temperate zones where more people are likely to want to settle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lotus said:

 

There;s other changes they should put in. The current problem with land is some of the bigger tribes did take more land than they should have. (I have seen 1 tribe with 4 small islands) I believe that they should have to pay an extra 250% upkeep on each island for that. If you make it so having a bunch of small islands costs you a lot on top of not having tenants a lot of the smaller islands will clear up. I have also noticed people trying to sell islands which is wrong imo. They should make it so you don't want to hold extra land because it hurts you too much. Gold is far to easy to come by and so people can afford to pay it in hopes of getting something you can't currently buy. If that island was costing somebody 1-2k a day they would want to drop it asap which they should.

 

Won't they just split up to avoid that?  I think if they want multiple small islands they'll have them no matter what the system is.  It bugs me because I would really like to see the alliance system improved because that would greatly help smalls and solos, but if you improve it too much, then it can become the alternate company system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about some of this and one of the big things they could do is get more islands into the habitable zone by making the world actually round - or sort of round. Its really silly to have as many polar zone's as equatorial so those servers are kinda wasted. I worked out in excel a system that kept the 15x15 map but reduced the total server count by about 25% - so it could be redone to perhaps 18x18 keeping the total servers to 225 but more habitable islands. The desert regions should be reduced too - we just acquired a new island in a zone where 3 of the 5 islands are unclaimed basically because they suck - if the space is not attractive no one will stay even if they go there in the first place - this means no settlers so more wasted space. Lotus is right that every island HAS to have the basics of fiber, thatch, wood and metal in some reasonable proportion to its size - they don't have to be easy to get but they HAVE to be there or its a non-starter. And yeah a 150 point island that has no metal........ the mega's are all fighting over those ones..... oh wait. I don't PVP so perhaps there is a reason to have one like that but for PVE its just a total waste.

  • Like 1

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  

×