Development Headsup: Unclaimed Walls Bashable

[DougRatmen]

Nice! I support this idea. Brick walls and pailsades tend to come after a claim usually, good to see this coming up. Will fix a lot of the problems with the boxing of LRs and etc.

I do worry about massive villages that have yet to claim all of their pailsades for some reason, they may have some big problems soon.

[Kaios]

obviously the pclaim would still claim the land with priority over the village as it currently stands, I disagree with the idea that someone who cannot manage upkeep on a village should even have one.

Over the course of several worlds but especially in world 9 I broke in to so many “inactive” villages and I did it using a wrecking ball. Often times these players had just gone inactive for some reason and only lost their authority a short time before I decided to loot them. In most cases I ended up returning items or helping the players restore their village that I fucked up because I couldn’t be patient enough to give them a chance to return.

cairns have a minimum distance, and I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, what do you mean by attacking claim? like you setup a personal claim outside of their walls and then you imagine a situation where someone puts up a personal claim to counter yours?

Yeah, the implication with siege chess is that we will be setting up the attacking claims an initial distance away and eventually moving forward as the siege progresses. I could place cairns to prevent these claims from being too easily setup in the first place or I can place cairns while sieging a place under my own realm to prevent them from also placing counter claims nearby such as to setup a safe pali. The minimum distance doesn’t matter much because it takes 8 hours to set a claim but only 2 for a cairn to dry.

[azrid]

Thank you very cool.
Already know a couple of villages with unclaimed pali.

[wonder-ass]

Yes, it’s reasonable if you only consider it from the perspective of a player in a village with many other villagers to help maintain the authority.

In reality I think such changes only screw over hermits and those with less time to play. Maybe a guy goes inactive due to reasons out of their own control and in that time his village runs out of authority. Should everyone be allowed to hand bash his walls the moment the village runs out of auth? What if there is pclaim over the village coverage that still has presence remaining, how would this effect that mechanic? Would you have to wait out the claim too?

Even preventing claims over cairns can have unintended effects that you have not considered at all. If I plan to siege a village why would I not just build cairns around my attacking claim to prevent someone else from creating their own nearby?

Does anyone else even bother trying to think about the consequences of these changes?

someone that doesnt log on for 1 whole month for the auth to run out doesnt deserve to keep that village.

[Kaios]

someone that doesnt log on for 1 whole month for the auth to run out doesnt deserve to keep that village.

Easy response to that, a group of players that put in the time and effort to create a decent sized, well-run and progressed village will eventually have some inactivity over time and perhaps the remaining player or players have a difficult time maintaining the authority of their home. This is the most common way every large village typically becomes inactive. Does it mean the remaining players didn't work hard for what they have? It really means they don't deserve to have any of it and you get to just come and take it away? For what reason would you take this stance towards people you don't even know?

[Granger]

someone that doesnt log on for 1 whole month for the auth to run out doesnt deserve to keep that village.

Easy response to that, a group of players that put in the time and effort to create a decent sized, well-run and progressed village will eventually have some inactivity over time and perhaps the remaining player or players have a difficult time maintaining the authority of their home. This is the most common way every large village typically becomes inactive. Does it mean the remaining players didn't work hard for what they have? It really means they don't deserve to have any of it and you get to just come and take it away? For what reason would you take this stance towards people you don't even know?

In case the village is too big for the remaining players they have the options to either reduce it in size or to take in additional members - interaction with new people is likely increase the interest in the game.

[Kaios]

I guess so but it's been made a bit more difficult to maintain a solo village with just the initial claim let alone banner expansions and I understand why but it's just another thing that punishes casuals as well. I mean, I did give an example of how players have actually been in this position before which no one seems to want to bother to address though.

[Kirche]

I did give an example of how players have actually been in this position before which no one seems to want to bother to address though.

because your anecdote is irrelevant, why should mechanics function around extremely rare circumstances

[Kaios]

because your anecdote is irrelevant, why should mechanics function around extremely rare circumstances

So is this whole thread though or are you saying it's not just a bandaid for a poor siege system?

[Granger]

because your anecdote is irrelevant, why should mechanics function around extremely rare circumstances

So is this whole thread though or are you saying it's not just a bandaid for a poor siege system?

Siege IMHO has nothing to do with breaking walls around resouces that shouldn't be walled in the first place.