Palisade Wall Costs

[Audiosmurf]

If this was a bad idea, there'd be no point in bullying the person who posted it. The bullying serves two purposes, to discourage players from posting ideas you disagree with and to silence any support or discussion of this idea in particular. You being scared of an idea is not the same as it being a bad idea, and increasingly it's starting to look like the opposite might be true, since you keep flying off the handle whenever anything that would make the game work better for players who play it for fun instead of as an outlet for their constant internal rage.

You're so much less intelligent than you think you are and have no business acting as haughty as you do

[Aerona]

Ok, have fun being robbed with your stuff outside of your palisade. Of course, your detection level probably isn't even high enough to see that you've been burgled, so, what would you care? You weren't using it anyway.

Have fun indeed! It is fun having theft be a part of the game, and not just against lone homsteads and wilderness camps that don't have walls at all! It'd be wonderful to have a reason to put valuables inside the most defensible part of a settlement and to leave low value items outside where they're accessible without vandalism, so that it's not always all or nothing, in for a penny, in for a pound. It makes the game more interesting and creates an ecosystem where more playstyles are possible, and more responses are sensible.

Bases would NOT be smaller; people would chop down more trees. Cloth? For Visitors Gates? So, you want all the thieves to have easy access to everyones stuff without debuff? You know, why not just remove wooden locks while we're at it?

Yes, people would chop down more trees. But they already do that to build bigger bases with larger walls, and using more resources puts players at odds with each other. If the costs for large palisades are higher, that doesn't just mean players have a reason to build smaller palisades, it also means that players who build large palisades aren't just taking up the space they're in, they're a thorn in the side of everyone in the area, and they'll have fewer and more hostile neighbours as a result, which puts them at a disadvantage. Natural selection means they're not going to do as well as those who build moderately and exhibit less extreme greed and paranoia.

Getting primitive cloth isn't that difficult, especially compared to all the other resources required to build a palisade in the first place. Only one visitor's gate is needed to provide the main benefits. Too many visitors gates is a problem not just for aesthetic reasons, but for functional architectural ones as well. The way they're most often used, they function as a barrier that's permeable to the owner but not to everyone else, which means they let the owner go where they want while everyone else has to circumnavigate a sprawling barricade. Increasing the cost brings it back in line so the owner faces more of the same inconvenience they're inflicting on everyone else, so that they have to balance their desire to be in complete control with a cost or a risk instead of it just being a freebie awarded to anyone who builds a large palisade. tl;dr, the way it is now is unbalanced in favour of players who 'turtle up' against those who go exploring.

I'm familiar with the concept of 'airlocks' and gatehouses. I don't see them often, and certainly I don't mind seeing them on the rare occasions I do encounter them. But they are rare, because the most common thing players do is build many, many, many visitor's gates with fence gates behind them.

ALSO, gates for palisade cost 30 for 2x wide and 45 for 3x wide. Where the fuck did you get 15?

15 times 2 is 30, 15 times 3 is 45. Gates are 15 per tile, straight walls are 3 per tile.

And, people use large lots of land. This is normal game play. It may seem empty to you, but it will all get filled and then need expansion over time.

Are you upset because people put more effort into their bases than you do? I don't get what you're on about, but good luck.

Here's the problem, or one of them at least. With minimal effort, any player, myself included, can claim a vast area of land they have no interest in using. The only practical limits are how much LP they have, how much cloth they can produce for village banners, and how fast they can plop them down, because the other costs are negligible in comparison (at least until the trees and stones in the area are depleted.) Right now, there's far more than enough trees in available in most places to build these giga-palisades on site without needing to leave the enclosed area to cut down more. On top of that, players can build dozens of visitor's gates so that these walls don't cause them any trouble at the same time as they waste everyone else's time forcing them to detour for minutes to get around them. Subjectively it's ugly, objectively it deprives the game of content, variety, and anything else other than giant nigh-impenetrable squares.

Side problem: Gates don't experience cascade failures like other palisade sections, so placing otherwise superfluous gates (especially visitor's gates) in strategic locations makes it possible to protect walls from collapsing. I think it's good that gates have this resistance, but I think it should cost more.

Brick walls still exist. Right now they aren't used for much except as a status symbol, since they don't provide a great jump in functionality over palisades despite having a much higher cost and it would be more practical to just build multiple layers of palisade instead of a brick wall. More expensive palisades would give brick walls more of a reason to exist, they might even be more convenient to build for the walls of an extremely large village.

ps
prolly should have let someone else tell you all this in a more kind manner, but hey... i took the time so enjoy

Hey, it was real discussion! The bar was set beneath your feet and you cleared it with flying colours.

[springyb]

Cyber bullying the mods into quitting was a mistake.

[Audiosmurf]

Cyber bullying the mods into quitting was a mistake.

Very much so, but there are some cocks you just can't unsuck so now we're stuck this way

[abt79]

Cyber bullying the mods into quitting was a mistake.

yeah because the mods were so diligent in deleting c&i excrement by shubla and other retards back when they were “active”

-2 to the idea btw not your worst post but hey you did hawk your spyware here not so long ago

[Aerona]

Maybe it's because you see ghosts everywhere and they got sick of trying to fix problems that are in your head.

[Ø]

Side problem: Gates don't experience cascade failures like other palisade sections, so placing otherwise superfluous gates (especially visitor's gates) in strategic locations makes it possible to protect walls from collapsing. I think it's good that gates have this resistance, but I think it should cost more.

https://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=75127

Key Fixes
-----------------------

• Walls can now cascade through open gates. Also fixed a bug by which wall cornerposts never cascaded westward.

Please, read the announcements.

Do not attempt impose your play style on others simply because you feel you have been inconvenienced and do not like the aesthetics of someone else's base.

[Aerona]

It's not 'imposing my playstyle on others' to argue that the costs of walls should be rebalanced. If it was, then it would be 'imposing your playstyle on others' to try to stop me from doing it as well. The reason it's not that way either way is because the devs aren't automatons, they're able to think and aren't controlled by words said on the forums. You can't and I can't control how the game works by fighting here, so stop trying and get back to making an actual case instead of playing the victim.

If you read what I said you'd know that this isn't just about me not liking the aesthetics of large squares with repetitive features or none at all. Like I said at the start, part of the problem is the high cost of corners and the low cost of straight walls creates a strong incentive to create large, featureless squares. This means that even those who don't like the aesthetics of a base like that are still encouraged to build it anyway. You can't argue that's a good thing this way, you'd have to articulate why it's a good thing for players to be expected to build structures that make the game less interesting for them just because they can and it would be mechanically disadvantageous not to.

As for the inconvenience part, [i]everyone but the base owner[i/] is inconvenienced by this, not just me. People who are not inconvenienced by this are those who don't walk around. That's not good, especially since the game is full of features like world wonders, hunting, quests, and resource nodes to encourage players to explore and travel, which huge walls spoil the fun of. Wouldn't it be better if builders were encouraged to create villages that visitors can actually pass through without an entire room full of siege equipment, and to build keeps and castles instead of just one giant megastructure? (Not that I'm against megastructures. But one that only takes one person and a hundred trees to build misses the point of one.)

I just caught up on that new announcement in the hour between. Yes, interesting change, it's going to void a few designs (including some of the more obnoxious ones) and make it easier to lay siege in general. I'm not sure about it; it seems strange for the cascade to transmit through an open space, though a gate being torn down when a wall beside it goes down makes sense. I think gates and cornerposts should be more resistant to cascades in general, they have a much higher cost and they look more robust in-game. Even with rebalanced costs straight walls will still be so much less expensive long stretches will always be available to create a breach in a fortification around anything larger than a well or a mine hole.

[Halbertz]

I'll be good cop:

I think the cost of palisade wall straight sections should be increased, and the cost of cornerposts (after the first) decreased. ... he map is more fun to navigate if big box palisades aren't everywhere

Look, we are playing in game where everything is rectangular shaped. Houses, mineholes, and so on. You also can't build diagonal - only SN and WE. And finishing it with natural landscape doesn't have particular impact on building. As the result we have "box palisades". Nothing like tweaking cost back and forth won't change it.

I think adding a rope cost for gates (one for width 2, two for width 3) and a cloth cost for visitor's gates would also be good. The idea behind visitor's gates is for them to be used by visitors, but over 90% of those I see are only used to apply the debuff to anyone stepping through so that fence gates behind them can't be interacted with. That's clever and all, but it's ugly when there's dozens of them around an enclosure containing a million map tiles.

Visitors gate make more good then evil. I even think they should be build by default, with ability to transform them to non visitors. Just their existence in game saved thousand of hermits bases, and you want to make them less accessible? Because they are 'ugly'? What an evil person you are!
Cringe

[Aerona]

That's 'good cop'? Well, it's definitely a part of some kind of routine...

The cost wouldn't make visitor's gates less accessible, because that would require it to be difficult to obtain the resources to build one. Key word: One. A hermit only needs one or two visitor's gates. If a hearthling can't obtain a couple pieces of cloth by the time they've put down two bone glue, ten ropes, five leather and several hundred blocks of wood - and most likely another gate as well - it should be easier to get a couple pieces of cloth. What the cost would do is discourage building visitor's gates everywhere so the owner can dodge the inconvenience they're creating for everyone else, rather than for their purpose in the game design.

All the cost adjustments I'm suggesting share this common thread: The incentive structure they create is progressive. Players who are building at a small scale are impacted less by them than those who are building massive sprawl. Increasing the cost of straight wall sections and decreasing the cost of corner posts, to 7 and 15 or even to 5 and 20, would help with that. Yes, in this game walls always have to go in cardinal directions, but they don't have to form rectangles or squares, they can form many shapes.

The most basic 20 by 20 palisade more than 50% of its wood blocks put into just its five corner posts and a small gate. A 2000 by 2000 pallisade might have, for example, four width 3 gates at the midpoint of each side. That's ~600 blocks in 24 tiles that are not straight wall sections, 24,000 blocks in ~8,000 straight wall tiles.

When corners cost 10 times as much as straight walls, this not only discourages building any other shape, it also discourages building small. The 2000 by 2000 palisade costs (only!) ~62 times as much, but encloses 10,000 times as much space! Increasing the cost of wall sections, especially relative to corner posts, rapidly brings that back into balance, in addition to all the other benefits, without making it easier to start building a palisade in the first place.

It's beside the point, but if the people you're calling 'hermits' were actually hermits, they wouldn't want visitors' gates because they wouldn't want visitors.