Game Development: Keeping up with the Joneses

[Potjeh]

The easiest solution would simply be to be able to easily destroy anything on your own claim, yes.

I don't even want to know what kind of incentives for claim warfare that creates. I don't like claims at all as it is, and I certainly do not feel inclined in the slightest to give them more magical powers.

You do agree that fixing design mistakes is too much work, though? Ramming down walls to expand takes quite a bit of character development if you're a hermit and want to do it legit (ie not multiclienting).

How about just adding a way to slowly destroy buildings without any strength requirements? Fire, acid, termites, represent it with whatever you will, it doesn't really matter. You just initiate the process, and 48h later the building goes poof. In the meantime you can interrupt the process in case you change your mind. That way we get the same nice thing without involving magical claims in it.

[jorb]

I've been pushing for fire for ages, but I think you overestimate the power of the present code-base a bit if you think we could actually have such a nice thing at present.

[Potjeh]

Couldn't you just reuse the wind chimes with slight alterations?

[cobaltjones]

The easiest solution would simply be to be able to easily destroy anything on your own claim, yes.

I don't even want to know what kind of incentives for claim warfare that creates. I don't like claims at all as it is, and I certainly do not feel inclined in the slightest to give them more magical powers.

You don't even want to know because guess what, there aren't any.

Please explain how being able to easily destroy something on your own personal claim would have gamebreaking repercussions (hint: it won't).

[NOOBY93]

The easiest solution would simply be to be able to easily destroy anything on your own claim, yes.

I don't even want to know what kind of incentives for claim warfare that creates. I don't like claims at all as it is, and I certainly do not feel inclined in the slightest to give them more magical powers.

You don't even want to know because guess what, there aren't any.

Please explain how being able to easily destroy something on your own personal claim would have gamebreaking repercussions (hint: it won't).

Make v-claim, unclaim p-claim, claim it yourself, insta-bash the wall, get in, snatch stuff without even leaving scents, gtfo

[cobaltjones]

Make v-claim, unclaim p-claim, claim it yourself, insta-bash the wall, get in, snatch stuff without even leaving scents, gtfo

And what exactly is wrong with this scenario?

If you're able to revoke the claim then you should be able to do whatever you want with the land once you claim it for yourself. I really don't see how this is a problem at all. Literally the only thing different about your scenario and how it's currently set up would be the time required (you wouldn't leave any scents if you revoked the claim and set up your own), and since you've already revoked the claim and put down your own, all the stuff inside is as good as gone anyway.

Here's your comment revised so it fits in line with the current implementation of the game

Make v-claim, unclaim p-claim, claim it yourself, set a ram, bash the wall, get in, snatch stuff without even leaving scents, gtfo

Seriously. Try again.

[NOOBY93]

People wouldn't bother unclaiming a land when they are sure a ram needs 24 hours so the guy can simply pack up all his best stuff and leave.
In the "insta-bash your own claim" scenario, people could raid unvillageclaimed places so easily... It's not even okay.

[cobaltjones]

I think you're sincerely overestimating how much a 24hour wait would hinder would-be raiders, especially when the original owner now has to leave trackable theft scents for anything he wishes to take with him.

The system as it stands now is clunky and severely hinders creativity and experimentation when it comes to building and designing in a sandbox world, which are two elements which have been severely neglected in the game design for a long while now.

[jorb]

Please explain how being able to easily destroy something on your own personal claim would have gamebreaking repercussions (hint: it won't).

It makes the erection of a claim an act that implies the right and possibility of automatic destruction of things. It thus creates external reasons -- beyond marking ownership -- to erect claims. I cannot conceive of all the possible interactions that gives rise to, but the fundamental incentive there isn't sound, quite simply.

[cobaltjones]

Please explain how being able to easily destroy something on your own personal claim would have gamebreaking repercussions (hint: it won't).

It makes the erection of a claim an act that implies the right and possibility of automatic destruction of things. It thus creates external reasons -- beyond marking ownership -- to erect claims. I cannot conceive of all the possible interactions that gives rise to, but the fundamental incentive there isn't sound, quite simply.

Automatic destruction of things which are not already claimed, which really isn't that big of a deal, no? We always tell people "if you don't want your shit stolen, claim it" so what's wrong with extending that to "if you don't want your shit destroyed, claim it"? You even state the point of claims being a "marking of ownership", so why shouldn't destruction rights also come along with that ownership?

I'm finding it hard to imagine a scenario in which some object which would be worthy of being destroyed would not already be claimed by the owner. Honestly, take a second and try and come up with a real world scenario in which being able to easily destroy objects on your own claim can be exploited.