The Ghost of Christmas Future, II

[Amanda44]

@ LadyV - I hadn't even thought of this until you've just said, good job, it seems like it needs addressing. I'm not sure about the above claim being mirrored below, that doesn't seem right and after all it's too much if we still have 5 layers, not to mention nodes are not directly on top of each other unless you are very lucky, lol, my iron and tin were, but the copper wasn't.

At first I couldn't see what was wrong with just simply allowing the character to have more than one claim, the same char still has to use it's lp wisely, managing progression and expanding the claims, that in itself would make huge lp banks harder to achieve. But, then I realised that I am thinking as a hermit, once a group have formed that simply wouldn't work at all, think of all the ground they could cover!

This does lead me to think of something like a "minor claim stake" A construction object you could place on/near the inside edges of your existing claim, and basically it gives you another default square to expand your claim from. So you could the shape of your claim a bit more diverse. And so you could expand your claim inside your minehole/cave. I would imagine that these minor stake claims could given some balance by not having an overly high soak value. So even though you can't destroy an enemy's main claim. If you can get to these poles you can hack away parts of it. Hopefully the parts that are claiming something you want. Like all that delicious ore.

This sounds a bit more plausible but I don't see why they have to be destructible and anyway, you wall your underground layers, or at the very least the entrance points so access to the 'minor claim stake' wouldn't be an issue.

Or, maybe it will just give you the incentive to work harder to get your wandering alt home/meet up with friends. You can still secure your cave system without a claim in the initial stages giving you a window to work with. Actual mineshafts come a bit later by which time you should have your alt or friends.

[LadyV]

@ninja yodeler

Yes that is what I meant. The above claim only covers a few areas around the minehole. A starting point to grow off of.

@Amanda

if your worried of huge LP banks then each layer down could cost more LP to expand upon. That way it remains a securing asset more than a storing one.

[Potjeh]

I don't see a single reason why LP invested into a claim should be refundable in any way.

[loftar]

I don't see a single reason why LP invested into a claim should be refundable in any way.

IIRC, the original reason was to make it possible to "modify" a claim, quite simply, as there's no support for shrinking them. That's the only reason I still consider (somewhat) valid; they were certainly not intended as LP banks. And I'm sure that can be worked out some other way, for sure.

[kitsune121x]

I don't see a single reason why LP invested into a claim should be refundable in any way.

IIRC, the original reason was to make it possible to "modify" a claim, quite simply, as there's no support for shrinking them. That's the only reason I still consider (somewhat) valid; they were certainly not intended as LP banks. And I'm sure that can be worked out some other way, for sure.

leave it the way it is people let them continue doing it they still work for those points even though people shouldn't be using a claim but there should be some method in the game where people can store points for emergencies they went through the process of earning points for

[SynthAura]

Perhaps pclaims could be permanently and immediately destructible, and if they're destroyed the LP would be lost. If removed by the owner though the LP could be kept. This would add an additional value and risk to claimed property and makes raiding and claiming land easier if you neglect to patrol your walls.

[Kaios]

they still work for those points

I would hardly call logging an alt once a day and filling it with curiosities work.

[TeckXKnight]

I don't see a single reason why LP invested into a claim should be refundable in any way.

IIRC, the original reason was to make it possible to "modify" a claim, quite simply, as there's no support for shrinking them. That's the only reason I still consider (somewhat) valid; they were certainly not intended as LP banks. And I'm sure that can be worked out some other way, for sure.

Would it be possible so that only the original creating character could be refunded any lp from a claim and inheritors could earn nothing? That would strip away any ability to bank lp there as the whole point is to avoid the lp loss on death.

[Joe69]

Why not just cap P-claim size?

[Karede]

they still work for those points

I would hardly call logging an alt once a day and filling it with curiosities work.

Nevermind the process of making the curios