Cascade damage over palisade corners

[Spycrab2]

I might be wrong about this, I dont have the materials to test it. But it looks like this already built palisade (claimed) was destroyed by a bug. The raiders seemed to have built another cornerpost by the corner of the pre-existing wall, then destroyed that and by doing so caused cascade damage to destroy the existing wall. I might be completely wrong about this assumption though, I was told by the people that were raided that the palisade was sealed and that the raid happened faster than a 10 hour period.

Another possible thing that could have happened is that the corner post was unsealed and the raiders just extened it one tile, however this shouldnt be allowed imo because you arent allowed to build walls on others claims. This is technically off the claim however it was abused in a way that seems unfair.

[MagicManICT]

Not really a bug so much as an exploit of the rules and poor planning. One of the things that prevents this is that people without permissions cannot build walls on an active claim. If they claimed properly*, then there's no way for someone to build anything to cause the pallisade to collapse in a cascade like that. It can be argued that cascade damage shouldn't go from off the claim to on the claim, but coding that into the server might be harder to do without causing significant other problems.

*Claims should extend at least one tile, preferably more, from existing walls.

[Spycrab2]

It seems to be an exploit for the game because it is a bypass against things the developers have implanted to stop instant raids. They just build one palisade out, brand new palisade, which means even a freshly spawned alt (maybe with a little str) can destroy it (with yeomanry).

[jorb]

Should perhaps be adressed, but I'm not convinced it's a bug per se. Been known for some time.

[Clenda]

Not really a bug so much as an exploit of the rules and poor planning. One of the things that prevents this is that people without permissions cannot build walls on an active claim. If they claimed properly*, then there's no way for someone to build anything to cause the pallisade to collapse in a cascade like that. It can be argued that cascade damage shouldn't go from off the claim to on the claim, but coding that into the server might be harder to do without causing significant other problems.

*Claims should extend at least one tile, preferably more, from existing walls.

Seems to be unfair and/or no comprehensible for newbies.
How many tiles is necessary ? 4 if you can craft a large gate ?

[Granger]

Cascading damage should not be able to traverse through a cornerpost. It could damage it, but it shouldn't make it fall.
IMHO.

[Amanda44]

Another possible thing that could have happened is that the corner post was unsealed and the raiders just extened it one tile, however this shouldnt be allowed imo because you arent allowed to build walls on others claims. This is technically off the claim however it was abused in a way that seems unfair.

Whilst, ofc, I sympathise ... you do have the option to seal your corner posts to prevent walls being built off of it, so I'm not sure I agree that it is an exploit or a bug. The option to prevent it is there, it's up to you whether you act on it or not.

I guess that may not be something that a new player would take into consideration though being as how you cannot build on others claims without permissions, it is slightly misleading, so perhaps unfair.

[loftar]

Cascading damage should not be able to traverse through a cornerpost. It could damage it, but it shouldn't make it fall.
IMHO.

Hm, there is perhaps a case to be made. If this could solve the problem without having to involve claim permissions checking in damage cascades, that might be a fairly nice solution.

[Astarisk]

Cascading damage should not be able to traverse through a cornerpost. It could damage it, but it shouldn't make it fall.
IMHO.

Hm, there is perhaps a case to be made. If this could solve the problem without having to involve claim permissions checking in damage cascades, that might be a fairly nice solution.

Well, I don't remember the entirety of what happens when you destroy walls, but the problem here was that they didn't have their claim extending one extra tile past their walls. In this case, couldn't they just choose a middle segment, place a corner post a space or so away, and just build a normal wall touching the other normal walls?

[Granger]

Cascading damage should not be able to traverse through a cornerpost. It could damage it, but it shouldn't make it fall.
IMHO.

Hm, there is perhaps a case to be made. If this could solve the problem without having to involve claim permissions checking in damage cascades, that might be a fairly nice solution.

FYI: I ment this in the way that a cornerpost might get damaged by cascading damage from wall tiles, but should neither fall from it unless already heavily damaged (eg. from removal of the other wall) nor cause cascading and/or terminal damage (some might be OK, but not enough to destroy a >75% object) to adjacent objects (corners, wall-tiles, gates) in case it is destroyed.

This would keep the (iirc) initial intention behind cascading damage (nicer 'breach' from siege engines, being able to more easily remove palisades after brickwalls have been erected, ...) but remove the exploits from it.