Cascade damage over palisade corners

[MagicManICT]

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

One is enough. I'd recommend 3-5. Due to previous bugs, this was always a practice, anyway, so vets of the game didn't bother to notice other than using such a thing as an exploit, as before this rule (must have permissions to build a wall on a claim) was implemented, people were doing this while players had a buffer in the claim.

As far as incomprehensible... well, several aspects of the game are that way. The devil is always in the details, and this game is full of details. The basics are fairly simple and straightforward, I think (at least for a complex game, anyway). Any time you have interactions, they have to be defined in some way, and there may be no "good ways" to solve or simplify those interactions. Some interactions are just plain complicated and can't be simplified.

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.

I seem to recall the "claim checking" being the issue when this was first implemented. Is it that expensive or no algorithm that could simply it?

@Granger: seems as good a rule as any to me. If you want to remove a section of palisade, you could just start at the corner, and seems like I've read here and there that this is a preferred target, anyway.

edit: clarity

[jorb]

In b 4 walls made out of only corner posts.

[MagicManICT]

A) It's gets expensive fast with the amount of leather and glue needed

B) it'd be cheaper to go corner wall corner wall, etc and you still only have a 3 tile wide hole.

C) Something could be said about the amount of cascading, too. 3-5 tiles are reasonable. Dropping a dozen or more like I've seen some holes is silly (my opinion, of course).

[Granger]

C) Something could be said about the amount of cascading, too. 3-5 tiles are reasonable. Dropping a dozen or more like I've seen some holes is silly (my opinion, of course).

You're not alone with that opinion.

While cascading might come handy when you actually remove all of a wall the RNG will hate you and stop it - when it completely sucks as you only want to remove a few tiles to make room for a net gate the RNG will happily continue till nothing is left at all.

So IMHO for criminal acts it should be limited to a few tiles (possibly less for a wrecking ball and more for a catapult), for actions taken by the claim owner there should be a way to control it (stop at an intended point or to let it run to get rid of an old wall).

[loftar]

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.

I realized it would help anyway, since all you'd have to do is to either connect two lines of wall to the same CP, or just do it over more than once.

I seem to recall the "claim checking" being the issue when this was first implemented. Is it that expensive or no algorithm that could simply it?

It's not so much that it's expensive. I just think it's an ugly mechanic for that; it's as if the wall knows who hit it ten tiles away, and politely stops falling when it hits someone else.

[MagicManICT]

I definitely agree with you there, but there has to be some balance of being a game and realism. Realism says "don't care, it happens." Game says "lets be fair as best we can."

[Enjoyment]

Maybe just add another restriction?
"You cannot terraform under active claim w/o permissions even as a crime"
So, ppl just can build some moat around their walls, that would prevent raiders to use said exploit due to inability to construct anything adjusting to existing wall.

[Granger]

"You cannot terraform under active claim w/o permissions even as a crime"

That would boil down to: 'no more soil/acre clay digging on claims'.

[Enjoyment]

"You cannot terraform under active claim w/o permissions even as a crime"

That would boil down to: 'no more soil/acre clay digging on claims'.

why? "dig" and "terraform" looks like different commands.

[Granger]

"You cannot terraform under active claim w/o permissions even as a crime"

That would boil down to: 'no more soil/acre clay digging on claims'.

why? "dig" and "terraform" looks like different commands.

Different words, same effect.