Public Places with disabled Criminal Acts for hafen

[borka]

http://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17900

yep bitza but with the outstanding changes in hafen a little rethinking should be allowed

[mvgulik]

http://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17900

Think that in these "thinking" topics, its a bit more useful to also add some additional content/context or quote to a bare topic link.

(Yea. I just saw the, presumed the first post was the target here, and immediately gave up.)

(Just in case: That little white document icon on the "by <poster> ..." line, will give you the direct link to that particular post.)

[Jackard]

derp

[mvgulik]

dork

[Xcom]

Just removing the ability to place down certain types of construction signs as hearth fires in the use of these public locations can be extremely useful for various builds. It just can't be PvP disabled or it would lead to a whole heep of issues. Few of biggest concerns for example in the maze projects was how easily it could get griefed with a few asshats being able to block CRs and mineholes preventing any further use. Even more difficult to police hearth fire placement to prevent people rushing through the maze. I can imagine trade outposts suffering from theft out of there barter stands or having there barters bashed suffering from the same problems.

All of these problems could be fixed by a specific type of claiming mechanic of sorts. A different type of village that would exert a different type of village claim. Would make the game interesting to have more then the run of the mill village idols. Different types of claims would behave differently and specialized in there own use and with there own upkeep, build requirements and behavior. Something for the endgame I guess, just hope the game does get some attention beyond the basic game development for it to get these features added in.

[venatorvenator]

The idea seems simple and feasible. If the no criminal acts area is a special type of claim, and if there's a high upkeep to maintain it (say, -X LP per tile per day), then most problems are gone.

Being able to have relatively safe inns and trade posts would certainly add a great deal of content the game. And if it does get abused as immortal safespots the devs can simply disable the feature.

http://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17900

That argument seems to have been made by a mathematician. I can't see how any serious ethicist or lawyer would ever defend such a position. To say that my action denies someone else another action is not wrong, but proportionality and potentiality must be applied. Besides, if you make a fuss about wanting to pick *this* exact apple and not the ones in any the other 80 trees behind you, you really need help.

I understand that thread as a long-winded way of saying this: I should be able to use force to guarantee my right of doing anything I want any time I want. Not being able to use violence opens the game to exploits.

If that's the case, that doesn't exclude no-pvp or trading zones. For example, these areas could be linked to an idol or stake somewhere else - on active pvp zones -, and that central node could be destroyed to dissolve the no-pvp zone. Or you could bash statues until you deauth the zone and everyone inside it is killable again. There are many other alternatives but the point is that you could still use force to get what you want. No-pvp zones aren't essentially against Jorbs philosophy.

[Saxony4]

If such a place is to be constructed, it will be razed to the ground with no consequences to the hostile party.

[mvgulik]

First:

Needs a larger number of people from the neighbourhood to setup

People -> Characters. And characters can be alt's. As there is no way to check or prevent that.
As such, It makes sense to have some sort of continued burden for upholding the protected zone by the founding characters. (making it harder for a single player to maintain it with just alts*)

alt's*) Although alt collection in HnH-2 is (apparently, time will tell) not going to be as easy as in HnH-1, it will of course still be possible. (Its just going to cost more time and effort.)

---

there needs to be a distance between those public places

Definitely.
Mind you. One side effect of very long distance build prevention is that it can also be used in reverse to detect them at that distance.

maybe only a certain number allowed per SG

That open up the option of some strong/large player group inside a SG (or any other pre-defined area) to eat them up, if they like to.

[jtpitner]

Looking at this again ..... I do not like the sound of this. 1 big excitement is always being on your toes and safety measures. So lets not have this. If we really want this to happen lets get a group together that is ready to fight to make it work...

[Arcanist]

I am in support, sort of.
I don't think that they should be player made areas, this just opens itself to abuse.
If I could create public safe area, I would just make one over my whole village, then I don't need to worry about getting raided.

Most other games have a newbie spawn point - town, boston in salem, newtown in wurm online, although in wurm you could still use criminal acts in the city, the only problem was that NPC guards would come and fight you if you did.