Architect Archive
Thread: A simple lot swapping solution
Page 1 of 1
ravingbantha
Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:22 pm
#1
I'm not 100% sure if this idea has been posted before but hear is my solution to the lot swap problem. Of course this is bearing in mind that the real problem with lot swapping is mainly about harvesters.
Make it so that a resource that a harvester is going to collect is part of the placement process and that resources cannot be changed once placed. See how that would end static harvester farms, and be real easy to do.
I do not agree with building decay, It's unfiar to all that one day their house will just fall apart. Unfair and unrealistic
Evialla
Sat Sep 04, 2004 2:33 pm
#2
I was thinking about the situation of lots and (lack of) harvester decay, cross-server lot trades, the massive-multi-lots (20-40 or more per person in some cases), harvesters that just sit on one spot forever and ever, and all of these situations, and I dreamed up an idea called Toxic Earth.
Just as resources shift, and spread across the land in different concentrations for varying lengths of time, so might this "toxic earth". If the earth under say, a harvester shifs in as or becomes "toxic", the harvester would still continue to function, but at a markedly lower rate due to the effects of the "bad earth" under it disturbing its mechanisms. In addition, maintenance might rise (or actually use up maintenance at a slightly quicker rate), due to additional strain on the machinery. Then, in the event that decay ever is actually implemented, harvesters on "toxic earth" would decay at a slightly quicker rate than usual, as well.
I realize you don't agree with building decay, as being unfair, but there always varioius ways to implement things so that the "hurting" is minimal but effective in its purpose.
Message Edited by Evialla on 09-04-2004 02:33 PM
Elyssa
Sat Sep 04, 2004 2:37 pm
#3
Until re-deeding is absolutely free (no cost, no decay, nothing!), ANYTHING that forces me to pull up a harvester in order to operate it is unacceptable.
Beyond that,anything that requires me to pull up and then completely reset a harvester for no reason other than administrative functions is more trouble than its worth.
Just because the resource I was initially pulling has shifted, I should not be prevented from pulling a second resource that happens to be on the same spot without doing a complete reinitialization on the harvester.
ravingbantha
Sat Sep 04, 2004 2:49 pm
#4
Elyssa wrote:
Until re-deeding is absolutely free (no cost, no decay, nothing!), ANYTHING that forces me to pull up a harvester in order to operate it is unacceptable.
Beyond that,anything that requires me to pull up and then completely reset a harvester for no reason other than administrative functions is more trouble than its worth.
Just because the resource I was initially pulling has shifted, I should not be prevented from pulling a second resource that happens to be on the same spot without doing a complete reinitialization on the harvester.
free redeeding would really help the issue. And yes having to redeed to change resources would be a pain, but the only other suggestions I see are harvester decay. We already have that, it's called maintnce. I have a static lot farm.. never denied it. I have 80+ harvesters in one spot. And if and when they solve the lot swap issue I will take them down and go back to buying from miners. I am simply trying to propose a solution that will not harm the current structures such as buildings.Perhaps harvester decay (and only harvester decay) will be fine as long as we do not have to deal structures going poor from decay.
Evialla
Sat Sep 04, 2004 2:58 pm
#5
I always thought that the re-deeding fee and the maintenance fees were part of the games core systems, for the purpose of removing credits from the economy (money-sinks).
Elyssa
Sat Sep 04, 2004 3:02 pm
#6
I wouldn't want decay unless it could be repaired somewhat inexpensively.
These things are expensive and I don't want to have to replace mine all the time just because the devs felt they needed to put an end to people who are running amok by punishing those of us that use only "legitimate" means for placing harvesters.
Punishing casual gamers in order to reign in on power gamers is equally unacceptable.
Pawlin
Sat Sep 04, 2004 3:38 pm
#7
This would hurt folks (like myself) that do static harvesting with their own harvesters.
The other solution I've seen would be to require it so that only the owner of the lot can change the resources. That would hurt folks who rent static lots though.
I don't think theres a perfect solution that would effectively nerf cross server lot trades and not inconvenience other people.
But I think that its worse to make it more difficult for people to use and maintain their own harvesters.
Elyssa
Sat Sep 04, 2004 3:42 pm
#8
Ok, now that I've given it some thought, here's my idea.
It doesn't require re-deeding. It doesn't cause decay. It doesn't create roadblocks for the casual gamer. It doesn't cause property to "poof" without warning.
It doesn't completely prevent cross-server lot swaps, but it does make them considerably more inconvenient.
Also, it doesn't significantly hamper same-server lot rental. I consider same-server lots to be fair game because it allows you to benefit from "player interdependency" which seems to be the goal of the devs.
What is this revolutionary idea, you ask?
Much like the way that citizens that don't log in for a certain amount of time are no longer considered residents of a player city, if a player doesn't log in to a particular serverfor a certain amount of time (1-2 weeks), all structures that the player owns go intoa "lockdown" mode.
Basically, everyone is removed from the admin list but not the hopper/entry list.
The only way to remove the lock at this point would be for the owner of the structure to visit EACH locked structure and unlock it. Once unlocked, the timer would start again.
With no 'other' admins, a structure will begin to decay naturally but won't poof outright.
No one can pay maintenance it so there is a risk of losing the structure unless the owner unlocks it.
Any objects stored in the structure would become inaccessable.
Harvesters could not be re-tasked.
Factories would be of limited usefulness.
Hopper permissions would permit limited use and entry permissions would allow normal entry.
Same-server lot rental would be largely unaffected because as long as the player logs in regularly, the lockdown would never happen.
Cross-server trades would not be stopped completely but they would become significantly more troublesome.
Extended time away from the game would require that there is enough maintenance in the structure to cover your absence since no one would be able to maintain the structure if you are gone for too long.
Magister_Ludi
Sat Sep 04, 2004 3:44 pm
#9
I have 16 harvesters in a static farm. They are all my own lots. It is a pain in the rear to have to move 16 harvesters around every time a resource shift happens. Especially as an Architect I just need to keep mining Ore.
ravingbantha
Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:05 pm
#10
actually the log in won't work, because it only looks for an account log in. The players that I do lot swaps with play all the time, so they are always loggin into their account, and their for my harvesters would never go into lock down. Caue those same people have houses in the city I live in. and they are still are part of the city...
ravingbantha
Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:40 pm
#12
still won't solve anyting. I can spend 3 mins and log into each of my characters on my lot swap list, and bypass that. even if you make it so they have to be logged in for a certain ammount of time, I can just log them in when I go to work, set a wave macro to keep me in game. Even if they end recursive macros, i can go inside a house and set to auto run into a wall, to keep me in the game. Do this each day for a different character....
Not trying to play devils advocate, just trying to help find a resolution to the issue.
Elyssa
Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:05 pm
#13
I never said it would stop it... I merely said it would present a barrier without preventing legitimate usage.
The more inconvenient a 'workaround' becomes, the fewer people there are willing to do it.
Page 1 of 1