PDA

View Full Version : Suggestion: Dead land between housing properties could be used as roads



Guiscard
03-03-2015, 05:49 AM
As we all know, public land between housing properties can be used as any public land anywhere but is subject to theft. Two housing properties sufficiently close render that dead land in between useless for further development (less than 8 game meters apart, the minimum requirement for a small scarecrow or workbench).

Suppose that both properties on either side of this dead land are owned by the same player. Effectively, this land is now controlled by that player as no one else can develop it but is still unusable in a non-public fashion. As a suggestion then, I would like it considered that such land fall under the control of the adjoining owner where "special" types of craftable items could be placed, such as road or path tiling that could possibly become available through Masonry or other relevant proficiency. This would add to the aesthetics of housing areas as well as reward players for owning adjoining land which they are paying taxes on. Perhaps placing paths or roads may offer a collectible "toll" to help offset the rising costs of taxes as more land is owned which could be "harvested" once a day, or something entirely different like "traffic" points each time a player passes over it which might allow a "path" to be upgraded to a "road" thus reflecting the volume of traffic. Such roads placed around Fellowship Plazas would then develop quickly and more accurately depict the traffic passing by as you would expect, whereas little used paths would remain as weed laden cobblestones perhaps. At intersection that are sufficiently upgraded, it may even be possible to add streetlights or parkbenches. Something to consider.

bettyboopinblue
03-03-2015, 05:56 AM
Might help to make traveling through densely populated areas a little easier to navigate too. I think that's a great idea.

Fargrist
03-03-2015, 06:00 AM
I like this idea.

Shananuga
03-03-2015, 06:33 AM
like the idea but its hard to include.

First, the useless space is all over the place so it will end up more like hundreds of small roads that aren't connected.
Second, what about useless space at housing borders? how will you determine who will get those? Small reminder, there exists expansions to some housing areas, the border is not fixed.
This could aslo begin to get out of hand because people will try to maximize their land. I don#t know if its enough to only allow aestetics to prevent that from happening.

In theory this is a good idea but i don't see it implemented like that. Tho i wished that masonry would get more attention :/

Kloee
03-03-2015, 06:37 AM
Part of me wishes everything snapped to an 8x8 grid instead of a 4x4 grid.

Grizabella
03-03-2015, 07:28 AM
Meh. Solve all these issues by allowing land expansion scrolls to merge adjoining land plots that have less than 4 squares between them. One scroll per adjoining side. So as an example, on EZ I own a Thatched next to a 16 x 16 next to a small house. There is 1 row between each property. Let me merge my land to one big plot and then use the 3 1 x 16 strips that are now useless. Maybe price the scroll based on the distance so that if you are absorbing a 1 x strip it costs less than a 3 x strip.

Khaop
03-03-2015, 07:30 AM
Make it so that all players whoms land touch the ground in question can build/demolish road there.. Then we will start to see neighbor wars, especially if it costs someonething to build the road. One neighbor builds there, another deconstructs it and so it begins..

Dalnim
03-03-2015, 08:01 AM
Part of me wishes everything snapped to an 8x8 grid instead of a 4x4 grid.


Meh. Solve all these issues by allowing land expansion scrolls to merge adjoining land plots that have less than 4 squares between them. One scroll per adjoining side. So as an example, on EZ I own a Thatched next to a 16 x 16 next to a small house. There is 1 row between each property. Let me merge my land to one big plot and then use the 3 1 x 16 strips that are now useless. Maybe price the scroll based on the distance so that if you are absorbing a 1 x strip it costs less than a 3 x strip.

I agree with both these points. I would definitely love to be able to merge land together. I currently have a Thatched. Off of it, I have 2 8x8s and a 16x16, with another 16x16 off that. And it is near the corner of the housing area, so the way the border zig zags, and with the other plots around me, unless I demolish the thatched, I can't place a Gazebo farm, so I had to settle with what I got. Would be nice to be able to safely use the little bit of area in between each plot.

Modescond
03-03-2015, 09:28 AM
how about we use the land expansion permits to add on ~100 square meters of land each? let us have non-square land. polygonal land ftw.

Bramble
03-04-2015, 10:03 AM
This is a tricky one. The only observation I have from the "large" area of contiguous plots I've managed to collect (Townhouse and 8 16's and about 5 8's around it) are:

All the in-between spaces really "belong" to me as well in my mind. The pathway running straight in front of my front door, the pathways that run down the sides of my house as examples. Those pathways are bracketed by my house and my owned plots. Because those pathways are completely bounded by properties I own, by all reason they "belong" to me as well.

Game mechanics however aren't sophisticated enough to discriminate to that level, so, you do have a regular flow of Yard Bandits who run through people's areas looking for stuff to snatch.

Why is this a "big deal"?

Well, it's not really a big deal, but consider:

There are few of us who actually like the Aesthetics of things. Call it the Arts, Landscaping, whatever. I've been planting various trees around my "Estate" trying to break up the mechanical look of SQUARES. And I'm fairly successful . . . until those between-my-owned-plots runways are poached.

Sort of different out in the world, on mountainsides, etc., but there might be something worth considering for developed areas with adjacent plots with the same owner.

Zappalot
03-04-2015, 10:39 AM
This is a tricky one. The only observation I have from the "large" area of contiguous plots I've managed to collect (Townhouse and 8 16's and about 5 8's around it) are:

All the in-between spaces really "belong" to me as well in my mind. The pathway running straight in front of my front door, the pathways that run down the sides of my house as examples. Those pathways are bracketed by my house and my owned plots. Because those pathways are completely bounded by properties I own, by all reason they "belong" to me as well.

Game mechanics however aren't sophisticated enough to discriminate to that level, so, you do have a regular flow of Yard Bandits who run through people's areas looking for stuff to snatch.

Why is this a "big deal"?

Well, it's not really a big deal, but consider:

There are few of us who actually like the Aesthetics of things. Call it the Arts, Landscaping, whatever. I've been planting various trees around my "Estate" trying to break up the mechanical look of SQUARES. And I'm fairly successful . . . until those between-my-owned-plots runways are poached.

Sort of different out in the world, on mountainsides, etc., but there might be something worth considering for developed areas with adjacent plots with the same owner.

Or even better bring up some item (on the Bluesaltshop) that renders anything planted (on your property) a design item which can only be destroyed, but stay there as long as it isn't destroyed.

Bramble
03-04-2015, 07:12 PM
Or even better bring up some item (on the Bluesaltshop) that renders anything planted (on your property) a design item which can only be destroyed, but stay there as long as it isn't destroyed.

I'm not sure what you mean.

SkullMonkey
03-04-2015, 07:19 PM
This is a tricky one. The only observation I have from the "large" area of contiguous plots I've managed to collect (Townhouse and 8 16's and about 5 8's around it) are:

All the in-between spaces really "belong" to me as well in my mind. The pathway running straight in front of my front door, the pathways that run down the sides of my house as examples. Those pathways are bracketed by my house and my owned plots. Because those pathways are completely bounded by properties I own, by all reason they "belong" to me as well.

Game mechanics however aren't sophisticated enough to discriminate to that level, so, you do have a regular flow of Yard Bandits who run through people's areas looking for stuff to snatch.

Why is this a "big deal"?

Well, it's not really a big deal, but consider:

There are few of us who actually like the Aesthetics of things. Call it the Arts, Landscaping, whatever. I've been planting various trees around my "Estate" trying to break up the mechanical look of SQUARES. And I'm fairly successful . . . until those between-my-owned-plots runways are poached.

Sort of different out in the world, on mountainsides, etc., but there might be something worth considering for developed areas with adjacent plots with the same owner.

I don't particularly want to reward the land barons for intentionally greedy placement of land exploiting the grid snap system. I have a lot of land and I have done the same thing myself, but should I be rewarded for my greed? No. I should have anything I plant in between my properties able to be stolen by anyone that feels like taking them. That's the price for my greed. 9 times out of 10 I get away with planting stuff there anyway so it's a non-issue to me.

talizzar
03-04-2015, 07:34 PM
This land is for the planting of wild things. Sheesh. Public farms for the win.

Bramble
03-04-2015, 08:40 PM
I don't particularly want to reward the land barons for intentionally greedy placement of land exploiting the grid snap system. I have a lot of land and I have done the same thing myself, but should I be rewarded for my greed? No. I should have anything I plant in between my properties able to be stolen by anyone that feels like taking them. That's the price for my greed. 9 times out of 10 I get away with planting stuff there anyway so it's a non-issue to me.

The issue of "greed" (or not) isn't really relevant here.

It was simply an idea to benefit those of us who like to play around with the Aesthetics of things, the ability to change the way an entire landscape might appear.

In the case of open fields, areas outside of Housing districts, not much to do there and it would make no sense to alter that whatsoever.

In this case it's about the "in between" runways that are bracketed by the same owner. In those instances it's not really unreasonable to say maybe that could be looked at.

"Land Baron Greed" isn't affected by this one bit. Their affect on land grabbing/acquisition isn't impeded or enhanced by this idea. Therefore it's irrelevant.

For myself, it would be more pleasant to have "my" property left alone by free-for-all Yard Bandits busy poaching through Housing Districts, instead of hunting down unprotected plantings in the World.

It's not that it's a huge deal. Simply odd: That I can have several adjacent plots, all organized into a small "estate" or subdivision, and someone's able to poach a planting that's right off my front door, or the side of my house, dozens of yards from my outer property boundary.

Just an idea is all. Given the base mechanics involved it's not likely anything would be changed anyway.

I do like to change the way things look however. A sequence of screenies from Barren to Planted, almost all the trees on in-between spots:
9216
9217
9218
9219
9220

Bramble
03-04-2015, 09:00 PM
Last one, trees still not mature yet:

9221

SkullMonkey
03-04-2015, 10:02 PM
The issue of "greed" (or not) isn't really relevant here.

It was simply an idea to benefit those of us who like to play around with the Aesthetics of things, the ability to change the way an entire landscape might appear.

In the case of open fields, areas outside of Housing districts, not much to do there and it would make no sense to alter that whatsoever.

In this case it's about the "in between" runways that are bracketed by the same owner. In those instances it's not really unreasonable to say maybe that could be looked at.

"Land Baron Greed" isn't affected by this one bit. Their affect on land grabbing/acquisition isn't impeded or enhanced by this idea. Therefore it's irrelevant.

Actually it's Relevant because it would encourage people to intentionally create as big a gap as they could get away with between properties in order to get more free farm space. Basically everyone would but huge gaps between their properties and less people over all would be able to fit their houses/farms in a zone.

That's why I say it would only fuel land greed. It'll never happen. The devs recognize this and that's why the system is the way it is. That is also the reason why houses are on a 4x4 grid snap vs letting us freely place properties like we can place plants/trees

SkullMonkey
03-04-2015, 10:12 PM
The issue of "greed" (or not) isn't really relevant here.

It was simply an idea to benefit those of us who like to play around with the Aesthetics of things, the ability to change the way an entire landscape might appear.

In the case of open fields, areas outside of Housing districts, not much to do there and it would make no sense to alter that whatsoever.

In this case it's about the "in between" runways that are bracketed by the same owner. In those instances it's not really unreasonable to say maybe that could be looked at.

"Land Baron Greed" isn't affected by this one bit. Their affect on land grabbing/acquisition isn't impeded or enhanced by this idea. Therefore it's irrelevant.


Actually it's very relevant. The reason why it's a bad idea is because everyone would leave huge gaps between their plots in order to get more free farm land. Less people would be able live in housing zones because everyone would be throwing down properties with the biggest gaps they could get away with in between them.

The devs recognize this and that's why it's the way it is. In fact that's also why there is a grid snap system in the first place vs free form placement like trees/plants. People would simply place properties so that the open space around it was just a hair too small to place a 16x16 down next to them so that they could "reserve" as much space as possible. The grid snapping prevents that to a degree by forcing users to set down properties at 4x4 snaps from each other.

Bramble
03-05-2015, 09:58 AM
Actually it's very relevant. The reason why it's a bad idea is because everyone would leave huge gaps between their plots in order to get more free farm land. Less people would be able live in housing zones because everyone would be throwing down properties with the biggest gaps they could get away with in between them.

The devs recognize this and that's why it's the way it is. In fact that's also why there is a grid snap system in the first place vs free form placement like trees/plants. People would simply place properties so that the open space around it was just a hair too small to place a 16x16 down next to them so that they could "reserve" as much space as possible. The grid snapping prevents that to a degree by forcing users to set down properties at 4x4 snaps from each other.

People assume so much sometimes, creating phantasms where they don't exist. Of course you'd have to apply some common sense to the criteria to be used if you were actually going to implement "something" here.

Right? You'd actually have to think out relevant details . . . like the obvious one you've pointed out.

Who ever said "make it so that people can leave huge gaps and still get protected plantings?"

Within context this is the minimum distance available between plot boundaries. That's the 4x4 snap distance, yes? Seems like that might actually be the relevant trigger for the idea.

Anyway, the point of an idea is to have it presented for consideration. Whether it goes anywhere, as with any idea, isnt' guaranteed.

Realistically though, it's not likely this would be looked at seriously given it's involved in the baseline functionality of the grid system. Way too many other things needing work take priority over this thought, by orders of magnitude.

-----------------------------------------------

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss event; small minds discuss people" - Henry Thomas Buckle

Grizabella
03-06-2015, 08:09 AM
The problem is that the grid system makes things worse. I can block 4 16 x 16 plots with one 8x8 placed in the middle and then all of that land adjoining is rendered useless. But I see the issue with rewarding placement 3 squares apart as it would encourage even more greedy placement. That's why I think the solution is the land expansion certs. Make it 1 cert for adjoining land between your properties that is 1 square wide. Make it 3 certs for 2 and 4 certs for 3. That would incentivize close placement and allow cleaner land.

Bramble
03-06-2015, 09:44 AM
The problem is that the grid system makes things worse. I can block 4 16 x 16 plots with one 8x8 placed in the middle and then all of that land adjoining is rendered useless. But I see the issue with rewarding placement 3 squares apart as it would encourage even more greedy placement. That's why I think the solution is the land expansion certs. Make it 1 cert for adjoining land between your properties that is 1 square wide. Make it 3 certs for 2 and 4 certs for 3. That would incentivize close placement and allow cleaner land.

Can't disagree with you.

Was hunting for land for a long time, "competing" against players who'd show up and BINK, win the placement over several others standing there . . . . over and over, the same guys.

Changed my tactics to simply working the people angle, made contacts, pulled out the Patience Skillz.

Paid off, had someone put up a Townhouse + six adjacent 16's. Had no where near the gold to pay for it all at once, and lo and behold the guy was willing to take like 1/3 at a time (which I paid off on-time)

Since then I've had other people contact me over available plots, gotten a few more.

Which leads in to what you've said: Consolidate your plots, use the areas smart.

Which I'm leading into. I'm looking forward to setting up space for a couple of my friends there, getting two or three Gazebo Farms setup to cut out multiple plots, etc. I'm finding it relaxing actually.

Relative to the "Poaching" thing, I've just found it funny people get lead around by the nose with the "illegal farm" idea . . . which is a complete fallacy. So, using that emotional prop people just run around not across open land and mountains looking for sneaky-placements, but through people's property areas too.

And the game lets them, so, people will do what they can get away with.

Had a thought today on perhaps a simpler solution, one that's been mentioned by me before:

If you chop/harvest something not yours, you immediately FLAG to the owner, safe zone or not. The flag will last no more than 15 minutes. Someone harvesting something with someone else's ownership tag floating over it, that has been legally planted on Public Land .

This is WAAAAAYYY better of an opportunity for equitable, full-duplex Sandbox than Junior High School grade Jimmy-♥♥♥♥♥♥♥es bridge blocking in safe zones . . . care bearing the idiot factor because it's code protected every step of the way. Heh-heh.

Public land carries a burden of limited ownership however, given no taxes are paid. Thus the reason for those items going Public after a period of time. If it's gone Public, harvest away, no harm no foul.

Seems a great outlet for real Sandbox between players - full duplex consequences, not a one way griefing setup.

Anyway, GL all.

I've got a small "Estate" to get figured out. Heh-heh.

lisa
03-06-2015, 10:14 AM
Or...how about making the housing areas less of a cluttered mess ?

Moly
03-06-2015, 10:46 AM
Would be great on my field a nice avenue
http://i.imgur.com/Q7fzZuGl.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/Q7fzZuG.jpg)
:o