Suggestion [Rule Change] Greifing

Dsawemd said:

-snip-

Click to expand...

Given that players can already come up with a compromise together, the only part of your suggestion which really matters is the following:

''Owner can delete aesthetic, non-house/shop structures. Player B (neighbor) can place their shop/house (defined as a building that they or others will use as a primary location for in-game interaction).'' - Which takes place within the 10-15 block courtesy thingy.

As for writing a petition to check who made *said structure*, that, too, would be something new.

So anyways, i'm not sure if I like the suggestion. Who is to judge whether or not something is aesthetic? Something can be both aesthetic and practical, like a road, a home or a shop. Also, how often does a ''house/shop'' have to be used in order for it to be defied as a ''primary location for in-game interaction''. In addition, how would the owner be able to tell when the structure has been used? What if someone was place a personal region right next to an already existing structure, who would ''own'' the 10-15 blocks around the region? I'm not sure about you, but to me, this suggestion seems far too complex to work. Too much ''If this, then that''.

What's wrong with people just placing signs on the land which they want to own? Or, placing a small boarder around their land to show that it is owned by them?

Dsawemd said:

What would be legal after a failure to compromise:
-If the Owner wants a basic structure (not a house/shop, but a bridge, path, signpost, tree, etc.) REMOVED, they can remove it after failing to reach a compromise.

Click to expand...

Proof would need to be provided that a compromise could not be made before the Owner has the right to remove the structure. Otherwise we would just end up with a he said she said situation.

Dsawemd said:

-If Player B (neighbor) is PLACING a Residence, shop, or house (house here defined as the place the player lives, possibly by where they set their recall when not using it for other purposes) then they are allowed to place it after failing to reach a compromise.

Click to expand...

Same as above only instead of owner has right player B has the right etc.

Dsawemd said:

-All final terraforming/landscape in the case of no man-made structures within the 10-15 proposed rule change would fall to the Owner, with normal rules such as "you must place signs on aesthetic trees you don't want cut down" still applying.

Click to expand...

There still needs to be a limit on this. For example mass Terra-formed areas that are not being used for any other purpose for a mob hunting ground.

As for signs on trees due to certain limitations the signs would need to be replaced once a week to make sure logs are able to be kept of it's existence.

MajorasMask said:

What's wrong with people just placing signs on the land which they want to own? Or, placing a small boarder around their land to show that it is owned by them?

Click to expand...

Because there are always people that try to mass claim areas for real purpose. There needs to be limitations built into the rules otherwise people WILL abuse them as much as they can.

MajorasMask said:

So anyways, i'm not sure if I like the suggestion. Who is to judge whether or not something is aesthetic? Something can be both aesthetic and practical, like a road, a home or a shop. Also, how often does a ''house/shop'' have to be used in order for it to be defied as a ''primary location for in-game interaction''. In addition, how would the owner be able to tell when the structure has been used? What if someone was place a personal region right next to an already existing structure, who would ''own'' the 10-15 blocks around the region? I'm not sure about you, but to me, this suggestion seems far too complex to work. Too much ''If this, then that''.

Click to expand...

Personally I think that this is still better than the current system which is far more open ended than Dsawemd's suggestion. Either way before any structure is removed/modified Staff members must be contacted if there is no agreement made between the two involved members. Only if a staff member is made involved in the situation will these classification rules come into play as to who has the rights.

I don't even understand how this is being discussed. I talk shit to people and get threads locked or threaten with mutes, however when a player is clearly being a cunt by building a staircase 5-7 blocks in front of an obvious door, it is completely acceptable. Lets also point out that people really need to stop bitching about stupid shit like holes outside their towns. I mean FFS, It probably took more time to write a pe than to fill in a hole. Decisions shouldnt be made by quoting a rule. You should ask yourself, "is this player being a dick?" if yes then take action, if no, ignore it. Did Vongard "hole" look like malicious intent?? I highly doubt it.Rule should be, if a player is a dick, he should be treated as such. Build a road in front of my base, i should be able to destroy it, simple. have nice day

snip

This thread is not about individuals w0nd3rb0y as Vongard has stated previously.

Vongard said:

This is a suggestion about greifing rules, this post is not meant to be about my specific instance.

Click to expand...

Stop making references to previous instances and stick to the topic at hand.

w0nd3rb0y - Who gets to decide if a player is being a "Dick"? The staircase, to me and others ((Or so it seemed from discussions that have been had)) did not look like Fuz was trying to be a dick.

Angyles said:

w0nd3rb0y - Who gets to decide if a player is being a "Dick"? The staircase, to me and others ((Or so it seemed from discussions that have been had)) did not look like Fuz was trying to be a dick.

Click to expand...

who gets to decide? I'd say pole the audience. As I see in the picture it was build DIRECTLY in front of the door. I vote dick, all in favor say aye.

Angyles said:

w0nd3rb0y - Who gets to decide if a player is being a "Dick"? The staircase, to me and others ((Or so it seemed from discussions that have been had)) did not look like Fuz was trying to be a dick.

Click to expand...

One way to decide- not the only way- is if you were told by someone building the structure that it was supposed to block a view, reduce accessibility, etc., even if it is useful.

w0nd3rb0y said:

I mean FFS, It probably took more time to write a pe than to fill in a hole.

Click to expand...

Why should they have to deal with people making the outside of their town look like shit?
It takes the people that dug the hole just as little time to fill it as it would the people that petition it, why should they have to fill in the hole that you made?

w0nd3rb0y said:

who gets to decide? I'd say pole the audience. As I see in the picture it was build DIRECTLY in front of the door. I vote dick, all in favor say aye.

Click to expand...

So you want the Admins and Mods to ask the community what they think before handing out decisions?

The door was in front of their door, about 5 block from the doorway which is not even regioned, I think you need to go further in to be on the personal region ((Unless it was changed, I know I have handled at least two petitions about the glowstone being stolen from the doorway)).

awsumguy75321 said:

One way to decide- not the only way- is if you were told by someone building the structure that it was supposed to block a view, reduce accessibility, etc., even if it is useful.

Click to expand...

I do not see a road falling under this criteria. It does not reduce accessibility, nor does it block a view.

So by your suggestion, a road should be exempt from this "rule" change?

Danda said:

Why should they have to deal with people making the outside of their town look like shit?
It takes the people that dug the hole just as little time to fill it as it would the people that petition it, why should they have to fill in the hole that you made?

Click to expand...

People just cry too much, its a game. Less raging would be nice.

w0nd3rb0y said:

People just cry too much, its a game. Less raging would be nice.

Click to expand...

That didn't answer my question, why should they have to do it instead of you?

Pampita said:

FuzLogix

EDIT: As far as i see in that pictures, there are no-signs claiming your structure.

Click to expand...

Since when did you need to put signs on roads claiming ownership? It's a road simply connecting places of interest.


I've not had time to read through this whole thread, however I will say there was no malicious intent with building a road. In fact it was quite the opposite, one of their members (Legacy) already commented on how cool the path was and thanked me for it.

As I've already discussed with Dsawemd, who lives close by, my plan is/was to improve all roads and the surrounding landscape on the North road, as well as extend the road to the edge of the map.
The intention being just to bring more traffic and make the north road a cool place to visit.

Blackpatch said:

I was under the impression that:

1. You cannot build ugly structure's (unless you're Paragon)

2. You cannot build structures without realistic supports

This bridge/mess breaks both of those rules.

Click to expand...

If you care to notice, all of the roads I've built have supports and lighting, I was actually in the middle of placing the supports (hence the dirt blocks under the bridge) when I was killed by someone, I lost all my mats and had to go collect more.

So I've simply not had the time to finish the bridge, in fact I can assure you It will look better when finished.

I took care not to interfere with any blocks around their region, as I didn't want it to cause any harm.

The fact of the matter, if Vongard had asked me to remove/edit it I would of happily of done so - but he went against an Admin's advice and decided to take matters in to his own hands, ultimately breaking server rules. Its naive to think you wouldn't be banned for this.

FuzLogix said:

Since when did you need to put signs on roads claiming ownership? It's a road simply connecting places of interest.

Click to expand...

I think he was referring to the Legacy structure not the road

FuzLogix said:

Since when did you need to put signs on roads claiming ownership? It's a road simply connecting places of interest.


I've not had time to read through this whole thread, however I will say there was no malicious intent with building a road. In fact it was quite the opposite, one of their members (Legacy) already commented on how cool the path was and thanked me for it.

As I've already discussed with Dsawemd, who lives close by, my plan is/was to improve all roads and the surrounding landscape on the North road, as well as extend the road to the edge of the map.
The intention being just to bring more traffic and make the north road a cool place to visit.





If you care to notice, all of the roads I've built have supports and lighting, I was actually in the middle of placing the supports (hence the dirt blocks under the bridge) when I was killed by someone, I lost all my mats and had to go collect more.

So I've simply not had the time to finish the bridge, in fact I can assure you It will look better when finished.

I took care not to interfere with any blocks around their region, as I didn't want it to cause any harm.

The fact of the matter, if Vongard had asked me to remove/edit it I would of happily of done so - but he went against an Admin's advice and decided to take matters in to his own hands, ultimately breaking server rules. Its naive to think you wouldn't be banned for this.

Click to expand...

Yes, i meant Legacy house, not the road...

Pampita said:

Yes, i meant Legacy house, not the road...

Click to expand...

I was right! =P

Pampita said:

Yes, i meant Legacy house, not the road...

Click to expand...

Ah sorry Pamp, got ya now

I like the idea of a 'hard limit' around residences like towns have, for as Majoras said, they have very definite borders like towns. We can't have a range though, things need to be as concrete as possible.

Proposal 1:
Houses built in a Residence have a 15-block buffer zone (a-la the way a town has). Exceptions: this can not be used to 'bump out' existing structures, buffer zones can not overlap (residences must be 30 blocks apart).

It gets harder with someone's castle, and even more so with a village or oddly-shaped structure. What is their 'land'? How much should they be allowed to 'own'.

Proposal 2:
Players must surround their land claim with signs indicating such. A significant portion of the claim area must be of the player's structures. A 5-block 'buffer zone' extends from these signs. Exceptions: this can not be used to 'bump out' existing structures, buffer zones can not overlap (claims must be 10 blocks apart).


Devil's advocate time:

• Why can't someone's Residence they paid for get as much land as a larger castle?
• The land/building buffer ratio is larger for residences than claims. They get more for their small space.

• What if a residence and a claim are next to each other?
• The buildings must be 20 blocks apart minimum. The residence has a larger land ratio, so there should be plenty of space between them.

• What about shops? What if I made one on a road that had some landscaping and now people built on it?
• Build the outline of your building first, then ring signs around it. Most shops are small, so they won't get much land anyway. This also means road shops won't be smashed next to each other. Using the 5 block buffer rule, shops must be at least 10 blocks apart.

• What is the land/building ratio?
• One that makes sense. This is one of those things that we can't 100% define. Ask staff if you have any questions.

• What if I build a house, then build a small garden 50 blocks away? Do I get the land in between?
• No, because you would be claiming much more land than you have structures. If you connect the with a road, you get the land around the road, but not a massive box region around everything.

• What if I make a house and then modify all the terrain around my house that I can see so I like it? I changed it, can't I keep it?
• Look, you can't claim everything within viewing distance just because you want it. We're trying to find a happy medium with this.

• What if I have a residence that I build a larger structure around?
• Use whichever rule gives you the largest buffer area.

• What if I...
• Ask a staff member before you do anything if you aren't sure. Older structures have priority.

Pillaring/digging into towns needs clarification.

Proposal 3:
Pillars to get into towns are legal. Pillars are allowed to remain for the duration that the player is within the target town. If the player is killed, they must remove the pillar before they try again. You have been defeated. Deal with it. Attacking players have 2 hours following the raid or defeat to remove their pillar. They must be allowed to remove it by the town, else-wise they are exempt from their responsibility to remove the pillar. Digging holes follows the same rule as pillars.

• But..
• We are lenient enough about how players can break into towns. Follow the rules.

Comments? Modifications?

Danda said:

That didn't answer my question, why should they have to do it instead of you?

Click to expand...

because that is part of owning a town, upkeep.