Solo houses and land

[Deacon]

Virtus wrote:

Xsyon wrote:

I originally planned to allow building outside tribe lands, but it would cause too many problems (imagine waking up to a wall built around your city for example). If I allow buildings to be destroyed if built on non tribal land, someone will destroy them right away. I have some future ideas for all of this, including small homesteads for solo players, but this will evolve with the game.

I actually believe this is how it should be. If you want to build away from a tribe as solo, then you shouldnt get tribe feature of safety. People will actually have to find your place to destroy it first, and there will be that type of player looking to do just that, but they will be causing havoc as best they can to everyone. But as a solo player...just as a lone individual in RL.....you run the risk of greater danger if found.

Not to mention, preventing people from building in areas will be a way for tribes to assert their dominance over lands they intend to expan upon etc.

If you're a solo player, you can make friends with a tribe and possible ask them for help in keeping you safe, or allowing you to build on land close to them, that they may consider their area of control...possibly for a fee. This would give the tribe a minor income and also give them an additional area of responsibility/control, as well as a possible additional fighter, should the tribe be attacked.(think feudal society)

[tredo]

Along the same lines, what if I want to go out and build a small hunting lodge away from tribal lands, someplace to store goods while I'm on a crafting trip. I know well and good I run the risk of someone finding it and breaking it down, but much like in RL. I have a hunting cabin I go to a few weeks a year, if cattle or people or whatever tear it down some, I have to repair it in part before I can stay there comfortably again. The same should be allowed here. If there is a building away from tribal land, it should be able to be torn up some, maybe not completely down, but enough to have to put some work back into it.

[Deacon]

I think anything built off tribal lands should be able to be completely destroyed. If someone wanted to, they could completely destroy your RL cabin.

If you want to build off tribal lands...then you should have that option...but along with that choice...comes the risks.

[Jadzia]

If I allow buildings to be destroyed if built on non tribal land, someone will destroy them right away.

To avoid this the house should be hard to destroy. If it takes 1 real hour of hitting to make 10% damage to a house (no matter how many players are hitting it, they shouldn't be able to cause more damage in an hour), a random griefer probably won't put that time into it. And the owner of the house would get the chance to realize that his property is in danger before its totally destroyed.

[Deacon]

Jadzia wrote:

If I allow buildings to be destroyed if built on non tribal land, someone will destroy them right away.

To avoid this the house should be hard to destroy. If it takes 1 real hour of hitting to make 10% damage to a house (no matter how many players are hitting it, they shouldn't be able to cause more damage in an hour), a random griefer probably won't put that time into it. And the owner of the house would get the chance to realize that his property is in danger before its totally destroyed.

I think that is great idea to make it take time, but if more playes are damaging, more damage should be done. It would take a group effort to destroy a house in a day, but if 10 people are hacking on it, it should be possible. Otherwise, the landscape will be littered with partially destroyed houses, that some folks would build just to irritate others.


EDIT: the "griefer" can be a builder, or destroyer

[Jadzia]

Deacon wrote:

Jadzia wrote:

If I allow buildings to be destroyed if built on non tribal land, someone will destroy them right away.

To avoid this the house should be hard to destroy. If it takes 1 real hour of hitting to make 10% damage to a house (no matter how many players are hitting it, they shouldn't be able to cause more damage in an hour), a random griefer probably won't put that time into it. And the owner of the house would get the chance to realize that his property is in danger before its totally destroyed.

I think that is great idea to make it take time, but if more playes are damaging, more damage should be done. It would take a group effort to destroy a house in a day, but if 10 people are hacking on it, it should be possible. Otherwise, the landscape will be littered with partially destroyed houses, that some folks would build just to irritate others.


EDIT: the "griefer" can be a builder, or destroyer

I agree, the house should be destroyable, so a happy balance would be nice...perhaps 10 people should be able to destroy it in like 4 hours. Still a big effort, but tribes would be able to keep the landscape clear this way.

The building phase should take time too, and while a house is not totally built destroying it should require less time. Like its built 40%, destroying it should take only 40% of a fully built house.

[Deacon]

Jadzia wrote:

I agree, the house should be destroyable, so a happy balance would be nice...perhaps 10 people should be able to destroy it in like 4 hours. Still a big effort, but tribes would be able to keep the landscape clear this way.

The building phase should take time too, and while a house is not totally built destroying it should require less time. Like its built 40%, destroying it should take only 40% of a fully built house.

I think you have a great solution. I'm in complete agreement with your ideas here.

EDIT: another thing that might be considered is a system like RV had that was an RSS news feed, where the people doing things like killing other peep's animals or damaging their houses was listed, as well as the victim getting an in-game mail about it.(like...."your hut has been damaged by <PLAYERNAME>"...or "Your cow has been killed by <PLAYERNAME>")

[VeryWiiTee]

An hour seems reasonable. BUt you'd have to scale it with numbers of people hitting.
5 people would bring down a wooden hut in 2hours, 10 would be able to take them down in 1 hour.
Different sorts of houses would also equal to how many hours it takes to destroy a house.
A tent shouldn't take long, loghouses should take longer, brick houses should take even longer than a loghouse (you get it, better materials harder to destroy ).

Tribe areas won't be safezone's for all eternity so at some point it won't matter anymore. Don't know when though..

[Deacon]

the complexity required to build a structure, should also be determining factor in time/effort it takes to destroy it...as well as maybe getting materials from it as well.

[celestial_fury]

Deacon wrote:

the complexity required to build a structure, should also be determining factor in time/effort it takes to destroy it...as well as maybe getting materials from it as well.

I like the all the ideas posted here,and getting materials from destroy houses would be really cool.