Goblin Squad Member
|
I have just found a smallholding in our alliance territory. There is no player around and I don't have any information on who is the owner nor any way, beside asking on several different companies forums, to discover that.
Even if none in the different companies forums to which I have access were to say "it is mine" I wouldn't have any way to be sure if it is owned by some friend, foe or neutral character.
To me that seem problematic and it will become even more problematic the day we get the ability to damage or destroy one.
A placed smallholding will reduce my ability to place another, so it is interesting to know if it is allowed to be there or not and depending from a out of game source to know that seem wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*points and laughs* Trying to say that you hold territory when there is no way to enforce it is hysterical! Hoo-boy! Okay. I'm good.
So, this problem is easy to deal with. You can't do anything about it right now so stop stressing about it. When you can destroy it, do so. Whoever owns it will be able to put a new one up afterwards and you might be able to catch them if they try to drop it in the same spot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So the general consensus is: "We don't care about ti until it become a problem when we finally will be able to do something about it"?
But we can do something even now: if we know that the smallholding is unauthorized we can prowl the area trying to catch the owner.
To me it seem a bad idea to say "Wait till it become a problem" when the possible problem can be resolved in advance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlements will be able to remove them through permissions, that is the only way I know of that is coming any time soon.
I would object to this as a violation of "You have what you hold". Settlement permissions should not be a magic wand to remove what another holds. You should have to remove it by force if desired, or by negotiation if you are looking to stick to an alignment that would resort to diplomacy first.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlements will be able to remove them through permissions, that is the only way I know of that is coming any time soon.I would object to this as a violation of "You have what you hold". Settlement permissions should not be a magic wand to remove what another holds. You should have to remove it by force if desired, or by negotiation if you are looking to stick to an alignment that would resort to diplomacy first.
I agree. Maybe building smallholding will require some kind of permission, but removing them shouldn't be done by the simple act of removing that permission.
And it should be possible to deploy base camps (and the crafted equivalent) anywhere, within the limits of the number of structures allowed in a area.
The people calming the area should have do act to remove squatters, a simple keystroke in a settlement or hex interface shouldn't be enough.
I agree that removal of in-settlement smallholds should only be by burning them down or smoking them out. That's the price to be paid for releasing things without full support of mechanics. However, as permissions evolve, I think it's perfectly reasonable for a settlement to not allow someone to build something within that hex (but this must be done in a timely manner; I'd suggest one hour, the same as the cooldown period). If no one from settlement leadership is around enough, then there's no real argument for them being able to stop the build.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So the general consensus is: "We don't care about ti until it become a problem when we finally will be able to do something about it"?
But we can do something even now: if we know that the smallholding is unauthorized we can prowl the area trying to catch the owner.
To me it seem a bad idea to say "Wait till it become a problem" when the possible problem can be resolved in advance.
It's not "wait until it becomes a problem", more that "nothing can be done about it". By that I mean with game mechanics. You can spend your time staking out that location until you see someone interacting with it but even if you find out who it belongs to it won't mean they are going to move it because you can't force them to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree that removal of in-settlement smallholds should only be by burning them down or smoking them out. That's the price to be paid for releasing things without full support of mechanics. However, as permissions evolve, I think it's perfectly reasonable for a settlement to not allow someone to build something within that hex (but this must be done in a timely manner; I'd suggest one hour, the same as the cooldown period). If no one from settlement leadership is around enough, then there's no real argument for them being able to stop the build.
The act of burning out a squatter could take time and effort. But on lands legitimately taken and held by a company, members of that company and its settlement allies should suffer no reputation loss or chaos or evil shift for evicting the trespasser. If the smallholder wants to keep a smallholding in someone else's lands, he or she can make such a deal as is necessary.
A company placing a holding has expended in-game effort and resources as a group to stake their claim on the hex. A smallholding is moveable and an item that can be bought in the cash shop. The claim of the smallholder should not trump the claim and efforts of a company in game.
As long as there is empty, unpatrolled wilderness, there will be squatters. As many of you know I am daily roaming large areas of land. I rarely run into any players at all.
Those companies and settlements who are de facto absent from the game (or have minimal interactions with their territory) should expect escalations and squatters to take over their lands regardless of what they feel they are 'promised' by GW.