Rules on Settlement Building

[Chance]

Shitposting aside, we've discussed this and will be making it mandatory to create a ticket prior to settlement construction, just so the staff can make sure you're not building on Vdalion's doorstep. But at the same time, I think there's a nice 'settlement in progress' vibe since you do need to acquire the buildings (25k each) after putting down the landmark.

We'll also update the settlement guide with rulings related to the above discussion.

But yeah, in this scenario, it looks like it's just IC and seems closer than it is because Meranthe's width is much larger than its height. The ability to contest the construction and raze has been granted, a 10v10 battle (specifically against the Greathive).

[Chance]

I also think there's mechanical solutions to the problem. For example, we could make it so that founding a settlement first needs a 'landmark' (x coins), then after a year or so passes, you can pay the rest of the coins to conclude the construction (which removes objects within the radius + lets you place buildings). That gives others a chance to react rather than being instant.

It's something we can consider when our development schedule is less packed. Want to get a content update out (spells / sailboat) before we start tweaking existing systems.

[tomorrow's sunshine]

I also think there's mechanical solutions to the problem. For example, we could make it so that founding a settlement first needs a 'landmark' (x coins), then after a year or so passes, you can pay the rest of the coins to conclude the construction (which removes objects within the radius + lets you place buildings). That gives others a chance to react rather than being instant.

It's something we can consider when our development schedule is less packed. Want to get a content update out (spells / sailboat) before we start tweaking existing systems.

I frankly prefer this over the ticket option. It still generates conflict, because others could intervene to stop the construction, and doesn't feel as weird both oocly and icly (to some extent)

[Touc]

Shitposting aside, we've discussed this and will be making it mandatory to create a ticket prior to settlement construction, just so the staff can make sure you're not building on Vdalion's doorstep. But at the same time, I think there's a nice 'settlement in progress' vibe since you do need to acquire the buildings (25k each) after putting down the landmark.

We'll also update the settlement guide with rulings related to the above discussion.

But yeah, in this scenario, it looks like it's just IC and seems closer than it is because Meranthe's width is much larger than its height. The ability to contest the construction and raze has been granted, a 10v10 battle (specifically against the Greathive).

But how do you even classify this scenario?

Under the current rules razing is only available when someone tries to build a town without the backing of a major power. The settlement in question is
1. Constructed reasonably far from Aphros and Vdalion when considering all the routes that one could take to avoid it - it being a 'screen away' seems to be false to an extent.
2. Backed by Delphina.

Here, it looks like it's been subjectively viewed as 'too close' to Aphros. What's the ruling here? If a major nation dislikes the fact that a settlement is being built, do they get a chance to freely take it over (and claim the resources used for it) in a risky battle despite the fact that it has Delphina's backing?

Settlement Razing
Small settlements that are constructed without the official, declared backing of a major nation are vulnerable to banditry and opportunism. It's important to form alliances. Razing declarations are battles set up within 48 hours and are typically a cap 2 setting.

[Chance]

Under the current rules

You answered your own question with the beginning of your post. This entire thread is about the rules needing to be improved regarding settlement building.

We haven't come to an official ruling or decision yet. You can see the progress and beginnings of that, though.

[Detective100]

I also think there's mechanical solutions to the problem. For example, we could make it so that founding a settlement first needs a 'landmark' (x coins), then after a year or so passes, you can pay the rest of the coins to conclude the construction (which removes objects within the radius + lets you place buildings). That gives others a chance to react rather than being instant.

It's something we can consider when our development schedule is less packed. Want to get a content update out (spells / sailboat) before we start tweaking existing systems.

I concur on that idea, and would like to suggest an idea:
How about a system where each city/settlement has its own 'landmark' with its own coordinates (usually at the middle of the city, and can be invisible once the settlement is fully built).

Then, when you go for a new settlement, the amount of coins you need to pay and the amount of time you need to wait will depend on how far it is from the nearest landmark of the faction?
Say, for example, have a city by the south west coast and want to build a settlement just a tad further south to have a proper port? The road is but a short distance away, so it'll be less expensive to keep moving about while making the settlement and the building will take less time.
However, if you are building far away, all the way at the north-east side of the continent? Then buying the landmark will be far more expensive, and fully building the settlement will take a lot more time.

It sounds good theoratically to me, though I am unsure how to calculate distance using XY distances. Perhaps by using the X^2+Y^2=Z^2 formula (Pythagorean Theorem)?
For example: (Closest Landmark's X location - Purchased landmark's X location)^2 + (Closest Landmark's Y location - Purchased landmark's Y location)^2=(Most direct line between the landmarks)^2

Quick Edit: If the formula is to be implemented, it may be a good idea to add a minimum distance for 'Z', so that people won't end up stacking settlements upon one another for whatever reason.

[Whatever]

Being real and having endured Spires of Agartha's unending battle royale where we just spammed watchtowers to keep the enemy from ever advancing on our cities, allowing the over-night construction of towns, cities or towers without a mandatory contested skirmish beforehand to secure the area (when it is outside of your sphere of influence) should not be allowed at all. The Mines are an area that are hugely relevant to the existing plot. No faction is going to stand for an obvious construction in the area, they certainly are not going to stand around and just let it be built up. To understand this concept: Walking a small army into Aphros in the off-hours because no one is online does NOT mean you now own the city. The same logic should apply with tower constructions and towns. Just because no one was there to stop them from cheekily opening the building menu does not mean they now own the area. No one should be able to build defensive positions in contested lands over night and be protected in that area by better rolls, if those even exist in Meranthe. They are over-extended and exposed, not protected.

Allowing anyone to build a town there, when the entire reason for the existing war is to keep them unaffiliated with any faction, can be considered a fragrant violation of the lore and of common sense.

That's my hot take.

[ratqueen]

Being real and having endured Spires of Agartha's unending battle royale where we just spammed watchtowers to keep the enemy from ever advancing on our cities, allowing the over-night construction of towns, cities or towers without a mandatory contested skirmish beforehand to secure the area (when it is outside of your sphere of influence) should not be allowed at all. The Mines are an area that are hugely relevant to the existing plot. No faction is going to stand for an obvious construction in the area, they certainly are not going to stand around and just let it be built up. To understand this concept: Walking a small army into Aphros in the off-hours because no one is online does NOT mean you now own the city. The same logic should apply with tower constructions and towns. Just because no one was there to stop them from cheekily opening the building menu does not mean they now own the area. No one should be able to build defensive positions in contested lands over night and be protected in that area by better rolls, if those even exist in Meranthe. They are over-extended and exposed, not protected.

Allowing anyone to build a town there, when the entire reason for the existing war is to keep them unaffiliated with any faction, can be considered a fragrant violation of the lore and of common sense.

That's my hot take.

there was fighting between delphina and aphros from about 30m after construction to 6 hours after construction, and there is now a raid before any buildings have been placed

so, yes

[Whatever]

there was fighting between delphina and aphros from about 30m after construction to 6 hours after construction, and there is now a raid before any buildings have been placed

so, yes

not doing yourself any favours by parading the response time so broadly, after the construction had already completed. There needs to be a system to decide if a construction occurs, not a 'beg for forgiveness, not for permission' mentality you're pushing.

[Chance]

...

I'm not sure about a skirmish every time someone wants to build, but for contested resource spots 'within reach' of multiple major nations, yeah. We'll figure something out for the write up later until mechanical solutions are introduced.