There is again and again the issue that a user has disappeared but the lot is of interest for other people. Be it that someone got upgraded and would like to get the lot next door or that a user built something on the lot of another user and does not want to lose the work.
I have been thinking about enabling a “calling dibs” for lots that are about to expire (for example from 10 days on before the expiry date). It would be on a first-come-first-serve base. Once the lot is due for reset, it’s checked if a user has called dibs on it and then the system tries to give the lot to the user who called first. It’s checked if the user has the free lots/money to get it and if successful transfers the lot instead of resetting it. If we want to do it fancy (and if I have the time) we could progress to the next in line in case the first candidate fails to get it.
The concern here is that this would give quite an advantage to people who have the cash for a kingdom lot, since one could get dibs for a lot, get it, deconstruct all what is there, sell the stuff and then refund the lot.
I would be happy to get some feedback from all of you if you think this would be an unfair process in any kind or if you think that this is something we should do. Should we ask a higher price (2x, 10x?) for a kingdom lot? Since empire lots cannot be refunded, I do not see the issue so much there, but for kingdom lots, this is different.
Emptying all chests might reduce the chances of prospering on these operations.
A double price for kingdom lots seems ok.
Yeah chest emptying is technically not really feasible.
What about chest destruction then? ;p
:)
I won’t be able to edit the lots before handing them over. Unless you program a tool that does that :)
Just checking ;p
I’m not sure if it’s possible to check if a user with lots connected to the lot about to expire. If so, maybe it’s an idea to give that user an advantage over other users. If multiple users with connected lots call a dib, apply the first-come-first-serve.
2 times the price for kingdom lots sounds good.
Good idea, but let’s keep in mind that in Kingdoms the lots that are connected to the big ones are cheap.. they could be purchased with the idea to skip the line.
I am glad to see the possible transfer of lots for those that are about to reset being discussed. When one builds nice structures and infrastructure at darkland’s spawn it is understood that the effort is temporary. When one builds the same in kingdom it can be quite dissatisfying to see the effort lost when the lot owner does not log on and the lot resets. I believe this is the greatest barrier to community builds on Uncovery (consider the Pirates’ Guild.) PineBenJ addressed the concern almost two years ago with
http://uncovery.me/forums/topic/non-occulto-imperium-lot-ownershipplease-read-if-this-applies-to-you/
It would be nice to consider a beneficiary system where the lot owner can name a beneficiary in the event of his/her demise. Maybe as part of a player’s profile include who you desire your community builds be transferred to.
I do not have concern for players calling “dibs”, stripping the lot clean, and then abandoning for 5000 Uncs. The resetting of kingdom lots is rare and with Lot Manager’s ability to transfer should not happen, but it does. This thread opens a nice discussion.
The succession thing would be great.. of course it could only apply to kingdom lots, as it would not be right to breach the empire lots quota this way, but at least one would be more confident about the perenity of here/his buildings. Ideally, there would be more than one possible beneficiary in order to cover the possibility of an inactive first beneficiary.
We have the option to gift a lot already. To build in a “transfer on reset” is a lot of work and frankly should not be needed.
Wouldn’t it be better if the system would check lot availability/money before dibs can be called? Otherwise someone could just call dibs on a whole mess of lots even though it wouldn’t be possible to have that many.
Like have the system go ahead and take up the lot count/money in reserve, like a request in the shop. If the dibs claim is cancelled or given to someone else, the lot slot/money is given back. This would also prevent someone fearing to buy something else.
take up the lot as reserve is technically too complicated. We can check on calling dibs though.
I do like a beneficiary idea. As far as the kingdom lots go, If a user is listed on the lot then they should be able to call dibs and keep all that is on the lot.. If the user is not listed on the lot, they can still call dibs, but i feel the lot should be wiped clean before taking ownership. Just my 2cents.
There are a lot of things to think about in what was posted above. The discussion seemed mostly about kingdom, but it sounds like this feature would also exist for empire.
The simpler things are kept, the easier it will be for uncovery to actually create something that works for us.
Here’s how I think this should work.
Empire:
I can call dibs on a lot at any time. If a lot is going to reset, the list of people who called dibs for the lot is checked. If no one called dibs, the lot resets. If there are dibs requests, then in the order that the requests were made, each user is checked and the first who has an available lot gets it. The lot would then be owned by the new user. The lot would transfer without resetting.
Kingdom:
I can call dibs on a lot at any time, but I must pay 5x the price of the lot at the time I place dibs. If that lot is going to reset, the list of people who called dibs for the lot is checked. If no one called dibs, the lot resets. If there are dibs requests, then in the order that the requests were made, each user is checked and the first who has an available lot gets it. The lot would then be owned by the new user. The lot would transfer without resetting.
If I’ve used your idea in mine, I’m not trying to steal it, just put my version in. :)
-Hyland
That’s pretty much how I planned to do it, I do not see a big difference.
I also think my suggestion would work as a beneficiary system. You could give someone the money to put dibs on your lot if you so desired…
I’m only focused on the empire side of this discussion, since I’m currently waiting for the lot next door to reset.
Personally I would like the lot to reset before I take it over — I wouldn’t really want to deal with whatever was already built there, but that’s just my take on it. Since it’s not possible to reset an Empire lot, a direct transfer without reset would actually be an inconvenience for me, but that’s just my take on it.
If you had a flag in the ‘dibs’ system that users could set (reset: yes or no) then this would be great.
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of lots resetting normally without dibs in the Empire. Kingdom should probably be a separate discussion since the lot and build dynamics are different there and probably more suited to this idea!
I can get behind the argument that dibs might not be necessary in empire.
I can also see that dibs would potentially get abused in empire. I might for instance place dibs on every lot next to spawn in the hopes of getting one of them. Then again, maybe that’s exactly the purpose of the feature. I’m not sure. :P
Perhaps the number of dibs I can call cannot exceed the number of lots I have available. Or, stated a different way, if I have 1 available lot I can call dibs 1 time.
Also, a preference in the dibs request to have the lot reset or not sounds useful for all lots since maybe you’re not trying to preserve existing structures, but simply making a land grab.
That’s why I suggested having it check for eligibility before the dibs is actually called. Therefore if you have 1 unclaimed empire slot, you can only call dibs on 1 empire lot. If you have the money for 5 kingdom lots, then you can place 5 kingdom dibs. The lot slot or money gets taken up in reserve right then, when you call dibs, until you cancel it, or someone else gets that lot.