Vertical land claim

[Ishinaia]

100% agree with them being no build zones.

[HonkyLips]

@Larathiel

Seems to me that spawn points should simply have a boolean flag to indicate if they should ignore landclaim or not, and then set all the spawn points in caves and dungeons accordingly.

This is what i thought would work best.
Not necessarily that they would block your building above but simply that they would spawn regardless of land claim. Although this could lead to cheesy boss farms.

It is a shame as the spot above skittering cavern is prime real estate for an early game base, close to every resource you need to get up and running. It always gets built upon.
And people love those mountains above sinners refuge and the barrow king.

The best solution for pve would be to stop land claim 1 foundation below your lowest foundation. I can see this being problematic with cheaters undermeshing on pvp.
Maybe server toggleable.

Failing that, maybe the same vertical distance as we currently have horizontally.
Maybe 10 foundations?

If none of these can be done, then no build zones.

[Bacchus_Greenman]

It’s not part of the learning curve.

[bbtech]

When I said that, I was only referring to the cost of building, specifically dismantling a structure. I wasn’t referring to the spawn mechanics. Maybe I should have been more clear.

[tobi04]

I also think that these enemies should spawn regardless of landclaim. I have also accidently blocked of the crocodile spawn in gallamans tomb once and couldn’t really remove the landclaim because it was already part of a big base. BUT it could also be abused if it doesnt only apply to caves and dungeons. Imagine someone building around a worldboss spawn and they keep spawning into spikes and killing themselves for free skeleton keys. My suggestion: Let enemies in caves and dungeons spawn regardless of landclaim and leave the rest as it is.

[Ko6ka]

@bbtech

It’s part of the learning curve.

Learning path for developers you wanted to say? We have “no-building zones” on plateaus above some miserable Darfari camps with a couple of T1 Fighters that no one needs but developers just forgot to make a “no-building zone” above the one and only source of Asura armor for example. I am sure that it was not intentional and must be corrected ASAP.

[WhatMightHaveBeen]

@HonkyLips

The best solution for pve would be to stop land claim 1 foundation below your lowest foundation. I can see this being problematic with cheaters undermeshing on pvp

I have suggested this as well. Not 100% on how it works, but if you built in a tree, i would think another player trying to place below it would not be able to, because the piece they are laying down would still have infinite up vertical “sensor” triggering the land already claimed warning. Thus the idea that someone could block you in if you built in an Apex spot would not be possible. So 1 foundation below would/should be the thing. But, again, i do not know how hard that is to change in the code for objects.

[r4nd0mGamer]

@WhatMightHaveBeen

the piece they are laying down would still have infinite up vertical “sensor”

Don´t get me wrong, please, but I think this is a contradiction.
If the placement of a building piece is beeing prevented by the fact that there is building pieces of a different clan above, then we can call that unlimited vertical landclaim.

There is no difference in how you would handle the query on the coding part I think (I mean if you call it “vertical up” or vice versa), as long as the outcome is the same.
Maybe I misunderstood?

[r4nd0mGamer]

We want to have the following outcome, right?:

• allow the spawning under buildings, especially in dungeons,
• but do not allow placement under buildings of different clans (at least on PVP).

For this constellation of rules we would need the landclaim to be ignored by the spawning elements of the dungeon. This ignoring of landclaim needs to be only partially though, because we do not want the random rocknose to spawn in the sandstone hut of a random player noob.

This is why I think @Larathiel ´s proposition is one of two possible options:

@Larathiel

Seems to me that spawn points should simply have a boolean flag to indicate if they should ignore landclaim or not, and then set all the spawn points in caves and dungeons accordingly.

The other option ofc is to define no-build-zones, wich implicates the problem that some people already build there…

[WhatMightHaveBeen]

Easier to show what i mean by infinite up vertical.
Picture one is building abo ve a dungeon, 1 foundation down, infinite up.

Picture 2 is someone built on tree, 1 foundation down, infinite up. the new player is trying to place, but the infinite up is not allowing, because it is sensing the 1 foundation down form the original claim. Can’t explain it more ;/

[r4nd0mGamer]

What pictures !
So to sum up how I understand your idea now:

The NEW landclaim would disable building placement underneath but
not disable the spawns underneath except in the limited distance of one or two foundations?

I don´t know about the implementation, but that´s not my cup of tea.
Doesn´t this sound like another plausible option? Maybe yes

[HonkyLips]

I like this idea.
This looks like it would solve most of the problems.

@Ignasi , @hugo can we get any words from you guys or the devs wether something like this is possible?

[bbtech]

An elegant solution. The only thing I see that might interfere is if the map height allows it, Player 2 could potentially build above Player 1 and prevent the original land claim from expanding.