Hey guys, this is going to be a discussion about lands and how they expire. Our exact process will take some time here; if your creations and chests on a no wipe play forever server are going to become vulnerable we need to be precise about how and why they expire, with documentation to back it up. Here's a good post where the discussion started: https://giantslair.com/threads/return-upkeep-costs-to-claims.1814/#post-12775
Where we are: Due to difficulties with the plugin transferring to an active claim member when ownership "expired" after 90 days, we've disabled claim expiration for now.
The options in front of us and arguments for each one:
Option 1: Keep things forever: We are advertising no wipe server that will theoretically last a long time; if that's the mentality we hold, why should claims ever expire? Wars can be used to claim land from other players/risk your own land if that's what our players want, and should be used to transform the environment instead. This option doesn't require significant dev time to function other than finetuning wars and what can lead to them.
Server config options can be used to change when things expire too; if a player with only 15 minutes claims a fuck ton of land and never relogs, we can set it to expire in 1 hour. The threshold for "perma land" would probably look like 1d - 2d of playtime.
Option 2: Reenable Expiry at 90 days with "staff intervention": Inactive claims have no business on a economy world building server, and just get in the way of what other players want to do. This option would utilize staff to facilitate transferring land ownership ideally using the /lands plugin member hierarchy, leaving nothing vulnerable. This may take some staff/dev time to figure out an exact process on how to do it; realistically it will require players tracking eachothers playtimes and alerting staff when they wish to inherit what's due.
Wars can be considered to claim land in this scenario too.
When no other members are active on a given claim, it'd be interesting to see what process could be pondered to make it fair to raid. If I noticed @Shaddoll or his basemates weren't on for 90 days and requested staff to expire the claim so I can raid it, that might be a yucky scenario for staff to mitigate fairly
Option 3: Reenable Upkeep: We are advertising an economy server, and upkeep should be used to manage claims to mitigate mass claiming. If a player is smart with their money, their claim will stick around forever anyways. If they aren't smart, they suffer the actions of their consequences. A money sink is very welcome and keeps the economy from inflating forever.
Wars can be considered to claim land in this scenario too.
This option doesn't require significant dev/staff time to turn back on other than documenting in detail how upkeep works and why you are spending so much. Players should be educated on the economy and it's consquences before their land is vulnerable.
Other fun things:
If the owner of a claim you are trusted on deletes it with your chests of valuable shit on his land, should be entitled to a refund if it gets raided?
Is 90 days the right length if option 2 is reimplemented?
What should happen with the land of permabanned players? What happens if they ever come back and we choose option 1?
Where we are: Due to difficulties with the plugin transferring to an active claim member when ownership "expired" after 90 days, we've disabled claim expiration for now.
The options in front of us and arguments for each one:
Option 1: Keep things forever: We are advertising no wipe server that will theoretically last a long time; if that's the mentality we hold, why should claims ever expire? Wars can be used to claim land from other players/risk your own land if that's what our players want, and should be used to transform the environment instead. This option doesn't require significant dev time to function other than finetuning wars and what can lead to them.
Server config options can be used to change when things expire too; if a player with only 15 minutes claims a fuck ton of land and never relogs, we can set it to expire in 1 hour. The threshold for "perma land" would probably look like 1d - 2d of playtime.
Option 2: Reenable Expiry at 90 days with "staff intervention": Inactive claims have no business on a economy world building server, and just get in the way of what other players want to do. This option would utilize staff to facilitate transferring land ownership ideally using the /lands plugin member hierarchy, leaving nothing vulnerable. This may take some staff/dev time to figure out an exact process on how to do it; realistically it will require players tracking eachothers playtimes and alerting staff when they wish to inherit what's due.
Wars can be considered to claim land in this scenario too.
When no other members are active on a given claim, it'd be interesting to see what process could be pondered to make it fair to raid. If I noticed @Shaddoll or his basemates weren't on for 90 days and requested staff to expire the claim so I can raid it, that might be a yucky scenario for staff to mitigate fairly
Option 3: Reenable Upkeep: We are advertising an economy server, and upkeep should be used to manage claims to mitigate mass claiming. If a player is smart with their money, their claim will stick around forever anyways. If they aren't smart, they suffer the actions of their consequences. A money sink is very welcome and keeps the economy from inflating forever.
Wars can be considered to claim land in this scenario too.
This option doesn't require significant dev/staff time to turn back on other than documenting in detail how upkeep works and why you are spending so much. Players should be educated on the economy and it's consquences before their land is vulnerable.
Other fun things:
If the owner of a claim you are trusted on deletes it with your chests of valuable shit on his land, should be entitled to a refund if it gets raided?
Is 90 days the right length if option 2 is reimplemented?
What should happen with the land of permabanned players? What happens if they ever come back and we choose option 1?
