Larceny with exploit

[sabinati]

personal claim should always take precedence over village claim, that is how it worked in haven and that is how it should work here. if your claim still exists, but you can't do anything on it, then it's a bug imo.

it is, however, an intended mechanic that a village claim can remove a personal claim, but it sounds like that didn't happen yet.

[Serj]

personal claim should always take precedence over village claim, that is how it worked in haven and that is how it should work here. if your claim still exists, but you can't do anything on it, then it's a bug imo.

it is, however, an intended mechanic that a village claim can remove a personal claim, but it sounds like that didn't happen yet.

I know almost nothing about HiH, but I shouldn't because it's Salem. If this feature people must know it. But anyway... I agreed for permadeath when I start play (because I heard about inherit feature). But if I can lost EVERYTHING without any compensation - well, it is more then "sucks". Because I can not (and I don't wish) compete with no-lifers.

I still waiting reply from developers or support.

[MagicManICT]

I can't make an official answer here. We'll get TotalyMoo or one of the devs to comment and this issue has been forwarded to them (thanks sabinati for doing so). Most likely you'll get a PM from Moo in the next 48 hours. In the mean time, everyone keep to the specifics of the bug or I'm going to hand out warnings. Rogoku isn't wrong as developers tend not to hand out compensation for known bugs during betas or on test servers. Seatribe has had a history of being even more hard line on the issue.

In the mean time, our vets are trying to figure out what, exactly, the issue is here and explain how some of the mechanics do work (or should work).

I'm not trying to be an ass by saying this last part, but if your group is good testers, then they should understand this is a beta and that it is up to each tester to familiarize themselves with the state of the game. Good testers coming into a six month old beta look these things up. Some of the things you mention are known issues, such as the inability to destroy the town bell. (Currently, the bell can not be destroyed even if it has been neglected and would otherwise be in a "decaying" state.) There is a bug tracker and two forums of known issues.(There is even a nice, convenient list of issues posted on the Paradox Plaza forums.)

I know almost nothing about HiH, but I shouldn't because it's Salem.

Nobody is saying you need to. As much as a few have argued otherwise, Salem is a commercial version of Haven (or HnH 2 if you want to call it that). Many of the core mechanics and concepts are identical. This is why some of the vets are bringing these things up. Issues like this are deviating from the mechanics that were used in Haven when the rest of core mechanic (such as town functionality) is nearly identical.

[Serj]

MagicManICT,
thanks for trying to help with that.

I think this topic might be closed.
I waste too many times and I won't play anymore. I declaimed my manor and distributed remaining items.
But I hope my case helps developers. It's really sad when claiming tool (Town Bell) using just as skeleton key for easy larceny.
BTW, I remember I developed town mechanic in other game where players must built their houses and some structures first, than they might claim a town "officially". I think it was better mechanics. It'd great if player might have his OWN property in the town, because common property for everybody is sucks. People needs his own homes wherever they live.

Good luck to all. Bye.

P. S.: put more stalls in Boston and get rent timer for it =)

[dullahx]

same thing happenned to me in pre com beta (may 2012)
In the current state of the game, it's not possible to detroy the bell, devs don't care.

[Dallane]

same thing happenned to me in pre com beta (may 2012)
In the current state of the game, it's not possible to detroy the bell, devs don't care.

or they are trying to fix actual problems with the game and add more content?

[TotalyMoo]

I'm back from a weekend of not reading forums, and I'm here to reply. Sorry for being a little late (this was never forwarded to me, though).

This is currently not a bug or exploit, but I believe it's a flawed mechanic. Forcing a vclaim over a pclaim should not be possible unless the owner of the pclaim accepts it. Easily done by a checkbox in the pclaim, could be along the permissions checkboxes so that you can regulate who can do it.

Serj, unfortunately people are correct saying that we do not reimburse things like this - especially not when it's a (currently) intended game mechanic. But thanks for once again bringing the issue up to discussion, that is after all your job as a beta tester ;)

[MagicManICT]

This is currently not a bug or exploit, but I believe it's a flawed mechanic. Forcing a vclaim over a pclaim should not be possible unless the owner of the pclaim accepts it. Easily done by a checkbox in the pclaim, could be along the permissions checkboxes so that you can regulate who can do it.

Now that you mention this, instead of what you mention here, there might need to be a need for a third type of mechanic. I see them as:

1. Current village claim remains as is

2. The current "personal claim" gets beefed up a bit. Other players can't revoke it and it gets protection from having a vclaim dropped on it for raiding/griefing purposes. Probably should have some sort of "upkeep" on it and as long as this upkeep is maintained, the protection lasts. The upkeep should be lesser than a town's claim as it doesn't have the powers of a town. Since this is a "sovereign" claim, it can't overlap other claim at all, town or personal. Either require Settling or another greater skill to build.

3. A new "village member claim" that allows players in a village to get a plot of land that gives that player a personal space. Works just like the current writ does: subject to removal by a town, etc, etc. Either require Settling or another skill to build.

[Arkanus]

This is what i talked when i posted this: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=686&p=6703#p6703

People with money will buy silver and claim other people claim, you could talk that is not a bug or any problem with this but for me and others people this is not going correct.
Why go this way without need a confirmation of the owner of the land to that guy place the town bells claim over his already claimed lands(with stack claim)?
This lack could be exploited by bad guys to get other new people land since it's not explained(nothing found in "Help" inside the game) and the skill to build town bells is far for new players!

[Slim]

This is currently not a bug or exploit, but I believe it's a flawed mechanic. Forcing a vclaim over a pclaim should not be possible unless the owner of the pclaim accepts it. Easily done by a checkbox in the pclaim, could be along the permissions checkboxes so that you can regulate who can do it.

Now that you mention this, instead of what you mention here, there might need to be a need for a third type of mechanic. I see them as:

1. Current village claim remains as is

2. The current "personal claim" gets beefed up a bit. Other players can't revoke it and it gets protection from having a vclaim dropped on it for raiding/griefing purposes. Probably should have some sort of "upkeep" on it and as long as this upkeep is maintained, the protection lasts. The upkeep should be lesser than a town's claim as it doesn't have the powers of a town. Since this is a "sovereign" claim, it can't overlap other claim at all, town or personal. Either require Settling or another greater skill to build.

I am still pondering on this, but if village claims can not imminent domain a personal claim - then any single character with Settling can block the expansion of group of players town for 150s for each cardinal direction.