Braziers and 3 walls?

[Kaol]

If something itself is on a claim and it gets attacked then than should count as a vandalism surely? It sounds like a bug. For example if you were on the inside of the wall for some reason then presumably that counts towards the required number of crimes but just because you are the other side it dosn't? Surely where you are standing should not matter in a crime of vandalism?

If you are standing in a public area, and spray-paint a wall of a building, you can be charged with the crime of vandalism (1 crime). However, if you go onto private property to spray-paint a wall of a building, you can be charged with trespassing and vandalism (2 crimes). Seems logical to me.

If that is how it is working then yes.

But it sounds more like you are getting that vandalism for free. Surely if they have 2 walls, the claim encompassing the walls and no further. You break down the first wall (1 crime), then when you go to destroy the next wall you step onto the claim (2 crimes). Or am i missing something.

[Nixman]

As for walls stacking on top of each other i'm not sure its a good idea. Part of the reason the best walls are good is their efficiency in space. It wouldn't be too hard to convert my quad stone hedge into a quad-triple stone hedge which is like 12 layers of stone hedge. Building 12 layers of hedge is impractical due to space considerations.

Tier 2, Cant build another wall within 2 tiles.
Tier 3, Cant build another wall within 3 tiles.

[Kaol]

You could still build other buildings. Also that dosn't make any pseudo-realistic sense.

[Sevenless]

I'd just like to point out that braziers should be firing while a raider is bashing the 2nd wall. If they are not, you need to extend your claim at least 1 tile past your walls, so they have to trespass in order to destroy the first wall.

Tah be honest mushi, I've never played that end of the game and never will. It's not something I enjoy. Ditto for most of the helpers in this forum. Doesn't matter if we play or not, it'll all be second hand.

Thank you for clarifying, Jorb originally told me "two vandalism acts" to trigger, but I guess he left out the tresspass bit. In light of the fallible nature of humans to not do an ounce more than they're told to, I think telling people to build 3 walls is still valid advice.

[darnokpl]

It is a mechanic they're hoping to improve on though. I'm still confused why the first summonable doesn't just trigger the braziers. It would mean a lot less silliness like this.

Boulders are still ugly imo. But i'd rather we could just make single walls, much prettier imo.

100% agreed with both.

[G1real]

I guess it depends how you look at it. They programmed it to specifically take 3 vandalism acts to trigger, this is not an unintentional side effect of something else. It's definitely "working as intended", but yes it's a design flaw the game hit when opening up criminal acts in pre-commercial beta happened before the system was fully implemented (and thought out).

Edit: While I'm on the subject. The intention of this system is partially to avoid the "shell" defense problem Haven had. People had a wall? You couldn't do **** unless you sieged them for X hours so most raiders didn't bother. Then you got enough strength and walls didn't matter. Bam, shell broken, people start dying everywhere.

I guess the point is you don't want the system to be a "can break" or "can't break". In that it failed as well until the recent crime debuff changes.

I never really saw the problem with needing a few hours to siege a town. You want something, spend time on it.

As defense currently is in Salem, or what I gather from it (I'm like Sevenless, not really sticking around for a long while at a time.) is that your only option is 3wall&lotsabraziers. I would rather see more natural defenses like tunnels underground or a small pathway up a mountain or an island with cannons on it.