Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Suggestion: Add an option to only allow flagging of outposts chunks/chunks not connected to a town's homeblock #57

Open
Vanstredam opened this issue Jul 13, 2021 · 5 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@Vanstredam
Copy link

I would like to suggest adding an option that allows the warring of outpost chunks. Many people tend to outpost outside someones town and its annoying to deal with, so my suggestion is to actually add two things.

  • The flagging of an entire town, meaning a person has to get on in order to protect their town or else it's consumed by someone else.
  • The option to only allow flag war on outpost chunks / chunks not connected to the town's homeblock, as this will allow people to get rid of annoying outposts outside their town.
@Vanstredam Vanstredam added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 13, 2021
@gaffy00
Copy link
Contributor

gaffy00 commented Jul 14, 2021

I would like to suggest adding an option that allows the warring of outpost chunks.

You can already flag outposts. Do you mean instead an option to restrict flagging to JUST outposts/unconnected claims?

So the end result you want is that if there's say a 3x3 enemy claim outside your town, that is not connected to its homeblock, flagging one of those town blocks would capture all 9 of them? "[E]ntire town" seems to imply, well, the entire town, and that would be extremely unbalanced so I want to make sure I get what you mean.

Regarding restricting flag attacks based on their contiguousness with the homeblock, it seems this could be a bit unrealistic. Say there's a town that's got hundreds of claims all in a line. Checking that every one is connected to the homeblock would probably cause lag. More realistic might be to check the distance from the homeblock, and if it's greater than X amount, allow the flag.

Finally, in case this suggestion does not get added, or in the meantime until it does, I would suggest taking a look at the Towny config options for min_plot_distance_from_town_plot, min_distance_from_town_homeblock, and min_distance_for_outpost_from_plot if you haven't already. You might also consider implementing a rule on your server to combat this behaviour.

@Vanstredam
Copy link
Author

I would like to suggest adding an option that allows the warring of outpost chunks.

You can already flag outposts. Do you mean instead an option to restrict flagging to JUST outposts/unconnected claims?

So the end result you want is that if there's say a 3x3 enemy claim outside your town, that is not connected to its homeblock, flagging one of those town blocks would capture all 9 of them? "[E]ntire town" seems to imply, well, the entire town, and that would be extremely unbalanced so I want to make sure I get what you mean.

Regarding restricting flag attacks based on their contiguousness with the homeblock, it seems this could be a bit unrealistic. Say there's a town that's got hundreds of claims all in a line. Checking that every one is connected to the homeblock would probably cause lag. More realistic might be to check the distance from the homeblock, and if it's greater than X amount, allow the flag.

Finally, in case this suggestion does not get added, or in the meantime until it does, I would suggest taking a look at the Towny config options for min_plot_distance_from_town_plot, min_distance_from_town_homeblock, and min_distance_for_outpost_from_plot if you haven't already. You might also consider implementing a rule on your server to combat this behaviour.

I know it can flag outposts, I do mean restricting flags to just outposts (my bad on the wording), their extremely annoying to deal with when it's base SiegeWar because plundering and ruining the outposts also means the entire town as well.

@LlmDl
Copy link
Member

LlmDl commented Jul 14, 2021

I think one of the issues is that an outpost is just the one townblock, there's nothing in the code making the connected townblocks any different than the rest of the town's non-outpost connected townblocks.

@Vanstredam
Copy link
Author

I think one of the issues is that an outpost is just the one townblock, there's nothing in the code making the connected townblocks any different than the rest of the town's non-outpost connected townblocks.

My suggestion was anything not connected to the homeblock being flagged, so a chunk not connected at all to the main town would be eligible to be under war. Most are outposts so I just used that terminology.

@gaffy00
Copy link
Contributor

gaffy00 commented Jul 18, 2021

The flagging of an entire town, meaning a person has to get on in order to protect their town or else it's consumed by someone else.

Still looking for clarification on the first point of your suggestion, @LeftTheNegotiator.

My suggestion was anything not connected to the homeblock being flagged, so a chunk not connected at all to the main town would be eligible to be under war.

Yeah, we're commenting on the feasibility of that. It may be difficult to determine a certain townblock is connected to the homeblock, as LlmDl said, a townblock that is connected and a townblock that isn't aren't any different in the code.

More realistic might be to check the distance from the homeblock

Also looking for your input on this possible alternative (@LeftTheNegotiator):

  • A config option for a homeblock protection radius
    • A warflag placed inside the radius would be cancelled
    • Potentially per town level, or some other scaling option?

Idea being, it's easy to check distance, and with the right tweaking a protection radius would mean the main town would be unattackable in most scenarios, leaving outposts and other "unconnected" claims vulnerable.

If a homeblock protection radius doesn't work 100%, you could back it up with a server rule, and since in most cases the protection would do its job, theoretically it would be relatively easy to enforce.

The other option I see would be an outpost vulnerability radius, but it seems it could easily be bypassed if they just remove the outpost after making some claims around it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants