Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Deepworld is back online after a system outage. Thanks for your patience.

Protectors auto removal

ElectroxElectrox Hidden AsylumPosts: 883Member
I had this idea in my head for a long time. I was thinking about a way to make markets or any other world more interesting and less cluttered.
This is my idea.

The protectors you placed in any worlds that you do not own would be automatically removed after 3 months of inactivity on your account
(this would apply to any kind of protectors). By 3 months of inactivity i mean 3 entire months where you didn't even log in once on your account.
Each time you would log in the timer would restart.
Somebody who is inactive for 3 months in a row wouldn't lose any of his protectors he placed in worlds that he do not own.
The protectors would automatically go back in his inventory as well as all the items that were protected by the protectors.
This would help the market worlds mostly to be way less cluttered(would probably help lower the lag) it would also allow players to find a land way more easily in popular market worlds like Times Square. By example in Times Square the world wouldn't be filled with inactive players shops/houses
that are taking dust it would look pretty much brand new and way more interesting in my opinion.
I think this change would be an amazing update in the game with no negative point. (It would work better with anti inhibitor,regular and large spawner markets)

You can leave a feedback about my idea and ask me any question about it if you have any. I tried to explain it the best i could but there could be somes stuff i forgot to explain. It would be awesome If Mike or Lisa could take a look at this.

«13

Comments

  • BloonsmineBloonsmine ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Posts: 2,326Member
    So basically if i decided to not return for 3 months,i would lose everything i built and would have to rebuild it?
  • ElectroxElectrox Hidden AsylumPosts: 883Member

    So basically if i decided to not return for 3 months,i would lose everything i built and would have to rebuild it?

    3 months is a lot of time and only logging in and leaving 1 sec after you entered the game would make the timer restart. It would only happen in the world you are not owner
  • PIPTR0PIPTR0 Brating those testy snot-board beats with nosesPosts: 3,648Member
    edited February 2016
    Sometimes I lose the priveledge of using my phone for deepworld. So, I also loose the priveledge of owning my own land?

    In other words, I get my phone taken away because my parents are meanies, so I also loose all my land?
  • p1nkbr0p1nkbr0 Like, totally, brahPosts: 5,087Member, Arbiter
    If it were different circumstances, I might be OK with it. But markets tend to be where players put all their rarest items up for display. Not logging in for 3 months would be a very bad time for them, especially if it were under circumstances they have no control over.

    Being punished so extremely for not logging in is a bit much.
  • ElectroxElectrox Hidden AsylumPosts: 883Member
    p1nkbr0 said:

    If it were different circumstances, I might be OK with it. But markets tend to be where players put all their rarest items up for display. Not logging in for 3 months would be a very bad time for them, especially if it were under circumstances they have no control over.

    Being punished so extremely for not logging in is a bit much.

    It would make somes poeple comeback to check the game once in a while it could maybe even make them want to restart playing the game.It is very easy to log in once every 3 months. And if you do not log in atleast once every 3 months then you do not really have an interest in the game anymore.
  • William2William2 Posts: 3,380Member, Arbiter
    So, say I do something bad at school and my mom grounds me for 3 months. I would lose everything I did just because I did something at school and got grounded?

    Also, what if I build a shop with my bestie and both our rare items are in there, and I don't log in for three months or more. Bam, my bestie'd lose all their stuff and probably get mad at me. D:
  • ElectroxElectrox Hidden AsylumPosts: 883Member
    William2 said:

    So, say I do something bad at school and my mom grounds me for 3 months. I would lose everything I did just because I did something at school and got grounded?

    Also, what if I build a shop with my bestie and both our rare items are in there, and I don't log in for three months or more. Bam, my bestie'd lose all their stuff and probably get mad at me. D:

    Personally i have never been grounded for 3 months and having your house or shop removed wouldn't be the end of the world you can always rebuild it. Your friend can always take back his stuff in the protector while you are away if you allow him.
    This idea could always be changed to apply in market worlds only i guess.
  • Wonder_melon_Wonder_melon_ DANK MAY MAYS ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤPosts: 1,361Member
    It seems like I'm the only other one who'd actually like this being added into the game
  • SirentistSirentist Posts: 9,076Member, Moderator, Arbiter
    Somewhere, at some point, people paid real money for most of the protectors you're talking about. Certainly any large, mega, or giga protector was purchased for real money, and I'd bet over 90% of small and micro protectors were initially purchased (rather than looted), as well. If Bytebin removed the ability for protectors to protect due to account inactivity, it would basically be putting new, retroactive conditions on items that were sold as permanent protective devices -- essentially making those items useless and rendering the monetary transactions invalid after the fact. That wouldn't be a good move, since consumer trust is a huge part of having a successful business. Never mind that It would be unethical as heck, lol!

    People have proposed similar ideas before. To me, at bottom, it kinda seems like a roundabout way of saying "someone put a protector on something I want, and since they don't seem to be using it, by rights I should have the chance to take it."
  • William2William2 Posts: 3,380Member, Arbiter
    Electrox said:

    William2 said:

    So, say I do something bad at school and my mom grounds me for 3 months. I would lose everything I did just because I did something at school and got grounded?

    Also, what if I build a shop with my bestie and both our rare items are in there, and I don't log in for three months or more. Bam, my bestie'd lose all their stuff and probably get mad at me. D:

    Personally i have never been grounded for 3 months and having your house or shop removed wouldn't be the end of the world you can always rebuild it. Your friend can always take back his stuff in the protector while you are away if you allow him.
    This idea could always be changed to apply in market worlds only i guess.
    I've never been grounded for 3 months either, but still, my mom can get pretty P'd off sometimes. What if my iPad breaks, or Deepworld all of a sudden decides to become a caterpillar on my device and roll up into it's cocoon and stop working all of a sudden? Plus, how would I allow my friend to take the items out without going into the game? That kind of defeats the purpose.

    I, personally, think that things don't have auto-destruction so that people can leave their mark on the game. I like seeing things people built years ago, and I'd hate if all of a sudden, they were just gone. There are always other worlds if you can't find any room. I, personally, always find tons of area in popular markets like Times that nobody has taken. Tons of small protector and micro sized plots just sitting there, waiting for the taking.
  • Wonder_melon_Wonder_melon_ DANK MAY MAYS ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤPosts: 1,361Member
    Sirentist said:

    Somewhere, at some point, people paid real money for most of the protectors you're talking about. Certainly any large, mega, or giga protector was purchased for real money, and I'd bet over 90% of small and micro protectors were initially purchased (rather than looted), as well. If Bytebin removed the ability for protectors to protect due to account inactivity, it would basically be putting new, retroactive conditions on items that were sold as permanent protective devices -- essentially making those items useless and rendering the monetary transactions invalid after the fact. That wouldn't be a good move, since consumer trust is a huge part of having a successful business. Never mind that It would be unethical as heck, lol!

    People have proposed similar ideas before. To me, at bottom, it kinda seems like a roundabout way of saying "someone put a protector on something I want, and since they don't seem to be using it, by rights I should have the chance to take it."

    Well @Electrox wanted everything in the protectors to go BACK into the persons inventory. And three months is a lot of time. I think it is really just how you look at it.
  • Lord_KyuubiLord_Kyuubi on the internet, boosting my self esteem with inspect element...Posts: 729Member
    maybe if your higher level the time will increase?
    for example, each level +5-10 days?
    but then again, hooe the hell do you get grounded for 3 months.
  • William2William2 Posts: 3,380Member, Arbiter

    maybe if your higher level the time will increase?
    for example, each level +5-10 days?
    but then again, hooe the hell do you get grounded for 3 months.

    What if a newb builds something? That's not very fair if he can't get as much time as a person lvl 72.
  • ElectroxElectrox Hidden AsylumPosts: 883Member
    Sirentist said:

    Sirentist said:

    Somewhere, at some point, people paid real money for most of the protectors you're talking about. Certainly any large, mega, or giga protector was purchased for real money, and I'd bet over 90% of small and micro protectors were initially purchased (rather than looted), as well. If Bytebin removed the ability for protectors to protect due to account inactivity, it would basically be putting new, retroactive conditions on items that were sold as permanent protective devices -- essentially making those items useless and rendering the monetary transactions invalid after the fact. That wouldn't be a good move, since consumer trust is a huge part of having a successful business. Never mind that It would be unethical as heck, lol!

    People have proposed similar ideas before. To me, at bottom, it kinda seems like a roundabout way of saying "someone put a protector on something I want, and since they don't seem to be using it, by rights I should have the chance to take it."

    Well @Electrox wanted everything in the protectors to go BACK into the persons inventory. And three months is a lot of time. I think it is really just how you look at it.
    I realize he doesn't want the items. He wants the land. But it's the same difference. Protectors are sold as permanent protective devices. Putting a protector on a public world is essentially like buying a little portion of land. Land ownership obtains even if the landowner falls into a coma and doesn't fire up the game for the next 50 years.
    yea but the fact that the protectors stay here forever in public worlds when somebody is inactive or quitted the game 2 years ago is a major bummer to me and to lot of other poeple that visit Times Square each day.
    I compare this to property taxes in real life if you don't pay the taxes then your house will be taken. In game
    if you don't log in atleast once every 3 months your land would be taken
  • ElectroxElectrox Hidden AsylumPosts: 883Member

    maybe if your higher level the time will increase?
    for example, each level +5-10 days?
    but then again, hooe the hell do you get grounded for 3 months.

    having the time increase when you are higher level isn't a good idea why wouldn't it be the same for everyone
    the reason why the protectors and items protected by it would be returned to the players inventory is simply to give the chance to more poeple to have a land in cluttered markets and other worlds.
  • PIPTR0PIPTR0 Brating those testy snot-board beats with nosesPosts: 3,648Member
    Trust me, it's possible to be grounded for 3 months.
    -tears-
  • KittyKupoKittyKupo Laying in a sunbeamPosts: 2,251Member
    I think that if there was a limited amount of space, this plan would work. But since there isn't a limit on how many worlds exist, there's no reason for it. I've played games where there's a limited amount of player housing and it makes sense for everything to be sent back to the player's inventory if they don't log on in a certain amount of time. But in games where it's instanced, there's no need to remove it.
    Times Square might be the most popular market, but that can change. One day another market could become the new popular market.
  • ShiroNaiShiroNai Back from the dead...maybe?Posts: 4,453Member, Arbiter
    I mean there is a random protecter in my world protecting 2 natural medium blue crystals. There's also a random teleport in my other world placed there by a friend, but I can't see who owns it for them to come take it down.

    I see what he means by the auto-remove, but there has to be a better way to solve that problem.
  • NewGenerationNewGeneration Singapore Posts: 268Member
    I guess a 1 year period would be better?
  • Dominus_MortisDominus_Mortis I am being super super super super super super super super super SUUUUPER good. Mmkay? Kay.Posts: 953Member
    edited February 2016
    Saw this post and I thought I should add it would be like a mini-Growtopia...

    EDIT: the one thing in Growtopia I hate.
    Post edited by Dominus_Mortis on
  • Lord_KyuubiLord_Kyuubi on the internet, boosting my self esteem with inspect element...Posts: 729Member

    Saw this post and I thought I should add it would be like a mini-Growtopia...

    EDIT: the one thing in Growtopia I hate.

    in growtopia its 180 days. but for world locks its a year... but thats growtopia. this is deepworld. the two are Way different...
  • p1nkbr0p1nkbr0 Like, totally, brahPosts: 5,087Member, Arbiter
    I will say, I have been grounded for an entire semester due to my grades. (Actually two trimesters) I couldn't get on deepworld if I tried. 13-Year-old me would sure as hell have been EXTREMELY upset if that were to have happened in my favorite game. This was before Deepworld, but the point still stands.

    It would do more harm than good. And you're not, in any way shape or form, entitled to ANYTHING another person owns at all, PERIOD, full-stop. Nothing that another person has, especially something they bought with real money, belongs to anybody but them, regardless if you feel you "deserve" it or not. That's just selfish and immature.

  • awesomeo13awesomeo13 New york, New YorkPosts: 5,951Member
    Or we can put it on protectors that are empty (Have nothing).

    That way we can remove the protectors that are a "Negative" influence (Like that giga-protector in one of the markets that has nothing in it, if its still there) while allowing more build-able land or something to that effect.

    Lets all try and think of a solution instead of bickering, its more productive and "positive".
  • p1nkbr0p1nkbr0 Like, totally, brahPosts: 5,087Member, Arbiter

    Or we can put it on protectors that are empty (Have nothing).

    That way we can remove the protectors that are a "Negative" influence (Like that giga-protector in one of the markets that has nothing in it, if its still there) while allowing more build-able land or something to that effect.

    Lets all try and think of a solution instead of bickering, its more productive and "positive".

    The solution would be to not implement such a thing, instead of finding ways to change it like it's already going to be implemented.
  • awesomeo13awesomeo13 New york, New YorkPosts: 5,951Member
    p1nkbr0 said:

    Or we can put it on protectors that are empty (Have nothing).

    That way we can remove the protectors that are a "Negative" influence (Like that giga-protector in one of the markets that has nothing in it, if its still there) while allowing more build-able land or something to that effect.

    Lets all try and think of a solution instead of bickering, its more productive and "positive".

    The solution would be to not implement such a thing, instead of finding ways to change it like it's already going to be implemented.
    How come its bad to remove empty protectors that are there for the sole purpose of trolling (In terms of markets only, not other worlds) but its fine to remove protected items such as lag machines and stabilizers?

    I do understand that removing protectors from homes and shops is bad, without a doubt, however If there is land that is being taken up by protector that has nothing in it, surely this allows them to be removed, as this is in similar method to the Stabilizer spam, deterring players from building.

    Hey, it might never be implemented and the ideas might be a waste, but its better to improve the idea than to say "IDEA BAD, PERIOD".
Sign In or Register to comment.