Perimeters! (II)

Update (July 2013): (Just in case someone decides to necro this) : the perimeter debate has died down for now. It appears every now and again, when perimeters cause friction. We may not have seen the last of it yet. Or maybe this time everyone really is happy with it. Who knows.

It is a true delight to see the Wurm Online players debating this prickly subject with the same creativity and thoroughness as they tackled the Pink Pearl deed-grab rule loophole. (Yay!)

This one is muuuch tougher though. It’s very tangled because of all the functions perimeters are supposed to support some of which conflict/overlap.

It really would help to separate those out and establish them properly so they don’t collide, then have a good argue about the details using some commonsense principles like:    “deed holder > new player > passing scavenger”     for example, though that might not turn out to be the case we’d need a debate to work it through.

As it stands for perimeters:  passing scavenger > new player’s enclosure > deed owner.  And roads > everything. That is,  the paying customer  benefits least (scavengers can use this land without having to deal with the consequences or fix the mess, deed owners can use this land but must live with the changes made or else they have to repair all damage including that caused by others.)


So far I’ve seen perimeters are meant to be: buffers between neighbours, wilderness, extra land for newbs to build, prevention of contiguous deeds, prevention of other deeds/players  too close, reservation for expansion, room for roads – all given as a purpose for this strange system. There may be more. It’s too much and it’s a mess.

And current enclosure rules make it even more of a mess since the perimeter restrictions can be circumvented, almost all of them, by using enclosures, a loophole exploited most bigly (is that a word?) by established, skilled players, I may add, who claim large pieces of land simply by creating enclosures. Increasing decay, by the way, would affect the skilled up landgrabbers least, and penalise new players most. If anything needs a one-tile buffer to stop them being made side-to-side, it is enclosures. They are often deliberately used to block access. They should be size limited too – they are protected areas for new players and people trying the game to make use of, so it is rumoured.

(This thread goes very quiet when large undeeded enclosures are brought up, I notice.)

I haven’t even mentioned the griefing possibilities perimeters allow.

It would be deeply good to fix perimeters.

We haven’t quite got there yet, but deed owners are fast becoming the mugs who pay for things everyone else finds rule-approved ways of getting for free. But it’s Wurm, could go in any direction. It has a habit of wobbling up to a precipice and not falling in. If I was to start playing right now I wouldn’t bother with a deed (disadvantages substantial,  advantages continually diminishing), I would only skill one premium and keep that up only intermittently as required. And I would not suffer for it, in fact, I would prosper.

Categories: Life On Wurm

Post navigation

2 thoughts on “Perimeters! (II)

  1. Perimeter restrictions is a debatable topic and there are some valid points on both the sides.

    • It’s still going strong that debate, and really interesting to think it all through and see everyone’s ideas. I do love how the playerbase gets their teeth into a thing now and again.

Blog at