An idea for an upkeep system

Spammers only build with T1. So that would not change.

Anyone else tends to build with T3 on the most part minus some areas where its not necessary.

I think an additional, optional upkeep system would be good. Keeping the current upkeep with login in to keep things alive intact, but also offer an option to “prepay” for maintenance for an extended time - for those times when you can’t be online regularly, be it due to work, vacation or whatever RL circumstances. The maintenance would be based on building pieces/materials the player/clan has currently on the map (yes, you might not want to pay for every little outpost you have built, but hey, either you destroy it or you pay upkeep – anything else would probably be way too complicated). Probably this should be available on PvE servers only and additionally have a max time you can prepay maintenance for, as to avoid someone keeping something alive for months on end without ever logging in – let’s say 30 days.

While open-world survival game Last Oasis might have many flaws, their introduction of a Maintenance Chest for upkeep of bases was actually well done. Base building is not the same there of course, but the idea behind it is good. You fill the Maintenance Chest of your base with resources which are based on your building materials. Upkeep is calculated on amount of pieces and type of materials used and you can see exactly how long your base’s maintenance lasts when you add resources to the chest. (We covered it in a video, but won’t link it here because it might be seen as self-promotion, check our channel if it interests you).

PS: While I’m not necessarily a fan @CodeMage’s idea of a “flag system”, implementation would probably be not that difficult as it technically already existed in game for the thrall upkeep. The old upkeep utilized the thrall pot which was used to feed thralls in a certain range based on food added to the pot. They obviously replaced this old system and there might be reasons why they wouldn’t want to add something similar again for building upkeep.

I actually gave some example numbers, and running them from the example I gave would mean that a clan’s base of around 50,000 building pieces would require 9000 hardened Bricks a month. That’s less than half an inventory’s worth of stone.

If that’s too much for some people, I have to ask, are you all actually even still playing? Think about this for a moment. One day, not even a full session, would be all it takes to refresh a build… for a MONTH.

Right now you all log in 4 times a month to do the same. But you’re still against this simply because you can’t be bothered to click a few rocks, turn on furnace, and run some blacksmiths.

If you’re one of these people, then yeah, I will freely admit that your build should be demo’d in favor for a more active player. In fact I would even argue they should login and demo everyone’s base who has less than a few hours played in the last month. Maybe that would be a better system? I can push for that.

This thread wouldn’t even exist if people with builds across the map actually logged in and played the game. This wouldn’t even be a thought in anyone’s head. But they don’t. And they have the audacity to say its a hard no?

I don’t value the opinion of someone taking up space who has less than 5 hours played in a month. I just don’t. And this comes from the perspective of a server admin. I have deleted people’s waste of space for this before. It does not hurt my feelings one bit when an active player gets to enjoy the previous’s spot.

1 Like

Well then have 2 types of flags, square and rectangle. 12x8 or 10x10. 96 Sq or 100 Sq.

Spammers aren’t the only people who build big.

The game advertise big and fancy buildings. And you can find Non-spammer creations all around the map. Just imagine all those non-spam fancy looking castles turning from T3 material into sandstone & flotsam.

Heck, just look at the advertising anytime a new DLC comes out. They showcase all the fancy stuff that can be built, and they’re never showing off some tiny little square hut.

If Funcom implements a change that makes Sandstone the preferred building material then that is going to be VERY Anti-DLC.



Parody, right? :rofl:


True. Personally, I do not see a system that would be too restrictive since it will scare away casuals.

I wonder how many flags a non-base accessibility feature like this would require?

If one wants that type of build on an official, then they should pay for it.

For the person building that, it seems awesome. But for some players is annoying and pulls their game from immersion. Officials are shared. If the whole server likes the build, they could pitch in for upkeep.


I have yet to mention the ToS.

In the example I’ve given where I’ve removed someone’s building, they weren’t even in violation of any rules. I just assumed (correctly) that they had ceased playing.

I assumed that when @CodeMage made the thread, it was in reference to the decay system, not to TOS violations.

1 Like

Nice to see a lot of healthy, polite discussion going on. Let me clarify a few points.

I kinda took that for granted, instead of saying it explicitly, but yes: just like the current decay system can be tweaked or turned off, the upkeep system would be customizable and have an option to be disabled.

Ideally, they would implement and test the change, and go through a two-phase activation process. The first phrase would have the system implemented on live, giving the players the ability to place whatever they need and see all the necessary numbers, but with the actual decay still being subject to “old” refresh mechanics. And then they would flip the switch to the new system.

Of course, even that would cause furor and uproar on the forums, but that’s a different topic :wink:

I proposed an area-of-effect flag because it’s a very easy concept to work with intuitively and visually. There’s another perfectly viable alternative: place the flag on any piece of your claim, and it applies to all interconnected pieces (just like the current decay system works). You could still have as many flags as you want, but the only effect they have is to “connect” different builds (like a set-union operator, for those mathematically inclined), so the upkeep is calculated for all of them together.

I still think area-of-effect flags would be better UX, but hey, it’s not like there are no other options :slight_smile:

Thank you for your kind words. Indeed, it has been discussed often and in depth, but I don’t remember if I ever wrote down my idea for it in a thread of its own, so I took this opportunity. That way, whenever I mention it on another thread and someone expresses doubts about it, I can always point them here.

It wasn’t in reference to anything specific. I would rather not explain my idea on every single thread I mention it and potentially derail that thread as a result.

However, I didn’t come up with this idea beceause of TOS violations and I don’t think it would remove the need for rules and enforcement of rules. I have formulated this idea over a long time, having participated in countless discussions where people suggested building limits, and countless other discussions about serial refreshers and the inadequacies of the current decay system.

While I would dearly love to avoid turning this thread into a discussion about TOS violations, or whether serial refreshers are in their right, or whether we should have building limits, I do want to note my stance on that last one: I absolutely abhor the idea of building limits and would prefer any upkeep system (not just this one) to building limits.

Enough that the player community on your server would have to chip in and help you out with upkeep, if they value what you did for them and are okay with anything this build might have despawned. If not, well, then that should give you a hint… :man_shrugging:

1 Like

Hmm, seems you don’t know how people work. The community greatly appreciates conveniences they don’t have to pay for. I have been told numerous times that people like the various bridges, stairs, and map-rooms I have built and made publicly available. If anyone has disliked anything I made, they kept it to themselves.

However, that isn’t even relevant.

To clarify my point that seems to be getting overlooked here, I am sure I could pay for any upkeep cost. I constructed the bridge in the above video in one day. I have the resources. The problem is that it is a 2x200 structure that would require a ridiculous number of flags when the actual footprint is the same as a 20x20 base.

Area-of-effect is just stupid. Interconnected builds is still bad, but as long as you are even still discussing area-of-effect as reasonable, no, no it is not.

1 Like

I like the upkeep but I would do one in a different direction. We have focused on upkeep as a way to limit build size by making it more difficult on folks that build the large structures and that would self regulate the foundation spammers. How about something different…damage escalation. Instead of upkeep where you have to continuously keep resources available for any structure, you have a damage system that damaged building pieces continue to get worse until repaired or breaks apart. It’s essentially upkeep but only for things that are damaged. If you don’t like the structure there…hit it and start the crumbling. Essentually damage acts as poison to the building and tickets away (maybe 1 durability/ 10 secs at start but then you could increase it as you loos more stability in the piece (IE something that has lost 10% of it’s integrity will crumble faster and then it can do like 25%, 50% etc so it starts slow and increases exponentially). No notice, no alerts. The entire diligence to keep your magestic castle is on you to ensure you do rounds to fix any issues. :slight_smile:

Oh, I do. I’ve seen wonderful communities both on official and private servers. I’ve also seen extremely toxic communities on official servers. And, of course, there have been some indifferent official server I’ve played on.

It’s kinda like life, isn’t it? :wink:

Area-of-effect is better UX, but can be more inconvenient for specific shapes. That can be solved by either replacing the AOE flag with an interconnected-build one, or by having 3 tiers of flags (T1 being the smallest AOE, T3 the biggest), or by making a hybrid system where the cost isn’t calculated by number of flags only but rather the number of pieces inside the flag area.

There are options. Always :slight_smile:

I find the people in this thread to be acting a bit ironically.

When I suggested the 1% per week upkeep. I got up to get a drink after posting the comment. While I was waiting for the coffee to brew, I did the math in my head and realized for a single month of upkeep, it would literally take less than an inventory (200 slots total) of stone to get. And when I got my mug I was thinking of editing the post. It was a trivial amount. It wouldn’t give the results the OP was looking for.

I decided not to. Just to see the reactions.

If they replaced the decay system with a 1% upkeep per week system. Players literally would go from logging in 4 times a month, to once a month. It’d be 4x worse of a problem then we’re trying to solve.

But even with having to login less. People are adamantly against it. They don’t want to put in the effort and the suggested effort is less than they’re already doing.

So either they’re not reading the arguments being presented and are just taking stances on principle. Or they’re none too bright. Well I think its the former more than the latter. Some might be the latter, but I’ll let them admit that themselves rather than label it. Course giving people the benefit of the doubt means they have more responsibility, but that’s their problem, not mine.

1 Like

I don’t know who these hypothetical people are you are talking about who are arguing your costs, since I haven’t seen anyone here doing so, but I will respond for myself.

I could not care less what the actual costs would be. Unless it was so astronomically high that not one person could support it, I could afford to pay it. I have been playing almost every day for around three and a half years, and have accumulated enough resources to boggle the minds of all but the most hardened of grinders.

I don’t care. Upkeep would not add anything good to the game, it would only be an additional nuisance that would not accomplish anything of use. It would not stop abuse, it would not make people more likely to play.


Now you are semantics trolling. You will continue to change the goal posts everytime someone works a “solution” to your question.

Again, if you want to build like this on officials, and the decide to institute CMs suggestion, then that is on you and you alone. I always see the " Everyone likes my builds". And I just believe if they really lolly like it, they would chip in for the extra flags. Of not, then maybe they were be sociable nice by saying they liked it.

This bridge surely allows you to farm easily the volcano heart yet it is unnecessary, because you can find all these thralls and goodies up, no actual need to farm down too.
Getting in the heart of volcano must be difficult, must be risky and most of the times your death must be certain.
I really liked at the beginning the difficulty to jump over the floating stones or instant death.
That was actually the reason dragon mouth was the best entrance for the volcano heart. Even when our thralls were dieing from lava, dragon mouth entrance was secure.
I really agree with @Tephra that this bridge killed almost 0 spawns, very clever fixed, well done, yet I wouldn’t like to play in this server too, it makes hell paradise. I love the difficulties of the game. The only thing I hate so far and I find it extremely wrong and unfair is the exit of the well. Retrieve for the first time the trapezoedron takes you more than 15 minutes to do it. So the guardians of the entrance will surely slaughter you at the exit because they respawned.
I believe one of the greatest reason Tephra did this is to be able to help the soonest possible the new players, or old, who suffered this situation.
The reasons and the cause seems noble to me, but as I said for me no thank you, but take me not seriously here, I am just a difficulty freak :rofl::rofl::rofl:.


Then why should people value the opinion of a private servers admin who is wanting drastic changes to officials servers?

Again, why advocate for change on servers you dont even play on? You can choose to do that to your private servers, which you admit to already doing…so this issue isnt even relevant to you since you can deal with it in the manor you see fit.


I did no such thing. I redirected you back to the points I am actually making when you go off in the weeds arguing something irrelevant.

I have no interest in putting toll booths on my bridges.

I could easily afford upkeep myself, that was not the point, is not the point, never will be the point.