An idea for an upkeep system

I have a question for your idea here, bases on say a long walkway that didnt fit inside the “flags” area of effect. Would you like to see it based off building pieces or distance from the flag as far as how to calculate the cost of upkeep?

I believe we’re going to have some fun in a future update. But he’s on record for taking Funcom’s definition as gospel here.

Its posssible. Funcom has said one thing and done a complete 180 a while later, so anything is possible.

At that time, people may or may not have to change what they do. Till then, it is what it is.

We 7nderatand that. Now can you understand tat we are saying maybe, just maybe from our experiences, this also drives off players from even playing?

50 like easy helpers like your build.
50 don’t.

if the 50 that d9nt leave, then yes a majority on the server will say it is not a problem. Because the 50 that left are voiceless.

Our idea of upkeep is because we feel there are some gamers not playing because of perceived over building.

And I have actually would rather have a flag system that counts Anchors (items placed directly on map as “foundation”). That number would dictate the cost.

So then you 2x200 would cost the same as a 20x20. And building vertical would not add cost.

I deliberately kept the details of cost function unspecified, because there are many possible alternatives, and because I feel like there’s no point in presenting a super-detailed proposal like that. If I worked for Funcom, I would go into details, but I don’t work for them. If the devs ever decide to implement an upkeep system, it’s vanishingly improbable that their design process would involve a detailed reading of a random forum post by a random armchair game designer :wink:

That said, the base idea, in its simplest form, was to simply use the total area covered by flags as the input into the cost function. Maybe offer 3 tiers of flags – T1 being small, T2 being medium, and T3 being large – so that players can deal more easily with different shapes of builds. But in this base case, the pieces themselves wouldn’t enter the calculation at all. The cost would be based only on the total claim area.

The alternative approach, where the flag doesn’t have area of effect, would take the number of interconnected pieces as the input for the upkeep cost function. Multiple flags would simply be used to make pieces count as interconnected even when they’re not physically attached. Which pieces would be counted and which wouldn’t is an implementation detail, and of course you can add more bells and whistles to the function, but the more you add, the more expensive it gets to (re)compute and the harder it is for players to get a feel for it.

The third, “hybrid” approach would use area-of-effect claim flags, but the cost function wouldn’t simply be based on the total claim area. Instead, it would take into account the pieces inside the claim and compute the cost from them.

All of these approaches have their pros and cons. My personal favorite is the base approach – AOE flags and an upkeep function based on total claim area – because of its simplicity. I’m not talking about the simplicity of implementation, by the way. I simply think it would be easier for players to understand and work with.

1 Like

Yeah, the reason I asked was because there is a trick (maybe widely known, Im not sure) but you can have one building in one place AND MULTIPLE other bases across the map share the same decay timer. In fact, you can have everything you build be on the same timer.

In other words, my base at the Frost Temple, Sepermeru, multiple map rooms around the map, multiple wheel bases around the map, my base at New Asgard ALL share the same decay timer. So, If I put a flag down on my “main base”, all the outer smaller bases and map rooms would be outside the flags radius. Or, because they share the same decay timer, does the one flag cover them all, and the upkeep is based on number of building pieces? Or is it based off distance from the main base flag? Or would a person who has a large areas between builds need multiple flags because they are outside the 1st flags range?

Haaaa, you opened a can of worms with alot of possibilities. I think lots of people are gonna hit you up with “what if” questions lol. Hope you got lots of coffee!

1 Like

Still love your ideas.

Upkeep cost could just be a function of the total area that your building pieces land claim. Idk if that would be simpler to implement than flags, but it should have the same effect? It would remove the square peg round hole problems of weird shaped builds in defined flag spaces.

If you could modify that calculation to consider verticality even better.

Yep, I know. I tried to come up with a proposal that would allow that explicitly instead of relying on … well, let’s just call it “an implementation detail”, so nobody gets their feathers ruffled. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

I see nothing wrong with it, but maybe it’s a Big Deal™ on PVP servers?

Yes, that was the idea: if you have more than one claim, you’ll need more than one claim flag :slight_smile:

Again, I can see how the base idea (just-the-number-of-flags upkeep cost function) could be inconvenient there, which is why there are other two options. The third (so-called-hybrid) approach aims to be the most flexible and “fair”, but it’s also the most complicated.

Like I said, even in the second (no AOE, interconnected pieces) and third (hybrid) approach, the exact upkeep cost function can still be tweaked to Funcom’s heart’s content. The details of how it’s calculated depend on what your priorities are. If the upkeep is based on the claim area, you’re encouraging people to leave space for others. If the upkeep is based on the number of pieces, you’re encouraging people to build small. Other functions offer other (dis)incentives. As I mentioned before, I would be surprised if Funcom even picked up this idea at all, so I’m leaving details like these up in the air :man_shrugging:

What problems does this solve? It seems like extra and unnecessary work to me. Isn’t spending time to login and play the same as putting “fuel” in a flag? Maybe I’m missing something.

Edit: Even though i’m not sure what you’re going for, I think a more elegant solution would be to use a new bench. Instead of a flag, you could construct a “builder’s bench” with different tiers. The inventory could hold construction material like, stone, bricks, shaped wood, reinforcements etc. This would be the “fuel”. The tier of bench would determine the amount of fuel used over time. You could add a carpenter thrall to expand its range based on thrall tier. It could also automatically repair damaged building pieces in range if you have a carpenter thrall in it.

Come to think of it, it’s kind of like a Thrall Pot for buildings.


Welcome to the forums! :slight_smile:

The main problem I would like this to solve is the problem of serial refreshers. No matter how much you’ve built, whether it’s a tiny hut or a sprawling city that takes up several squares on the map grid, when you get bored of playing, you can just log in a couple of minutes a week to refresh it. I realize this is not a big problem on PVP servers, where you can blow things up, but PVE and PVE-C servers are a different story.

A secondary problem this solves it that you can go on a vacation or a hiatus without worrying about the decay: just put enough “fuel” and you can rest easy.


@TenJumpChump welcome :+1:t6:.
The discussion for an upkeep system started from complains of other members. Some members discuss that they do not agree with the decay refresh abuse.
Some others complain that they have to go for 2 weeks vacations and they didn’t want to loose their thousands hours of game play progress.
So @CodeMage started this conversation…
No matter what we are going to analyze here, our greatest goal is a polite and creative discussion. Even you just arrived and suggested a wonderful idea… Bravo.
Always remember, we are just discussing things here, it is the general discussion section after all. We all share a common goal, our favorite game to become the best in the market, now if our silly thoughts will help devs to do something better, well this will be awesome. So feel free to share your ideas, you never know :wink:.
Welcome again, happy to have you here exile :+1:t6:.

1 Like

Ah I see. I do hate when people take up space when they’re not actively playing. I started playing on PvP servers specifically because pretty much all the land had been built on and occupied.

I’m not sure what the best solution is, but I think that it should be fun or beneficial to people who play regularly rather than a burden to keep playing. I don’t know if extra resource grinding every week is how i’d want to implement it, but I cannot think of a better solution. I do think if it was coupled with auto repair or some kind of buff then it might be easier to sell. It is a good idea worth discussing and thanks for the warm welcome :smiley:

@stelagel Thank you for the warm welcome!


That is kind of an interesting idea.

Upkeep takes a certain percentage, but as a benefit, adding a bit extra ensures a steady repair rate that is useful for those who see purges.


If that’s the case then I would suggest that whatever ideas you guys come up be applied only to people spending less than 10 hours a month in game. Spent less than 10 hours last month? Then all this month you have to feed that damned flag. Spent more than that? Then no flag is ever hungry. Or it could go 4 hours per week if months are too long.

All that said I really don’t think this idea will address the solution you’re after. Serial refreshers will just spend one day a month (or a year) and farm all the needed mats in one go… then part of their serial refreshing process will be to spawn next to the flag, dump the matts in, and log off. Repeat every 7 days.

If this is even a problem at all then wouldn’t it be better if Funcom just placed a minimum time :watch: per week or the seven day decay rate for the next week gets halved? And halved again, and again… etc.


Of course even then serial refreshers could just load the game and leave it running the BG for the allotted time. Make the window tiny so it doesn’t eat too much power, start the game, then go out to dinner and a movie with the GF. At least mime doesn’t time me out - ever. And if they implement an inactivity timer for that then there are mouse and KB macros which will defeat them.

Maybe your whole “payment” system should be based on distance traveled?

So if you don’t travel X meters in 7 days then the next decay timer is 3 days, and the very next one is 1 day.


PVP has that going for it, yes, but there are various other reasons why I don’t play on PVP servers. The primary reason is that there is a 5-hour window every single day when people can just come up and wreck your stuff. It’s not the only reason, but I don’t want to derail this thread with that particular discussion :wink:

I tried to propose a system that wouldn’t really be a burden most of the time, as long as you actually play the game. That’s why my proposal includes that idea about a secondary placeable that can transform other stuff into “fuel”.

Did you go farming for your next build and now you have more leather than you can use? Instead of tossing it on the ground, why not toss it into the upkeep-fuel-maker bin? Did you slaughter a few world bosses and only get stuff like The Brittle Bastard? Toss it in the upkeep-fuel-maker!

Basically, I wanted to propose a system that would not stand in the way of the people who play the game, and the idea was that the more of the buildable space you take up on a server, the more you should play.

Ideally, the cost function would work in such a way that you wouldn’t need extra resource grinding every week, as long as your total build size (or total claim area or whatever) is within a certain “sweet spot range” that I don’t care to try to define here, because even trying to define it would start a flame war :stuck_out_tongue:

Hey, that’s a nice idea :slight_smile:

I mean, that really depends on how you define “spending time in game”. If it’s just being connected to the server, then guess what will happen? People will leave their toons connected overnight. So you go from a server that’s 5/40 on a good day because nobody wants to play on a server full of huge theme parks that belong to serial refreshers, to a server that’s 40/40 and you can’t connect to it because all the serial refreshers are hogging the connections to circumvent the upkeep system.

And no, I’m not exaggerating, because there are already people who leave their toons logged in overnight to get a purge, because they play solo and can’t easily get a purge without that.

That also depends on the upkeep cost function. I don’t mind serial refreshers per se. I mind serial refreshers who have multiple huge theme parks spread all across the map.

So as long as the upkeep cost function turns serial refreshment of multiple huge builds into a chore, yeah, I believe that would solve the problem.

And the reason why I believe it would solve it is because I used to be one of those serial refreshers. I had two castles, one menagerie, one melee arena, one jousting arena, one fishery, one relatively small bridge that connected north jungle and south jungle, one outpost near New Asagarth, and several public map rooms. I used to log in once or twice a week and spend up to half an hour refreshing that stuff. The only reason it took that long to refresh it is because I built it without using the “connect-the-decay-timers” trick.

I’m not proud of it, and I’m especially not proud of how long it took me to understand that what I was doing wasn’t okay, but at least I have a good idea about how these people think. And I can tell you that I wouldn’t have lasted half as long as I did if refreshing that stuff required more than just half an hour of riding around without doing anything.

That’s why I included the idea about the upkeep-fuel-maker bench. I really don’t want to force people to do anything other than play :slight_smile:

As a bonus, having that would also create a trade economy, because plant fiber won’t give you the same amount of fuel as a Mistmourn or a tamed-but-not-placed Cannibal Brute.


So now you’re heading up the SRA huh? :laughing: Well, it seems like a worthy cause to me anyway.

1 Like

I got my base deleted, and then a two weeks ban, for a base that took up space like this…

If they can delete a base for that, then they can delete a base for anything. Getting Funcom to blow stuff up will be the new trolling. And it’s already in effect.

(PS - before anyone says “submit a Zendesk ticket” I already did. They didn’t care.)
(PPS - before anyone says “there must be something to this she’s not mentioning” - there isn’t.)


This is all quite off-topic, but screw it, 'cause I’m curious.

Lemme guess, a canned reply saying something vague about being banned for abuse of building system and no further details?

Rather than something you’re not mentioning on purpose, could there be something you didn’t think of? For example, if this is on a PVP server, you might have used fence foundation stacking to make your build more sturdy. Was there anything like that?

1 Like

You called it. Their response is “banned for claim spam”. When I provided pictures and asked how my tiny sandstone base was claim spam, I received the generic "“it’s your responsibility to make sure no one in your clan is abusing game mechanics or partaking in continued harassment” message.

They provided no other details and stopped answering me. Leaving me absolutely puzzled.
I still don’t know what I got banned for.

This is a PVE server. The base didn’t have much in it, and was infrequently played (it was for RL friends who rarely logged). It was still sandstone. It was in a rarely traveled area. It didn’t wall off, surround anything, or block resources. I know what the Official Server Rules are…

And I still don’t know what I did.

(Oh, didn’t mean to take this off topic. I’ll stop now)