Just submit it for Yogtober contest, it is amazing how scary good this is.
I can’t really take credit for this trick since I learned it from @dmw33 in this wonderful post 
Ok you understand that the change actually punished the whales, right? That’s like saying the raising the tax code for those making over $400k was the rich getting more attention with their taxes than the rest of us.
True, and I probably should’ve been clearer. I was referring to the relative importance of one aspect of the game over another. I’m not trying to say that what the whales want is more important, any more than I agree with you about Funcom “working for you”.
What I was trying to say is that “this is a BLB bug” is more likely to be prioritized than “this is a base game bug” even when the fix for one is just as easy as the fix for the other. Why? Because the whales have already decided to spend money on BLB despite the bugs, whereas us plebs haven’t, for whatever reason.
Not ever BLB bug is the same, of course. Ironically, as you pointed out, fixing this particular bug is going to make some of the whales angry, but it’s still a BLB bug. Better fix it sooner rather than later, to ensure the viability of BLB, right?
How does this help someone who didn’t purchase the bookcase?
In the same space as the bookcase chests can be stacked in a way that offers more storage space and more hp. Therefore an alternative did already exist in game. The solution that i proposed would have balanced out the required in game resources while allowing bazaar customers to keep what they had paid for.
The proposed measure assumes that the alleged advantage of the bookcase is the storage space per volume.
The base game alternatives are:
- 5 large chests, to have at least as much storage space as the bookcase
- 24 large chests, to have as much storage space as you can fit in the same volume as the bookcase
The proposal aims to remove the assumed advantage by making the paid alternative much more expensive than 5 large chests and have much less space than 24 large chests. Therefore, the only difference would be cosmetic.
Of course, the proposal doesn’t take into account the fact that bookcase requires no stacking of placeables and is therefore less likely to be affected by stability bugs, but I kinda feel that “this is P2W because of Funcom’s bugs” is something that should be laid at the feet of Funcom’s QA practices, not Funcom’s monetization.
Here’s the thing this is only a viable alternative in singleplayer and a handfew of small population multiplayer servers. Most servers will restrict the amount of storage items you can have.
5 chests will have far more of a performance impact (both for individuals and servers) than a single. That goes literally exponentially higher for 24 chests.
This is why a paid for solution is absolutely P2W and untenable. Even FC realized that.
The missing word there is “private”.
I’ll take your word for it, although I’m not entirely sure why that would be the case.
And this is where a reasonable player should start banging their head against the desk. If what you said about the performance is true, that means Funcom knows that the current status quo is bad for server performance.
People store things. They’ll store them in 5 chests, or in 1 arcane bookcase. Take away the bookcase capacity, and people will go back to 5 chests.
Adding a base-game reskin of the arcane bookcase and arcane curio cabinet – better yet, an intentionally crappy looking reskin – would have removed P2W and, according to you, improved server performance. Oh, and let people avoid the risk of losing their stuff due to stability bugs.
Regardless of the above, there’s something that really tickled my curiosity here. I’ve heard from certain server admins that sandstone is “less optimized” than T2 and T3, and that a 2500-piece sandstone build has worse performance impact than a 5000-piece T2+ build.
Now, I’m not a server admin, so I haven’t tested that out myself. It comes from a source that I trust, but trust is beside the point here, because I want to ask you a hypothetical question based on a thought experiment. Even if you don’t think the above is correct, assume for a moment that it is, and tell me: if the BLB sandstone pieces were “more optimized” than base game pieces, unbeknownst to the average player, would you support deoptimizing those pieces to remove their P2W advantage?
I think FC were more worried about the extra storage slots rather than server performance when they nerfed the bookcase.
3D software usually uses instancing which means the 24 chests would only render as one item. Therefore the 24 large chests may create less server performance problems than the one highly detailed bookcase. I say usually though because FC may have something different in place.
Servers don’t actually restrict anything, only Zendesk do that when they receive a complaint about the ToS being broken by players.
I totally agree though, p2w should not be used in any form however they made a mistake on this occasion and i think they could have limited the damage done if they had used what i proposed.
Funcom propably will introduce new storage containers over time. People are obsessed with building all kinds of fancy storage rooms. But this won´t solve the overall problem of items in containers causing massiv lag.
One solution I see is generally raising stacksizes. Conan Exiles is heavy on items and ressources. You need space and storage possibilities to organize all the clutter and ressources that are flying around your base. It would help a lot if players didn´t had to put up 5+ chests just to store their newly farmed iron so to speak.
Nobody likes to admit it, but a lot of people in Conan tend to have a massiv hoarding problem. And a lot just love to farm. Its all they do once they build up their base. I do not believe that you can bring people easily to change this behavior. Also most private servers have raised farming rates. Which also doesn´t help much in terms of server performance. So its just a matter of time until most bases get horribly cluttered and start to lag like hell.
Raising stacksizes may not be ideal since people might find it a little unconvinient to split larger stacks of items but it would at least help to some degree.
Another solution would be a complete revamp on the actuall farming/gatheringrate system. Reduce the harvesting rates and adapte all recipes to that rate. Instead of 100 iron you only need 10 for the same recipe. Reduced amount of ressources leads to reduced amount of space needed for storage.
I used my words carefully. Stacking chests in sufficient number would likely be grounds for a Zendesk report on officials. Those servers are more inclined to have the performance issues I described. Any server with a sufficient player population would.
This is a good solution. The amount of data used to store a stack of 25 and 2500 is the same.
I have a better solution though. However I think most things should probably stack to 1,000 if they don’t already and potentially consider stacking to 10,000 so don’t think of this as a replacement.
The solution should be depots. The idea is that you have these stations that are relatively small but not too small (think around) the size of a Furnace. Let’s use a stone depot as an example. You have what looks like a pile of rocks. But when you interact with it, you can deposit or withdraw stone and stone only. But you can do like an insane number of stone, maybe 500,000 or more. But the benefit is it doesn’t have a quick inventory (like bodies and storage units have), and it has a singular value. It would have much less impact than trying to use 10 Large Chests or even a single vault. But this is done for all the common materials, stone, fiber, wood, bricks etc.
That would do wonders for cleaning up storage and material organization and would help with server and client side performance.
It would be even better if stack sizes were storage dependent. Don’t think its coded that way but I can understand not wanting people to body vault everything.
Official server’s do no such thing.
And the only thing Funcom can change/nerf are things on the official servers.
Private servers might. But private servers also have storage mods that make an arcane bookshelf seem like a wooden crate in comparison.
And Funcom can’t make changes to the private servers.
The thing is, you said “most servers” restrict the storage space you have. Which is a boldface lie.
The few private servers you’ve decided to sample might. But you know that’s cherry picking.
Bulls***!!
You obviously don’t play on offical servers. There’s a lot of things people get reported for…
But having too many chests??? That ain’t one of them.
I mean, technically you could submit a Zendesk report ticket for… anything really.
Doesn’t mean they won’t immediately delete your “too many chests” ticket.
Want to try? Stack 24 chests in a small area, fill them up. Then give me the server you are on, location, and clan/player name. I’ll do the report myself.
Maybe. Or maybe not. The problem is that nobody knows and nobody will ever know as long as Funcom insists on the current process. I’ve yet to see one player who got targeted by admin action show that they contacted Funcom and got the information on how to avoid repeating their mistake.
I like this idea. This is how I tend to organize my stuff anyway.
Now, put a ceiling piece in because the Arcane is so tall, and double it.
It’s not about too many chest but server performance. I actually know someone that would select bases to raid based on lag around it. If there was sufficient lag, they knew there was enough loot in there to raid.
I don’t think this strategy is reliable 100%. because several guards can also cause lag problems ?
Hard to say really without any official feedback on anything ever but I suppose it depends on the dev and the mood they are in to interpret the vague rules on the given day.