I think you just want to argue because what you’re saying so far in both replies makes no actual sense.
For example: How would it be spam if the defaults are set to 2 land claims per clan with the “Outside Decay” set to 1hr or something? Two areas is spam? LOL
Yes my dear, it would be spam if I build a flag just to claim a spot so others can´t use it. Hiding behind a flag that is indestructable. Its the definition of becoming a spaming desaster.
Like it or not. While you are sitting here brainstorming how this could be done, I am doing the same just the other way around. And I have to think that way as a pvp player. All that years have taught me how this game works, how the pvp works and how you survive. And let me say this and it should be clear by now, its not because pvp is fair play. It doesn´t work like people in this forum often times want it to work. It has its own dynamics. I am experienced and realistic enough to know what I can and can not expect from Funcom, this forum and the game itself.
Be it Servertransfer or other changes in the past, the implementations so long always turned out to be bad and exploitative in the end for pvp. Why? Because Funcom doesn´t think stuff through carefully enough. They underestimate the will and the ambition of the pvp communitity to beat that game by abusing the hell out of it. And this as sorry as I am to say this: can´t be stopped by putting more and more regulations on it. I’m not surprised that this still hasn’t reached most people here, people tend to ignore what they don’t want to deal with. You and everybody else in this forum can think of me whatever they want. I don´t care. But I will say my part, no matter if liked or not, and I will not hide the fact that I am thinking like an experienced pvp player, because I am one. And if I see a problem, I bring it right to the table.
Cute reply, I like it. 
Well, if they set their only land claim or only “extra” land claim (as the case might be) just as spam and didn’t build there - that would be a waste. In this regard however, the current system is much worse than what I propose. As it is now there are basically an unlimited number of “flags” available to every player.
I suppose there could be a timer on the flag - just to address such a far out and atypical niche.
BTW, none of this is brainstorming. It’s more like muscle memory… Just what I think it should be. Like riding a bike…
Come on Tele, I know you can count 1 and 1 together. Officials have servertransfer enabled. Nothing stops a clan from having their mainbase on one server and hopp with full equip and dp on to the next.
Lets assume we would have a flag system. What would happen to that server? Right, the same thing that we have now, just with another form of spam. They hopp on the server, raid the smaller clans away. When their flag decayed or is destroyed, one goes out of the clan and claims that spot. They raid the whole server this way until they have the best spots claimed for themself. Owning the key spots in the game is half the rent of dominating a server and once they cleaned it out it hard to gain it back for people until the “invaders” left for good.
But they just hopp to the next server and this goes on and on. I know that in your scenario the flagsystem is to keep preventing spam from the server, so people can encounter a better gaming experience. But you know, sometimes the visible “spam” is the less evil. There is different kind of spam. And the flag system would be a spam Funcom could not even punish. Because every player has the right to raid on a pvp server and also to claim a spot in your scenario with a flag.
I didn´t even got to the part where everyone of that clan might have a second or third account and how worse this could become. This “clearing out” of servers is going on for years now. Funcom never realized how badly that influenced official servers growth. And I do not see a fix for it, right now, under that actuall circumstances we have on official servers. For privates a flag system might work, because the situation is different. But I doubt that a lot of pve players would be really happy about such a change.
You know exactly, that in pvp everything is connected. Therefore I have to include every aspect when it comes to changes that influence pvp one way or another. I might not be able to explain it the way it could be understood easier or more clearly. But I see the problems. And I do not, at this point, see how a flag system could be a solution, at least not to officials, to the system that is now in place.
Sure…
Okay, I think calling it by such a name “flag system” kinda leads one a tad astray. We basically have the same thing now. Currently, setting down a foundation block establishes a land claim. What I wrote about just removes some of the dynamics that are abused and puts more control in the hands of the Admins - which was the intent of the OP.
What are the differences:
With foundation blocks you can dynamically shape and grow your land claim area.
With a flag or “claim point” it’s a predefined size and shape.
With foundations you can claim as many areas as you like (until you’re banned).
With a control point (flag, whatever), you limited to the number and size determined in the server settings.
With foundations the server needs to calculate tier level, time, number, player interaction, and connectedness in order to determine the decay status.
With a control point: level, number, and connectedness are removed from the calculations. It’s area, time, and player interaction only.
Those are really the only differences. Nothing being proposed by anyone here is in order to prevent radical PVPers from abusing the system. The topic here is the decay system and as an aside, the establishment of land claims. The OP has some good ideas but I just thought it needed simplification.
We don’t have to worry though. Funcom doesn’t care what we say specifically and isn’t about change their system in any of the ways being suggested. More likely they might notice a general concern via thread activity and if great enough might decide to make some changes - but when/if they do they’ll think it up on their own as historically has been the case. So these kinds of discussions are purely exercises in academics…
if you let them plant garbage on your land, clean it up and if you can’t, it’s because you don’t play enough.
So you are saying completely leveling a base is wrong but stealing everything of value is ok? Fail to see the distinction there. Most bases that are raided are beyond repairing to anything of value if they locked their chests and any builtin defenses were revealed and found wanting so no reason to continue there. At least leveling clear the area so we don’t have to see it for seven days.
I think you make a good point here. There is probably a better way to handle clan land claim, that could be more balanced. I will think on this. I think inevitably 8 person clans will have an advantage over 1-2, as they certainly do now, but good mechanics should attempt to seek a better balance than I originally suggested.
I am not overly opposed to this and I think it does have a lot of merits, however, I’ve been around these forums long enough to remember these discussions as well. And as I remember, many oppose this method for a valid reason. It can turn maintaining your base into a chore. This is something funcom has explicitly avoided, as when they implement and then quickly removed the necessity to feed thralls and pets to keep them alive. Conan is not like Ark in this way and I think that’s a good thing. If the fuel mechanic were to be implemented it should be in a way that allows you to obtain fuel by doing basically anything in the game, fighting, farming, exploring ect. Also there would definitely need to be a server setting to turn it off, as well as a Admin setting to turn it off specifically for their builds.
Thanks for your feedback, it go me thinking!
This! I completely agree. My mind is one for optimizations so I like to think about ways of improving game mechanics. However, funcom is going to do what they want, and they should as they have much more experience with game development than I do, despite how much grief everyone gives them. I hope that mine and others ideas might inspire a change in the decay mechanics as I know a lot of wasted time and frustration goes into to dealing with the exploitation (knowing or not) of them. But in the end as you eloquently put, the discussion really is academic.
Yup, and that’s not a bad thing either. It’s fun! And hey, if they actually do implement something that looks like someone’s idea somewhere… that’s pretty cool! I did read somewhere where they said (long ago) that they watch the popularity of Mods to occasionally guide or inform. I’m not sure but I think the people who said that may not work on CE any longer… so, there’s that too. 
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.