Any upkeep system, regardless of the tenants, will essentially be paying rent.
I understand that for me to have creative building freedom, others get it too. Going into an official server, I understand that freedom exists and I can either live with it, or I can find a new server, start a server, play single player. I personally don’t see a problem with you having a castle, arenas and several public map rooms. You had to play the game to build those, and I doubt any of it was done with malicious intent. If you want to log in an refresh your work for weeks or months until new content drops, you get the bug again, or you decide its no longer worth it, so be it. I’ve done the same thing, two bases, multiple public map rooms and eventually I quit refreshing because quite frankly its a lot of work to refresh all of that already.
Would you please kindly define “playing”…not trying to start anything negative, I am interested in your specific perspective on this so that I can understand better.
To me the current system is fine, but, I need further details to understand the calls for wipes and maintenance fees.
I would also take your response privately to not derail the thread.
Yep. And that’s why I told @Halk that I consider the third of my options the worst, not the first
Even status quo, with all the rampant overbuilding on official servers, is better – in my opinion – than slapping a hard cap on building pieces, or even just foundational pieces. I don’t like the status quo, but unlimited freedom with its potential for abuse is better than one-size-fits-all throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater restriction.
It wasn’t done with malicious intent, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a problem. Out of all the things I built, only a portion was used on a regular basis: my main castle, my fishery, the jousting arena, and the public map rooms. Perhaps the bridge over the jungle river too, not sure.
All the rest, including the humongous gladiator arena, were just taking up prime real estate, terrain someone else could’ve used for their base. And I don’t think there would have been anything wrong with taking up that space, if I was actually playing the game.
But I wasn’t. I was taking up space that could have been used by an active player. And that’s where the problem lies. If everyone has to be active in some kind of proportion to the space they take up, then maybe we wouldn’t have these PVE(-C) servers where the typical population is only a handful of people online during the “prime time” and yet the whole server is full of stuff built by people who merely refresh it a few minutes a week.
If I had to try to explain the problem succinctly, it would be that you get servers that are low population because serial refreshers have taken up so much space that there’s not a lot left for new players to build on and grow.
The reason why I think an upkeep system would be a good solution for that problem is that the upkeep system allows you more flexibility to choose your own tradeoffs. Suppose I don’t want to quit the server, but don’t want to spend more than X hours a month? I could get rid of the menagerie, the stable I’m not really using, the second castle (the one I built for my son), and perhaps even some map rooms. Don’t want to get rid of anything? Well, then I’ll have to actually play.
I know what you mean, but I bet that’s because you built that stuff the same way I did: separately, without deliberately making it all have the same building ID. People who know how to do it and don’t mind investing time into that trick? Those people can refresh everything they built just by logging in and staying logged on until they see the timer refreshed.
Even without that trick, it didn’t take me more than 30 minutes per session to refresh everything, which means I used to spend only up to an hour a week. It took me ages to get to the point where I was so fed up with Conan that I decided that even an hour a week is too much.
I just don’t think that’s healthy for the game and the server population. Not that I’m saying that “the game is dying” or anything like that. Just like with humans, it’s perfectly possible for a game to live on and even thrive, despite suffering from a chronic disease
My proposed 1hr/week of playing was not intended to prevent people from being able to AFK. I can’t tell you how many times I logged in to play for an hour of my ‘free time,’ only to be called away from the computer to do something and spent all my time AFK, it happens in every game. The goal of my suggestion was to not police what people do when they log in. To you, maybe picking up sticks or chopping trees is not a chore, to others it is. My proposed method allows people to stand around and RP if that’s the way they want to play.
The ‘purge meter’ you proposed can work and I have heard that suggested many times. The main problem I see with it, is that the purge meter doesn’t progress unless you build, fight or craft. That means, hypothetically, I can log in and RP with my friends for 6 hours a day and still not meet the requirements of my decay timers.
Exactly. This is what my method was targeting to fix, the players that clearly aren’t playing, yet still take up prime real estate on the official servers. If a player who has no intention of playing, has to log in for an hour each week, that may become too cumbersome for them and they may eventually decide to let it all go. Even if they are AFK, they would still have to do it every week and it would take up considerably more of their time then the current 5 minutes a week they spend. Additionally, they may find their passion to play Conan revitalized, since they have to log in anyway. They may start playing actively again, and isn’t that the true goal?
If that’s how they choose to play, so be it. They payed for the same game and if that’s how they choose to play it, that’s how they choose to play it.
If some one logs in for 4 hours and spends the entire time in chat talking to their friends, they aren’t playing the game or utilizing that real estate either. If I log in and gallop around on my horse for 45 minutes did I actually play the game?
This discussion at its base element is policing how folks enjoy(or don’t enjoy I guess) the game they bought, and I don’t support any part of that. If your gaming experience is so hindered by not being able to build in a certain location, find a server where it’s open. Or, ya know, get creative, make a new plan.
No matter what system you propose, the mounds, sepermeru, the sink hole and NA will be hot spots filled with boxes of varying quality.
I disagree, RP players just play the game differently than you.
This too, is playing the game, it just may not be the way you play.
I see the point you’re trying to make here but again, disagree. The players will enjoy whatever aspect of the game just the same as before. My point of entering this discussion is to interject more freedom and options to the way people can maintain their buildings while still requiring them to play the game. The current system allows them to maintain buildings without playing at all.
That’s kind of completely my point. It’s beyond anyone to criticize someone for how they play, and that includes seemingly just to log on to refresh their build.
I was not ‘criticizing’ anyone about how they play. My proposal would not require anyone to ‘change’ the way they play, it would only require that they at least play 1 hour per week. If 1 hour per week is too much for someone then maybe it’s time for them to part with their land claims.
It’s clear we don’t agree on some fundamentals, so I won’t say anymore on the subject. Perhaps the idea wouldn’t work for reasons I haven’t even thought of, it just seems to me, that it’s better than the current system as well as any other proposed systems I’ve heard.
The purge-like upkeep doesn’t have to work exactly the same as the purge. It could be extended to earn you upkeep with other actions, such as farming, killing bosses, looting chests – you name it, it could be added.
Or it could be a combination of two mechanics, e.g. you could earn upkeep by performing certain actions or by sacrificing stuff (per Ciero9’s idea).
As long as there’s some kind of a tradeoff between building and earning your upkeep, it would still end up being better than status quo.
That certainly depends on what you mean by “RP”. What follows is my opinion and not an attack on anyone.
Maybe I’m too old school, but I always believed that RP should have a gaming element to it. That’s why I happily played various MUDs, but never could really get into MUSH.
What I’m getting at is that if your idea of RP involves more than just chatting and emoting, then it’s quite likely that RP-ing would earn you your upkeep
This is not about the game, it’s about the official servers. Those are shared resources that you aren’t paying for. Ideally, we should all have a chance to enjoy them. If some of us take too many liberties on official servers, to a degree that prevents others from enjoying those same servers, Funcom takes measures.
That’s why official servers now have more rules and administration than they used to have. That’s why there is now a cap on followers.
Speaking of which, have you noticed the new additions to the clan UI page, where you can see the number of building pieces and placeables you have? I haven’t seen anyone from Funcom clarify why they were added, but I have my own suspicions, especially given what Dennis said during the AMA.
Imagine paying for a game a single time and expecting free updates for life. Money shops, dlcs, expansions, all support long term support and updates. Its really basic math. Something I would have understood as a “kid” 20+ years ago.
Well we might aswell throw a subscription model on there as well. I’ve already paid for the game, an expansion and all the DLC, but sure, lets get a cash shop to buy cosmetics. Anyone advocating for more microtransactions over new ingame rewards from content is just a corporate simp
It’s a pretty sturdy comparison. Its no different than paying for bulk cosmetic DLC, it just gives you the ability to pick and choose which ones you pay for. It doesn’t become game changing unless there is function attached to those transactions. What difference does it make to you if they offer the option to turn some persons characters skin blue for a dollar? Or provide them a craft able bench?
I’m not for or against it, mainly because I don’t care about cosmetics(quite frankly I don’t find any of the DLC armor to be particularly appealing on appearance). But the potential influx of capital to develop actual content is quite fine by me. This game will not run forever for free outside of single player, but it currently is because they’re providing us with a large number or servers and constant game development. I’d be quite surprised if they haven’t operated at a loss for the past couple of years.
I think the problem with micro transactions VS DLC comes down to the much higher prices companies decide to sell them for
I’ll keep buying $10 dlcs that contain three armor sets and a new build type or something equivalent. This is a fair amount to spend for what I get. This is me supporting the game already
Let’s not go down the route of micro transactions and end up paying $10 or more for a single skin
The game industry has lost the benefit of the doubt from huge chunks of players when it comes to micro transactions, loot boxes, and “games as a service”
I agree that DLCs are preferable to microtransactions, but the post you wrote – the one @Multigun replied to – had absolutely nothing to do with the comparison between DLCs and microtransactions.
Couple of things. First, the market bears what the market bears, why leave money on the table.
Second, this is assuming FunCom would intentionally over value individual items or not offer the full culture DLCs at the current or similar price. And they’ve, honestly, not earned a reputation in my opinion indicating they would abuse such a thing.
If they didn’t end up making new DLCs lesser by holding out pieces I’d be ok with it
Cutting up existing dlcs and future dlcs into smaller components individually available for sale, rather than replacing dlcs with micro transactions while keeping the dlcs as the cheaper method to get all the content
So you could just buy the building pieces if that’s all you want. 4 bucks could get you a tile set or a weapon set or an armor set.
If they are selling skins at relative value to what we get from dlcs anything over a dollar for one armor set is basically a price increase
Fortnight and madden can get away with this kind of stuff, but it can also do massive damage to a game to fall into this trap of trend chasing.
Just ask Avengers, or BF2, or what ever that BioWare game was with tiny mecha that no one seemed to like
If they want to make more money I bet if their game went on sale on console more often they might have a bit more people willing to take a shot on it. It’s a three year old game that they’re still selling for 40 dollars with a ton of dlc for them to make money on if they just get players hooked
I guarantee that game pass has convinced a lot of players to buy dlc, almost every player I talk too on Xbox has or is interested in at least some of it.
TLDR: if mirco transactions can be implemented in fair way I don’t care, but the minute they start selling $5 $10 or $20 dollar skins many games that sell them we can kiss comprehensive and fair priced dlcs goodbye
Many games I played on PC and console have afk detection and they kick the player out for inactivity.
Conan has it some what with death due to hunger or thirst but then it gives you xp for staying in the game so, this may also need to be changed to an hour or some longer interval due to the game’s issues (need base to load, camp/boss to respawn, etc…)
Would you please kindly define “playing”…not trying to start anything negative, I am interested in your specific perspective on this so that I can understand better.
