Devs: Rot Timers. Possible solution allowing for longer decay timers. Please consider/study/modify the concept

Conan Exiles General Discussion Feedback
1

Purpose: A system to compliment the current Land Management System, and allow for longer decay timers.

Problem: Rot timer’s in their current state (short timer) are literally self destructing your servers/player base.

Real world example:

-Ford builds a truck that explodes after one week of non-use.
-They brand it “environmentally friendly” and try to sell it as a green product.
-Nobody wants to buy a truck that explodes after 1 week of disuse.
-Because EVENTUALLY, they know for some reason they simply won’t wanna get up and go drive their truck.
-Maybe they drove their car(another/new game) all week, and don’t feel like getting up in the AM to go out for a short drive with their truck.

Real world result: Nobody buys Fords exploding trucks.

Solution: Level-based Land claim system.

A level 1 player starts with 1 “Battle Standard” that he can plant in a chosen area.

Battle Standard will ENABLE a vast, spherical area of land that he can then build on. Land claim system stays the same otherwise.

Level 10 player has access to 2 “Battle Standards”.

Level 60 player has access to 6 “Battle Standards”.

Battle Standards can overlap with other exiles battle standards, allowing for the possibility of two exiles claiming an area of land within the overlapping area. Assuming current land claim system allows for it.

What is the result of this?

Level 60 players can have no more than 6 locations where they have built bases, each of these locations being large areas where multiple large structures could easily fit.

This would, however prevent someone from building a wall across the entire map, or walling off 10 or 15 points of interest.

Obviously, Dev’s input and knowledge on the matter would grant them a better idea to the number of “Battle Standars” that could be allowed. But I believe this system could compliment the current land management system and allow for longer decay timers.

Pro/Con: Players lose the ability to build endlessly all over the map. Player gains the ability to not lose months of work over the course of a week.

Benefit: Encourages players to “clean up” after themselves. Destruction of a “Battle Standard” by it’s owner results in all player owned structures/items to be removed.

2 Likes
2

I kinda like this idea, though with a max clan-size of 10 players, this suggestion (as it stands) could allow upto 60 spots a single clan could control. That feels like a lot to me, to the point it might make the restriction meaningless.

Perhaps, an adjustment whereby each additional player increments it at only half the rate, rounded down:

Lvl 1-19 = 0 additional standards
Lvl 20-39 = 1 additional standard
Lvl 40-59 = 2 additional standards
Lvl 60 = 3 additional standards

Of course, this would then cause complications if two solo players with max standards then decided to merge, but then maybe that’s a benefit rather than a drawback…

4

I wouldn’t mind this solution, if there was a way to disable it in solo-play or in dedicated servers under the control of the admin.

I do not personally want restrictions in my game that disallow me for building anywhere in the map… if you aren’t playing this game multiplayer the almost single redeeming quality it has (for SP) atm if the SANDBOX aspect, and any restriction to building ruins it, IMHO.

5

What happens when a player stops playing?
Their buildings and land claim will last forever … eventually the map will be covered in buildings only on PvP could they be removed.

I understand from your example that you intend that the banner land claims from different players can overlap … so players can drop a banner on top of someone else’s and then build inside someone’s building … or build a tower to breach the walls right up against another players building…

What occurs with clans … it favours the larger clans as each player will have x banners to place … so in your example they’ll have 6 at level 60… that’s 60 massive land claims a clan of 10 can use. And then what happens if a clan member leaves the clan … they will get another set of banners to place … and then be able to rejoin the clan … bringing their newly claimed land into the clan increasing the number of banner claimed lands.
Also that the entire structure is destroyed when the banner is removed is a flawed concept… imagine if you accidentally target the banner and destroy it when doing some building near by … I’ve done this frequently as the target changes at the last second and instead of say picking up the plate I’ve destroyed the table underneath it…
what happens if the land claim doesn’t extend as far as you want in one direction … the other direction is unused but you can’t build where you want… you couldn’t simply pick up the banner and relocate it to suit your building direction as that would destroy everything. I get that the solution would be to place a second banner to spread where you want to go…but wouldn’t that then result in building belonging to both and how would the game determine what to destroy/keep when you removed a banner if they overlap…and what would happen if part of a building or structure (say wheel of pain) was outside the second banners land claim when you destroy the first banner?

also way to easy a way for PvP spies to destroy their enemies…infiltrate the clan on an alt account and then go around destroying their banners … well not just PvP … any server type …PvE/PvE-c would be vulnerable to this too of course.

Aside from all my arguments above … Implementing this type of land claim system would need a complete rewrite of the code from the ground up … it’s something that needed to be implemented into the game at the very earliest stage of development

6

@Shadoza - The decay timers are not fine.

Maybe my idea is not the solution, but the decay timer, in its current form, is a bad solution as well. I am simply trying to have a discussion that helps improve the current situation for players to enjoy the game.

@Larathiel - I agree 6 is too much, but I didnt want to trigger anyone too much by setting limits that were too harsh. Which is why I suggested Dev’s would know best on the number matter.

@Leeux - I agree this should only be in play online. Maybe even strictly for PvP servers where the situations are more fluid, rather then a non-changing PvE, or PvE-C server.

At - Kwalya - You misunderstood what I said. Perhaps I was not clear.

After planting a battle standard, ALL PREVIOUS RULES ARE THE SAME. Think of it like the deed to a home, but you still need a key to the home as well.

Players can not build “in” each others bases. But as they do now (under current rules) they could place foundations near-ish to each other.

The battle standard is meant to limit how many satellite bases you could own.

This does not mean PERMANANT. There can still be decay timers, but they should be greatly increased (month) long rather than a week.

You don’t accidentally destroy something with multiple warning messages, or that is “immune” to all forms of damage. A battle standard does not prevent anyone from building where you have “claimed” land. It simply allows YOU to build there. There will be no accidents, and your base will not suddely explode because of a single bow shot to the “Battle Standard”.

If a whole clan of people work together to collectively troll a server, that’s not a solution I am here to solve. That’s what server admins/Funcom should respond to petition tickets I am hoping to help alleviate the issue of MANY people, building tiny huts all around the place and then leaving them and forgetting them.

If the land claim does not extend as far as you want, you place a second Battle Standard. You have several of them. Make it an item, you interact with, a pain to delete (5 delete warning messages or something stupid). You can’t place a new one until you destroy a previous Battle Standard (if you are out of them). They will all show (for you) on the map so you don’t lose track of them.

Regarding the rewrite of the code. I doubt that. I am literally asking for ALL things to stay the same, and just an ADDITIONAL requirement be place atop it all. (Must be within Battle Standard Range)

As I stated before, this compliments the current system, does not replace or modify it. Excepting decay timer.

Battle Standard is an immortal object, destructible only by the player who planted it. It should not have any collision detection, and should only be a small flag (of your design). It does not prevent others from building, it only enables you to build. It is an EXTRA requirement for the system, meant to limited the amount of satellite bases a player builds.

Additionally, Your battle standard does not mean your clan members can build within your battle standard. They have to then ALSO place a battle standard in the same area. These are to be person specific.

1 Like
8

In your first post you specifically stated in the last paragraph as a benefit that the destruction of a banner by its owner will remove all player owned structures and items from the area of the banner - hence my comment regarding accidental destruction of an entire base by a mis-click. Or malicious destruction by a clan-mate - which I thought would be a possibility as it wasn’t clear you were wanting each individual clan or not to have a set maximum number of build-right banners…which actually brings up a lot of other issues.
The current interface systems do not have the functionality of confirming removal or drop so you have a second opportunity to se what you are about to destroy as you release the mouse or
however the Xbox/ps4 interface operates … so new code to put this function in.

The game does not recognise individuals building within a clan system as separately owned building items … if you wanted to you could have one person lay one foundation and another lay the next … and the game only recognises it as “clan” not player a or b’s foundation … so again a major rewrite of the base code to implement your idea… and if it did and a clan-mate decided to remove their build banner from an area where they’ve been jointly building … would their parts of the structure despawn but the bits “belonging” to clan-mates whose banners are still there remain? Do you start to see the difficulty in implementing what you propose with individually owned build-right banners within a clan?
Let’s say a clan-mate is removed or dropped from a clan … what happens to their build-right banners - do they stay with the clan…do they stay with the person …how does this work when they have bits in the clans building space? What if a clan-mate stops playing all together… does their bit of the base decay away?
Or a clan-mate starts building within an area and another clan mate wants to remove it as it doesn’t fit with the design … Eg person C places a thrall pot in base 1, but person A wants it to be somewhere else … would the ownership associated with the banner building right prevent player A from destroying it?

It is pathetic that people get amusement out of frustrating others by blocking access points etc. I get that control in a PvP scenario is strategic but unnecessary in a PvE environment and even in a PvE-c one really.

9

I dont have all the answers, I certainly dont want to cause extra coding, though thats their job. I know a bad solution when I see one. Maybe there are no good solutions. But 1 week decay timer will keep this game in the stone age. (pun) Just as you deduce possible problems, you can also produce possible solutions, add or take away from the idea. Your choice, if you are satisfied with a 1 week timer, just know some are not. The standard could work just fine with a clan, rather then being based on individuals. It just encourages being a member of a clan. Buildings would simply default to other owners as it works now. Oversight by me, ty for pointing it out. Its not a complex issue to tackle if one gives it a moment. Again, number of standards and their AoE according to devs hard info.

Edit: Again, purpose is to limit satellite bases. And tons of “throw away” bases near beginning of map.

1 Like
10

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.