Discuss: Rules about Walls and Villages

It’s always the same with you guys, isn’t it? It appears that asking to not derail the thread only makes things worse. And it’s always the same handful of people, too.

I guess the best the rest of us can do is reply to whatever is worth replying to, flag whatever deserves flagging, and ignore the rest.

6 Likes

I can’t say I’m mad about the road and village part. Some players are building nice things, but other are abusing the creative part of the game. In official servers, especially in PVE, big buildings are useless for the most part apart from being esthetically pleasing. I’ve been on some private PVE servers where we could interact with players’creations (like an actual tradepost with chests, or a tavern with chests full of wine) . In official PVE and PVE-C, you can’t loot or read anything that wasn’t made by your clan so it’s pointless to make buildings like these. I hope they’re gonna let people put maprooms cause these are useful. Some roads, bridges and elevators are sometimes helping everyone in a server, and hope admins are going to be lenient about these cases, but hell, a big road crossing multiple tiles is just a big landclaim no one asked for. Most of the terrain in the Exiles map is flat enough, there’s no need to have useless roads everywhere. And villages… they shouldn’t be that big either. Most builders seem to think everyone is always in awe of their building but most people are just annoyed to see that large portions of nice flat areas are taken by buildings that are not useful at all.
I just hope admins are not going to take actions against everyone violating these terms because some of them are quite nebulous and, while I do think most villages are useless and frustrating, some builders make small marvels that do no bother anyone (usually because of the location).

1 Like

As other people have already pointed out, yes, we’re allowed to have them:

I’m not sure why you’re even asking that. Funcom never wrote anything about that. I was the one who mentioned functional builds and public map rooms, and I never made it sound like a public map room isn’t functional. On the contrary, public map rooms were my example of functional builds, as opposed to strictly decorative (like a tavern, or a lighthouse, or a ship).

Again, where are you even getting these ideas?

This has been explained ad nauseam. We might not like their explanation, but they gave it, so why keep asking the question? Are we going to pretend we didn’t hear them every time we don’t like what they have to say?

If you disagree with Funcom, feel free to say it, but asking the same question over and over because you dislike the answer is disingenuous.

If you’ve really read everything all of us asked about these rules for the past 12 months, and not a single thing you read made any sense at all, then that’s really your problem.

I’ve seen many reasonable questions from reasonable people, well-thought-out and worded properly, addressing real concerns, and posted in good faith. And guess what, they must have made some sense to Funcom, because some of them got answered by Funcom staff.

This kind of non-constructive, overly generalized, and oversimplified criticism of forum participants adds as much noise and toxicity as disingenuous questions, and only helps derail every discussion. As I said in my initial post here, if you don’t have anything to actually add to the discussion of the topic, then why lower the signal-to-noise ratio?

From what I’ve seen so far, it looks like they will take action against anyone violating those terms as long as there’s a report that causes them to do so. :man_shrugging:

4 Likes

I like the concept of public structures on PvE servers. Just keep in mind that land claim is inherent with any building. We are forced to consider the impact of the resulting claim and the benefit of the building to the server. There is no formula for how to vet such a building, so we have to make a judgement call.

We are discussing possible solutions with our developers that would make this kind of cooperation less impactful when it comes to land claim. One possible solution that I like would be the ability to designate a building as “public use” and basically turn off the land claim.

I agree. There are a lot of games that I play where I wish I could climb things the way you can in Exiles. The slight benefit gained by most bridges and roads are hard to justify given your ability to reach almost any place in the game without them.

However, there are some trips you will make over and over as you are gathering resources. And shaving off a chunk of time it takes to get from A to B can add up over time. We will keep listening to your feedback on this topic. For now, we would suggest players build these types of structures sparingly and with consideration to the land claim that inherently comes with them.

I think you are referring to building fences and drawbridges very close together. This is something our developers are aware of. You can expect this to not work in the future.

This falls under a different topic than land claim. I hope to cover it in another forum post in the very near future.

I can appreciate your desire for a black and white set of rules. We have no plans of doing this though. There are far too many edge cases and situations we cannot even imagine until we see them. Our goal with this was to bring attention to and reduce some of the more egregious problems that come up frequently. This would mean less Zendesk tickets, which in turn would allow for faster response times for the edge cases. We can also exercise greater leniency and hand out less suspensions if we are dealing with cases that are not clear cut examples of unfair play.

I don’t really even know what this means. What percentage improvement was made when I clarified the castles/villages example?

This is not the place to discuss a specific suspension. This is an anecdote and does not contribute to the intended discussion. If you just placed a single wheel, then I promise you that you were not the reason for the action, and asserting as much in this thread will only derail the conversation. I highly recommend that you make a ticket in Zendesk. We can tell you exactly what happened, and will happily review any appeal you want to make.

5 Likes

I stand by the moderation of this thread. Reopening this only because I do find the constructive feedback useful for my team.

Please adhere to the following:

9 Likes

As always, thank you @Umborls for your interaction with us. We’re a contentious lot, but we’re grateful for your continued patience (stretched thin as it may be) and understanding.

As of this moment, is there any news regarding balance changes to bombs/gods/explosive arrows/etc that are coming down the pipeline now that the stacking issue has been somewhat addressed? I ask because of this particular topic of discussion:

With the removal of fence stacking, drawbridges are now the most secure building method aside from hideous vault spamming. As I’ve said in a previous thread, however, these new issues aren’t problems in and of themselves, but symptoms. As the symptoms of the real problem, if they’re dealt with, but the central issue isn’t, then new symptoms will appear. And the main problem that i’ve witnessed is that building pieces (especially doors) are too fragile in comparison to more…let’s call it “nuanced” structural pieces. Is there anything that you can tell us regarding this matter?

Thanks. That was the idea behind the topic.

Now, that would be freaking awesome. Like a “community wiki” flag for builds.

9 Likes

After reviewing the TOS and clarification notes, I think it might be beneficial to define the differences between “claim spam” and “claim size”. It seems to me that the distinction between the two is the cause of confusion in a lot of players.

Meaning a 10 person clan might have a “claim size” equal to 10 individual players so long as they have no instances of “claim spam”. I think many players are conflating “claim size” with the rules surrounding “build size”. It may be the case that there is no category of “claim size” - only instances of “claim spam” and violation of “build size” rules. However, I often see questions here regarding this concept of “claim size”.

It seems to me @Umborls that your team’s goal with land claim abuse is to target intent primarily and effect secondarily. Any “claim spam” is a violation, whether it is 20 or 2000 foundations.

“Build size”, while a discussion for another time, seems to me to be based on effect primarily and intent secondarily.

Is there anything to be said in regards to “claim spam” vs “claim size”?

@CodeMage if too off topic of the OP’s scope I will delete

3 Likes

It might not be entirely on topic, but I really want to know the answer to this. I’ll just cross my fingers and hope it doesn’t end up derailing the discussion.

Besides, just because I’m okay with it, doesn’t mean other people can’t flag you if they decide you were off topic :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

2 Likes

I agree with both of you on this. Intent is important, but @biggcane55 is right. When you are constantly adding and removing people from a team, you need firm guidelines. Ultimately it is an admin’s discretion, but by having firm guidelines made public that clarifies grey areas based on common use cases: I.E. Roads, Arenas, Maprooms, it helps keep everyone on the same page. It also shows that FC actually plays their own game and looks at what players do on their servers. (i.e. how they play FC’s game.) I am glad @Umborls has provided some more clarification around these things.

1 Like

Yes. This is part of the problem–in my personal and professional opinion–with tying land claim to all building pieces. By increasing building size (in the horizontal plane) players AUTOMATICALLY increase claim size.

This is exactly the kind of feedback I am looking for. Please describe your specific concerns with each of these offensive options (bombs, trebuchets, gods, etc.). If we need to ask that they be rebalanced, then I’m more than happy to get this feedback to the right people.

That’s a great start. Can you spell out what you mean by “nuanced” structural pieces? Are we specifically talking about drawbridges here? Or is there other pieces we could group with drawbridges? What entrance options have you ruled out for your own bases due to their defensive shortcomings?

I somewhat unsuccessfully tried to address this in a previous thread. In my mind it’s binary. You either are unnecessarily extending the land claim of your base or you aren’t. The size of your guild does not dictate how much claim spam you use. Regardless of the size of your guild, you never need to engage in any of these strategies.

Maybe I’m missing something. Please feel free to give me a hypothetical example and I’ll see if there is any gray area that can be better described.

Yes. This is true. Making space for the extra beds, storage, and other things that come with additional members will overall increase your claim footprint on the server. As your guild grows your buildings will grow, and so will your claim size.

Remember that “claim size” does not refer to any of the specific infractions we have described. A 10 man guild doesn’t have more of a right to fence off an entire quadrant of the map that they aren’t using any more than than a solo player. A 10 man guild doesn’t get to cap each surrounding mountain with foundations to block trebuchets.

If the confusion is still with the Walls and Villages example, then maybe I can give you an analogy that would help. Think of the set of a play you would see at a theater. You might see a scene that takes place in a city street. Production didn’t build city buildings on the stage for the scene, but rather have constructed a flat wooden backdrop which has been carved and painted to look like buildings. The backdrop looks the part, but no one is living in these buildings.

This is the spirit of that example. We just don’t want to see a bunch of empty buildings that are just taking up space without serving a function. Because at that point, taking up space and looking cool is the only functions they serve.

9 Likes

I’d just like to point out that when it comes to things like bridges in particular, there was a time when they did serve a purpose. But things have changed. We can now swim while dragging thralls, and mounts make traversing the terrain much faster. This reduced the need for bridges over rivers and canyons and whatnot.

7 Likes

Ah, drawbridges!
A favourite (read:pet peeve) of mine.
I do find their HP relative to the HP of Gates, Walls, and even the foundations they sit upon, to be somewhat high.
Honestly, just looking at them, they should be able to be dismantled by hand, yet they have HP greater than the much more sturdy looking tier 3 stone walls.

I hadn’t addressed building for PvP in my previous post, but it looks like someone was shaking Pandora’s box to see what was in it…

Most tier 3 gates have 32.5k hp. The Drawbridge chunks in at 200k.
By comparison tier 3 walls have 70k and foundations 100k (fence foundations 90k).
Arguments could be made that as a larger piece, it should have the hp of several pieces, but due to the way explosions work, in that multiple pieces may be damaged as opposed to the Drawbridge (or Gate) taking only one instance of the damage, it sorta becomes moot.
Given that currently sword has far outstripped shield in terms of power (offense in raids has a huge advantage due to the current building restrictions which basically removed the most common means of creating defense in depth while doing nothing to blunt the power of explosives) we are going to see builds use pieces with the most hp in the tightest bundle possible.
Amusingly enough, throwing a chair up to brace a wall is a common trope, and thrones do have many hp.

Previously, my suggestion has been to lower Drawbridge HP to something along the line of tier 1 or 2 at most gates. Even better, have three tiers of Drawbridge just as there are three tiers of gate.
However, that suggestion has not age well in the current dynamic.
Instead of softening the Drawbridge, the remainder of tier 3 building pieces aught get a significant hp boost.
Dragonpowder can have it’s production speed (not as relevant anymore with speed building) increased and cost decreased through advanced crafting stations and thralls. Rebuilding has no such option.

Mind you, this benefits my PvP style immensely. I’m a solo despoiler. In PvP I don’t build pretty structures and have prisoners with jobs pampering me. I bring pain and ruination to my enemies (never unprovoked, I wait until some starts stuff, I may be a jerk, but it’s not arbitrary). It has gotten so much easier. With basic harvest runs for supplies and sneaking in to other people’s bases to use their craft benches, I can amass enough explosives to severely inconvenience of not induce rage quit in most foes. It’s easy. Especially on Console where one has to waste an item slot with the repair hammer to do any damage control.
If my one man tantrum can tear down primary fortifications with regularity, I can only imagine what a competent demolition team with the resources of a clan backing them could do.
PvP building patterns will always be impacted, if not dictated, by what is pragmatic, weighted towards the most impenetrable. If defenses are too weak, it prevents players from roaming out to do anything. Strong defenses are not meant to defeat invaders out right, merely make the resource cost of aggression high, and buy time for the manor lords to get back to base and mount an active defense before important damage is done. When walls are tissue, this encourages everyone (with a build) to just hunker down during raid windows and bite their nails behind their thin walls. Meanwhile, vagabond reavers like me run rampant and free.
I suppose Howard would have approved…

This is a bit of a sidenote here, but as it was mentioned specifically already I thought it would not stray too far from core concept.

2 Likes

Could we have a word about stairs and elevators on the cliffs? My base is in north, and people frequently closes the passage between the desert and the north that are located rigth in the middle of G8, as the crevice in O11 too. Aparently it was not against the rules in the past, so we had to build stairs and elevators on the big cliff that separetes the north and the desert to avoid walking a big extra distance to make another route, and climbing with dragging a thrall is not possible. Even the passage in G8 needs a little stair to go up, some times i avoid to the max to release the thrall on the chain because it could bug in various ways, they can fall undermesh, if you teleported they vanishes and if you release the chain it will be lost, or they simple disapear if released. So those stairs and elevators was of much help, i used to has a stair down to the cliff in northwest corner of H7. Other player had it before me and when he leaves i made one my own, since the update on ToS i removed it.

1 Like

If I could describe it in a hypothetical, maybe something like:

If I were to build fully functional, with zero claim spam, TOS compliant bases placed at random locations infinitely - would the total area of my land claim reach a level of “abuse” before the rules on “build size” find me in violation?

Many of the “unfair ban” threads will claim to have no “claim spam” violations just regular bases and big clan numbers. They will assume their combined area of land claim is the abuse grounds for their removal. I can tell them they are lying about no “claim spam”, that they might have violated “build size” rules, but not that the extent of their alleged legal land claim was or was not a violation based on the language in the TOS.

I agree with you that land “claim spam” should be treated as a binary. This is more a question about the limitations of “legal land claim”. Personally, I think the “build size” rules sufficiently police over zealous “legal land claim”, but I think knowing by which measure my hypothetical is limited we can eliminate a significant amount of confusion.

———
Edit:

Didn’t see this part. This is what I am asking about, roughly speaking. I think a statement on this “claim size” issue as a part of the TOS/clarification notes would be beneficial as it gets brought up here very often.

2 Likes