Easy fix - save the game

Make players/clans have max building pieces.
People come and go on the servers, they don’t stay long. Why? Because major players on the server are deleted by admin without warning. That’s a failure for a sandbox game, where the players are the one’s creating the story.
A limit to building pieces would avoid lagging servers, and avoid bad admin experiences by the most dedicated players.
As a single player, seeing all the major clans disappear by admin on my server was just sad, even when you were fighting them. Then you just log off and never log in again.

1 Like

Is your reference on private servers or officials?

My guess is official servers. Private servers probably can have extensive rules for their server. For example, I have 15k building pieces limit without approval for more on my servers.

1 Like

Becareful what you all ask for.

The building limits that actually allow for server longevity and less lag is extremely low compared to what you all are used to using.

If it is for official servers the things are simple…
They are free to play, the rules can change anytime the company decides to, so all we have to do is read the rules and follow them, or else… Ban.
That simple.
As for the statements…
Hey I payed all the dlcs, etc, etc,
A lot other people payed them too but they are not banned :man_shrugging:.
A lot of other people pay for private servers (years now) too, not only the dlcs, they help in the development of the game with their feedback among other wonderful things as wiki page.
Sooo, what anyone payed for this game does not give any immunity to the rules… None

If you want to do whatever you like in a server then rent one, you have that right.

You are not banned from the game, just from official servers.

People in the past thought that they own the official server they were playing and that was wrong. They spawned 150.000 building pieces all around the map, another 20.000 decoratives, 300 thralls and pets, 500 chests full, with the excuse hey I payed all the dlcs, or hey I play 3.000 hours here to make them.

One by one these mistakes are going to be erased. One at the time, so the new players will enjoy the online experience of this game.
Better late than never.

1 Like

Complete nonsense!!!

Firstly, no one thinks it will happen to them - that’s one of the problems here.
Secondly, probably nobody even knows that some other person’s base was removed. And, in the very rare case they do they likely think the player was doing something naughty.

Also build-limit is a terrible idea and only addresses one of the problems and even then only partially.


Build limits doesn’t fix the issue of spam. It actually strengthens a spammers position. Meaning if they stay way under limit how do you “correct” thier behavior? A cost system for building is better. Because now spammers and refreshers have to actually engage in game to upkeep all thier pieces. Sure every day players will have e to pay, but if cost is balanced correctly, it would take up o ly part of their play time. And again, if you want big, you lay, if you just want necessity builds so you can pve stuff, you would have a lower cost.


No. Just no. I’m done supporting “this is why we can’t have nice things” measures like that, especially when it’s clear they won’t even solve the problem.

Sandbox or not, you’re still playing on a shared server. If you take your kid to a real-life park and he can’t play in the real-life sandbox because there’s one other kid who just covered it with his toys and doesn’t elt anyone else play, then the fault is with that kid (and his parents).

No, it wouldn’t avoid lagging servers. Server performance is impacted not just by how many pieces you use when you build, but also how you arrange them. The only way to solve this with a simple numeric limit is to make that limit ridiculously low, therefore punishing the vast majority of the players for the excesses of a tiny minority.

No, thanks.

I would fully support a good, flexible upkeep system, though. That’s a better solution.


Assuming you two mean essentially the same thing… I dunno, but the more I think about it… I’m almost coming around to the idea. I was against it the 1st time I heard it - sounds like such busy-work. But how would this be implemented? Details please. If it7s just degradation over time that would suck with the current build mechanics where stability and damage percentages are (I think) linked. And if other then who would you be paying? Hmmm…

I actually like the way it is now better than any proposal I’ve heard in this forum. The only problem is people complaining of not being warned or not understanding the rules as they might have applied to their situation. So unclear rules, wanted explanations, and surprise shock. And honestly, I think we can just ignore all that for the most part 99% of the time. In 98% of cases I believe they know full well what the rules mean, why their base was deleted, and are only crying for attention or attempting to lawyer it when asking for specific reasons. The other (assumed microscopically small) minority are just the background noise that will always fall through some crack or another. -=shrug=-

Upkeep makes me uncomfortable, I don’t like games that turn into chores, it’s why I don’t even bother with “games as a service” anymore.

I want to play a game when I can/want to and still be able to experience the full game, without limited events trying to force me into playing.

I’m not saying that upkeep couldn’t work, it absolutely could, and would potentially fix a few different issues.

I just feel it’s going to be very difficult to find the sweet spot that prevents gigantic builds without also adding busy working for everyone.

I would definitely prefer upkeep over hard build limits however.

Then again, I’m a player who is happy with the revised rules

Instead of posting it here, I decided to describe it elsewhere:

1 Like

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