I love building. Hard to accept a hard cap.
Imo… We keep getting more placeables and benches. With these come building bigger to place then instead of replacing. I think benches should be a upgrade feature. Start off with basic, upgrade to improved and so on. Those only keeping 1 bench. Smaller builds then.
I’ll be the first to admit. I have to have all benches for rooms. Such as a Armorer room.
On officials it needs to change somewhat.
But have at her on private and single…
Again just my opinion…
I love building. Hard to accept a hard cap.
I think you’re jumping to conclusions and maybe not trying your hardest to understand the conditions by which they demolish bases. I haven’t seen them demolish for size alone - but maybe they would if it was truly ridiculous - like: OMG, WHAT THE HECK - MASSIVE. Here’s something I wrote a day or two ago - it might help, I dunno:
I’ve personally been watching and noting this issue closely and as objectively as I can. It seems to me that size alone within reason, is not an issue. We are all just kind of guessing at a lot of these things but this is what I’ve come to believe - and is also what is reflected in both the spirit and language of the rules to most rational people.
- Bases are deleted because they cause (too much) server lag:
- Bases using stacked parts (like >2 or 3 back-to-back fence foundations as walls etc.)
- Bases that are actually too big. 5k parts is very large, 10k is flipping HUGE, more than that and it might be too big. That’s parts - not placeables.
- Bases which use too many placeables. I don’t use placeables much so I dunno what number is too much but I imagine it’s in the mid to high thousands and be in addition to an already very large base.
- Bases are deleted because they are built in the wrong place:
- Bases in any area of the map that has a name or an icon very close by and on the same general elevation.
- Bases that block passages otherwise difficult to traverse.
- Bases that are built too close to known no-build (can’t place blocks here) zones.
- Bases that cover too many or otherwise important spawn points.
- Bases are deleted for taking advantage of exploits.
- I personally don’t understand this one but players are calling this “undermesh” exploits. Apparently there are some vertex or flatness errors in the game’s polygonal maps which players can slip through or behind - and instead of fixing the polygon mesh, Funcom is just telling players not to go there or build there. So, whatever and wherever that is, don’t build inside (or “under”) there.
- Bases are deleted for taking up too much area or spamming.
- Bases that use too many orphaned blocks or block-groups littered around. And “too
many” here is like more than 4 or 5 maybe. Seems people do such things to try and expand their land claim area and/or keep neighbors farther away. Not cool, says Funcom.
- Bases with large expansive footprints are deleted. Thinking about this rationally will exclude you from deletion but for example a foundation area of 60x60 foundation blocks might only be 3.600 blocks but that covers too much of the map. Lay out a line of 60 blocks and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
- Bases that are satellited all over the map will likely be deleted. One large-ish base per clan is enough for almost any sized clan. I suppose you could get away with two, but a lot of clans are building five and more. No! says, Funcom.
- Bases that use too many orphaned blocks or block-groups littered around. And “too
- Bases that are too weird will be deleted.
- Bases using blocks to spell out political messages.
- Building phallic symbols or obscenities as your base.
I think I covered them all. Beyond these things you should be safe. It seems like mostly common sense when you think about it for a minute. There have also been players who claim their base was deleted because Admins were just acting on reports from enemy players without actually checking if the base violated anything. I tend not to believe this but I suppose there could be rare instances of that happening. So, I dunno, be nice to your neighbors maybe? -=shrug=-
Asking Funcom to limit EVERYONE because you can’t limit yourself is just too funny!
Yes, if one alpha clans has certain locations, they do have inmense advantange over the rest and by a huge margin.
Did you noticed something in all those examples you gave?
All open for interpretation.
Why the hell we cannot have a consensus in what is a limit and what isn’t?.
“yes, this you can, but not this”
i think it will be easier for everyone that we know what we can and cannot do as clear as water.
“bases that block passages” Hum, then why we can even build there if we aren’t supposed to?.
see what i mean? they tell you that freedom is encouraged and yet they tell you cannot do certain stuff because you will get banned because the rules are so ambigious and open for interpretation that literally anything could be bannable and there is no way of knowing that until is too late.
Not really, because the game has a mechanic of god bubble that protects your base from god attacks, so tell me, if the god bubble has a huge radius, its safe to assume that entire radius is MY base and i could build there Right?! No?
Then why not just reduce the radius of the god bubble if thats an issue?.
i can confirm 100 % that this has been a thing over the past few months.
Thus why i also suggested that pvp and pve servers are treated differently, in pvp you have to have a base that is both defendible and funtional, much more when you are in a clan of 10 and even more in a war with another clan of equal size.
Its literally not my fault that funcom makes some buildings as massive as posible so we have to build something equal or bigger to defend those buildings.
I did watch a handful of PVP building videos to get an idea of what you’re dealing with. The radius of a GB is decent, so I would assume that a base that fits inside the radius of a god bubble would be not considered too big. This is where I agree with you. I don’t suppose you happen to have screenshots of your clan’s base? If not, that’s ok, but it would help.
I hope you have that list saved on a word document, because it’s pretty thorough, Tele.
Here we go again.
How about no?
First and foremost, simple numeric limits like that are not going to solve any problems that Funcom supposedly wants to avoid, according to the wording of their own rules:
Wanna block content? You can still do it with 40x40 foundations or a “certain amount” of walls. Want to harass and grief somebody by placing foundations right next to their build so they can’t repair their outer walls or expand the base? You can still do it with 40x40 foundations or a “certain amount” of walls. Wanna spam foundations around? Still can do it with 40x40 foundations or a “certain amount” of walls. Want to build in a way that’ll screw up server performance and/or lag the game client? Still can do it with 40x40 foundations or a “certain amount” of walls.
Seriously, it’s been discussed to death and back, simple numeric limits don’t solve any of these things. If the rules are ambiguous, that needs to be addressed by communicating better. If the enforcement of the rules is inconsistent, that needs to be addressed by improving the processes.
Likewise, if PVP players can’t adapt to the fact that foundation spam, fence foundation stacking, and similar strategies are not permitted anymore, then those players need to learn how to freaking deal with a new meta. And if that’s not really possible because offline raiding is the real problem, then this needs to be addressed by improving the PVP game mechanics, e.g. by making DBD actually work.
By all means, I completely support the idea of making the rules easier to reason about. The rest of the stuff would be detrimental to PVE experience, so if you really want it, let’s agree on having it on PVP servers only.
Don’t feed the trolls. When you see posts like that one, flag 'em and bag 'em.
No, that’s the players’ assumption. Funcom has never really clarified this, and it’s high time they stopped being so freaking silent about it and explain what’s going on.
There’s nothing in the rules that says they’ll ban you based on the size alone. The only mention of “massive constructions” is in the context of “loss of performance both on client and server-side”, and you can accomplish that loss of performance more easily in a smaller build. Try plopping down 200 chests as close as possible to each other and fill them with a bunch of crap. Or try placing 200 torches as tightly as possible. See how quickly you get banned.
Sounds great. Can you edit your original post to make it clear that you’re requesting this limit for PVP servers only? 'Cause that’s the only way you’ll avoid this becoming a “war” between PVP and PVE players, seeing as how PVE players are really sick of shenanigans like these. It’s not like we haven’t made it clear all over these forums, many times over…
And it always be. There’s no way around it. The rules aren’t there to be mechanically enforced, because then they could be abused just as easily. If we set a limit to 1000 foundations, I can build something that causes problems with 999 foundations and then come here to complain because 999 < 1000.
The rules are there to make sure people aren’t ruining other people’s fun. On a private server, you’ll have a dedicated admin who keeps close track of what’s going on and uses their discretion to sort things out. This is the same thing, except the admin is not dedicated and can’t keep as close track of the server as a private server admin can.
People really need to understand the difference between the letter of the rules and the spirit of the rules. Most of us are, hopefully, adults, and this shouldn’t be so hard to understand.
No, you can’t. You can confirm that people have been banned after being reported by other players. There’s no way you can confirm that Funcom admins have acted on a report without checking if the rules were broken. No one outside Funcom can confirm that, just as no one outside Funcom can confirm that they are checking if the rules were broken.
So kindly stop claiming your opinions are facts.
Damn, damn that is thorough. Well said well said indeed. That needs to be pinned/stickied.
Unless of course, you apply common sense.
BTW, I should probably add (again) for the record, that I think it’s pretty much completely evil that Funcom is also banning people (if they still are) for building violations. I totally get nuking a base but banning people also??? Shame!
here is the funny thing about all of this.
i did not foundation spammed, i did not fence foundation stacked, i did not stacked anything or anything similar.
Now, i do concede that maybe my wall was too tall but it was basically because i needed due to the building spot that i choose and now i know it was a bad idea.
i think that a 40x40 its a good number for all clans to be honest. how much tall? i don’t know.
Look, the latam community is not too big, i know a good chunk of the players on our official servers and they all tell me the same, funcom is not being clear enough and everyone is getting banned and base deleted for this reason.
Look, i would love to have a small base to avoid all the problems but it just don’t fit all the things we need for the actual war xD.
Yes but at the same time i can have a base that is not laggy for me because i have a good pc.
but for someone who maybe has an older pc its laggy and they report me and ban me because i had no way of knowing that it was laggy for them but not for me.
Yeah i don’t know, but i don’t think that our base and neither the enemy was breaking the rules, YET, i will show the videos of both my base and my enemy.
I could have been wrong? Probably, i can adapt to building smaller, i just would like to know how but thats another discussion.
my base, official server 1985 could be too big? probably, but everything is inside the bubble so… idk.
Enemy base, same server of course.
enemy allied base.
Again, i did not know if that was too big for funcom standards. and if i know, is only after i got banned xD.
But do you know that was a bad idea? Funcom doesn’t explain why they ban anyone, beyond a generic reason like “for building abuse”.
This is what I meant when I said players keep assuming they know why they were banned. If Funcom were more specific in their explanations about their bans, then maybe we wouldn’t keep seeing these misguided calls for building limits until we’re all sick of it.
Again, did anyone actually get told “you were banned because your base was too big”?
Dude, just read what I wrote. You literally quoted the part where I said they talk about the base size in the context of loss of performance, and you keep going on about base size alone.
As for fitting all the things, I like building a spacious base and arranging all the stuff just so, but I know I could build it smaller – just ask @Taemien to show you some pictures of how small you can build and still fit everything inside.
Thing is, I don’t want to have to build small just because people keep pestering Funcom to add a building limit.
First, your hardware only affects client-side performance, not server-side performance. Second, it doesn’t matter if it’s lagging the person who reported you, but rather whether Funcom’s own investigation determines that its impact on performance is unacceptable.
The core problem here is that we, as players, have no good way of reasoning about that. We don’t know when we build a base whether it’s something Funcom would remove or not.
Unless you were told by Funcom that you built too big, in those words, you’re just making assumptions.
Yeah… we need this topic again apparently.
I would love to see this as well as I am curious as to the parameters that makes one base in violation and another maybe close but not over the line . Maybe in game warning somehow that you are reaching this violation limit and maybe what specifically is putting you close to the line of no return. This all assumes you haven’t broken some of the more obvious no noes (blocking specific important resources or areas of the map or access to whole areas) .
Thanks a lot for the video posts, as this is the only way to clear some confusion here.
In the first two videos one can see that structures have been placed just to prevent others from building e.g. trebuchets in that area and funcom says that’s a no no now. These bans have nothing to do with base size.
If we are talking about bases which are sooo big they make the whole area laggy:
Even with a limit of 40x40 foundations to stop the servers from lagging you can still build enormous bases. It is very possible.
I’m playing on a server that has a 20 foundation limit per clan. Yet this server hosts mega structures built on fence foundations and pillars. It runs super smooth with 30 people online at the evenings.
So far when I talked with people who got a 14 day ban, who didn’t come here to complain, it was due to build blocking or some building exploits. No one got banned for “base size”. Even people with multiple enormous and ugly monster bases, whose server recently went under a zendesk report war, “got away”.
I normally wouldn’t get involved into discussions about bans, but in this case someone can finally contribute some evidence. Thanks again.
To give people an idea of how big a 40 long base is, this is one image from an official server PVE. It’s 49 long and about 20 high. This is bare-bones, and they’ve yet to add walls.
Edit: Fluid press for scale
add that limit already because your eula text is saying nothink about how big a base can be
and kiddies like thoose here in thread that say buy server will always report because they cant raid…and then decay…
make clear building rules funcom as you already admitted its not clear …how its wrote
It’s a nonsense: we all know exactly what “blocking content” is. I think no one here has doubts about this and no one is asking for “set a construction limit and I’ll use it to block Brimlake” for example … I repeat, I think everyone knows what “block content” is. What people are asking is to know how much they can build in open field without being banned, and Funcom deliberately denies them that information and continues to ban people just for building. With those premises then I say that they do it to discourage PVP players and there are those who say there is a “conspiracy theories”.
Personally I have my account free and unbanned, but I know that as soon as I step on an official PVP server and raid someone they will try to report me for building. And with Funcom’s policy I don’t even know how I should build so as not to get banned for building, it would be funny but it isn’t. I do not know if people have noticed, but this has turned into a reporting war, not because you have blocked content, not because you leave landclaim and do not allow to build on good spots, not even because your build might cause some kind of annoyance, but to get revenge on raids or eliminate an aggressive clan by that they can’t win, it’s just an easy way to ban other players. Do you really think that Funcom doesn’t know that? Are that also “conspiracy theories”?
Did you see me disagree with the need for greater clarity (on Funcom’s part) in the post you quoted?
This thread literally requests a building limit per clan. You quoted the part of my post where I talk why that won’t even solve any problems.
You’re free to believe in your theories about Funcom deliberately discouraging PVP players or whatnot. I have neither the unlimited number of fuсks to give about conspiracy theories, nor the crayons to explain why something that has neither any logical reason to it nor any proof to support it deserves to be called a “conspiracy theory”. All I’m asking is not to use my own arguments to shoehorn those conspiracy theories into the conversation.
Yes, they are. Saying that Funcom is doing a crappy job moderating official servers is not a conspiracy theory. Saying that they’re doing it on purpose, for some nefarious reason nobody bothers to explain and without any shred of evidence to it? Yeah, that’s a conspiracy theory.
I’ll go even further: anyone who insists on pushing conspiracy theories repeatedly, without any care for human reason and common sense, is no better than a troll.
If they do it just for laziness, why so much effort to ban normal players, even with permabans just for building?
When I played on official servers I have dedicated a lot of my time to fight against cheaters and report them, I remember that a lot of time passed between you reported them and they are banned. But now Funcom seem to put in an incredible effort to ban lots of normal players from their servers, I think that when something is done with determination it must have a purpose behind it.
Yes. The purpose, most likely, being because for years _
and players complained about it - so Funcom increased the effort they make to respond more quickly to reports. Exactly as players have complained for years that they do not.
Sure, laziness is a valid possibility. I’m not saying I agree, but at least it’s not in the realm of conspiracy theories.
Not really. Hanlon’s Razor could also apply.
Again, I’m not saying it does. As far as I’m concerned, what’s happening here is that Funcom is finally doing what we’ve all been asking them to do, for years now. @Multigun put it succinctly and without beating around the bush:
Is Funcom doing a perfect job? Is everything as clear as it should be? No, and no. There’s room for improvement.
For one, it’s not easy to reason about the impact our builds have on performance and how that would translate into a ban. For another, their staff is human just as you and me, so I’m sure there have been some mistakes.
Both of these things should improve. As should many other things they do.
None of that implies any sort of nefarious plot to actively discourage PVP players or any such nonsense. None of that means we need a building limit, either. But I imagine I’ll sooner convince an anti-vaxxer to get a COVID booster shot than I’ll convince people here to stop spreading nonsense about a freaking video game, of all things…