hello exile
after different reading on this forum, I would like your opinion as a player that it would be for you an acceptable construction limit according to your experience in number of placeable objects on serveur official
0 voters
When you say placeable objects, do you mean placeables or building blocks.
element of decoration, construction, workshop, trunk, everything you need for a city, whether you are on PC, console, PVP, PVE. The goal is not to look for a value corresponding to a particular context but to have a general idea order at first, even if this simple idea can be largely defied as meaningless
As a singleplayer, I don’t really have enough information to cast a vote. But I do have a couple of thoughts that I hope may be relevant -
Firstly - I would not want to see any sort of cap (no matter how high and reasonable) placed on singleplayer or private servers - that should be left to players and admins to decide for themselves. (At the very least, such a measure would require a toggle on/off setting.)
Secondly - I’m not convinced a cap would be a good solution for official servers either for the sorts of reasons people have been expressing in this thread:
(In particular, Codemage’s point about the difference between a 201 piece building and a 199 piece building strikes me as getting to the heart of the problem).
Of course, I recognise that you are not calling for a cap, and are just gathering data on what players think is reasonable, but I feel like these points need to be made, since it would be potentially easy (depending on what results you get) for someone to then misinterpret your data as general support for the idea of a cap.
Uhm, no, no limit.
Maybe limits on new servers like:
Newcomer friendly Official Server (NUMBER) bla bla bla
With building limits, then it okay I guess.
I think the number if chosen should just be driven by the server capability given the number of seats available. I dont have that data so couldnt opine further. A cap without data would be arbitrarily punitive to some.
@DanQuixote, your reasoning is very correct
and I am well aware of the risks and I am happy for your intervention
I am for free will, it is for me our deep nature, to open the field of possibilities.
the goal is not to impose a limit that will satisfy everyone but to have an overview.
in a purely personal interest, I have always tried to adapt myself, and I ask myself the question, as a player and a user, what can I define as an action in order to be the least toxic for my environment
Now, I hope that common sense prevails, and that this somewhat silly poll will raise a positive awareness as well as avenues for further development.
And anyway, there will always be a troll or an opportunist trying to spoil our initiative but I find that the community of this forum seems surprising, so why not 
Including other elements (decorations, workstations…) in the building limit is a good idea. Because it adds depth to the system and allows for a strategic approach. For example, you can hide workstations that you don’t currently use. Instead of leaving your mess to others…
Or, you can only focus on production or building rather than decorating - depending on how you like to play. 
About 28 workstations are enough for the full game experience, therefore, the poll is mainly about building elements, containers and decorations.
You can find the full list of 28 workstations here: Further explanation 
>Details…>2. (expand Details).
If there were a hard limit, the best situation for me would be if each server had a different value for building limits and even companion limits. Everyone could choose the right server for themselves, just like choosing whether to play PvP or PvE. 
Some servers would have a double limit, others might have a reduced one.
Hard cap on building pieces is always a bad decision and poor design choice. I never a fan of such decisions. I prefer soft caps and diminishing returns features. For example you could add a maintenance mechanics for each building piece and expiration limits. Once you placed an asset it starts to decay, and you have to maintain it to prevent from destruction. Something similar to repairing, where you have to spend some resources to restore its health. But here you spend the resources to save an item from decay. The more items you have, the more resources you have to spend to keep them fresh and the more tedious it becomes to maintain your base. Also the more you repair, the less durability the item has, to the point when the item becomes unrepairable.
Something like this would work. Limits on amount of pieces — won’t.
I have always liked this idea and it requires a very good design to accessible all the parts for the maintenance, but sincerely I have big doubts about its application.
even with a house of 10 blocks out of 10 the number of piece to maintain one by one will quickly drive you crazy, not to mention that certain large workshops such as enclosures placed on foundations, will make this task impossible
and I also think of a lot of players with a reduced playing time credit , the decay time Already gives them a lot of frustration, especially when an important update or a crash down comes to prevent your connection
or to compensate open the possibilities of the NPC craftsmen by offering them to carry out tasks such as repairing construction in the same way as weapons and armor
see can be add artsant macon or architect
If we’re not allowed to build a small city with different buildings on PvE(C) that would be pretty stupid.
I enjoy exploring creations from other players it is one of the reasons I play PvE(C) online.
None. No limit period.
When thrall caps were put in place, I didn’t really care. But now that I’m approaching that cap, it has hit me that there is a loss of replayability because of that design choice. Sure, I could delete one of my followers to roll the dice again, but why would I? I have no reason to run surges any more, no reason to check for named thralls in camps.(side note, this change has also done nothing to improve server performance)
So at least building is still there, unrestricted and allowing for new projects.
I voted for 10.000 because there was not 200.000 
. It is not the building limits that should be changed, but the moral. Funcom is trying now with Zendesk, if this will fail to do the job too, I believe that the next would have to be a more direct report idea than building limit. I build what I need, I build as a free man but I never forget that my freedom stops where the others begin. I build with respect to the other players, I build without destroying the performance of the server, I build without destroying the beauty of the game, I build responsibly. I don’t judge the new players thar learn how to build, but I judge the old players who build non stop like they own the place. The official servers are public, Free, for all the players, but most for the new, to learn the game, to enjoy playing online, to meet new people, why not to make friends. Old players should give them the way to play, the example.
And again, I ain’t no saint, I have to change too, but for now I will start from me, I have to change first so I can be an example for new players. I wish more veterans will follow.
cool, after reflection and hesitation, I made the choice to myself based on my own experience, currently my last major village project with castle, wall and the integration of all the available workshops should turn around 10,000 blocks
each craft has its own place and, moreover, certain divinity is associated with them
The poll needs a no limit option.
The problem with trying to fix spam or lag with hard capping building pieces is you’d need to make it low enough that if someone used their entire allotment on a single building it would not effect server or client performance.
Which means that people who build multiple places far away from and not connected to each other are getting the shaft even those who are being responsible with their building in the first place
These small buildings aren’t being loaded at the same time like a giant compound.
I’d much rather have judgement calls from moderation about what is spam than to proactively punish the entire population with a hard cap
Exactly.
Show us proof that your other drastic measures worked before implementing more drastic measures.
I think limit on official servers wouldn’t hurt but it won’t solve all problems with building abuse like blocking unique resources for example. There should be slider / config option for private servers tho - I don’t understand why we don’t have it yet.
Is that a per person in a clan?
a clan of one player or 10 player? currently I am alone, the others have moved on to other things, but as there are several in my head, do I have to take this parameter ? mummm difficult, give you an answer … i will meditate
but i’m happy this type of question highlights the plurality of the environment
Well, I’m pretty sure 5K per clan might be reasonable, up to cap.
The trick is going to be things like foundation spam and people spamming pillars to block claim and such.
