Do not cap the building limit, make it harder to keep building bigger to encourage smaller and more intelligent bases…
1 Like
10,000 is too small. The problem bases use far more items than that to become problems. I know this because my base has something close to 15,000 pieces in total and I played it on low-end laptop mode on a 5 year old $1,000 dell for the first two years of this game.
There are other bases that cause unavoidable problems. And those are ones with more than 50,000 pieces, perhaps 100,000. Never counted myself tbh. And no, I am not even being sarcastic. We have all seen the mega-wall-castles shaped like shoe boxes that span valleys and have a set of 10-20 furnaces churning out bricks.
I think the best idea here, rather than set a hard cap on things is to set a soft cap on them. Essentially the more of anything you place, the more expensive it becomes to craft. Removing placed items returns prices to normal.
Example being. If you have placed 1 Sandstone foundation in the world, it will cost the same to craft the second. If you have crafted 100, sandstone foundations it might cost a few bits more to craft. By the time you have placed 10,000 foundations, the cost for each is easily double (or more) per piece.
This results in people wanting to avoid building needlessly large, and also leaves the escape of paying the added cost if you fell that you must or trading for someone else to craft them. The added inconvenience, while bad to introduce, could be non-invasive enough and still punishing enough that it only dissuades ridiculous additions to already ridiculous builds. Perhaps that guy with three giant bases won’t go about building another giant base to add to his collection.
If there is a hard cap, it needs to be generous. And 10,000 is not generous to PvE players. It might be to solo PvPer’s though.
I am not against a hard cap, but it has to be extremely generous so that clans, or players like myself don’t suffer needlessly for it.
I do have a large base. A single, large base. But it’s footprint is 10x10, plus some bridge work since it sits in a river. I have not built massive structures at every obelisk across the map that people have to load in each time they use an obelisk.
Just my opinion though. 10,000 is too few. That number needs to be higher, substantially, but I do agree in general that a generous hard cap or a adaptive soft cap could be useful to the game in some areas.
3 Likes
To land claim the entire EXILE LANDS map, of course!
1 Like
Why you ask @Chaoruk? Simple, because PvE and PvE(C) is creative building, not just for function like in PvP. There must be NO LIMIT to creativity, and that means no limit to building pieces, ever. Funcom already has a method to punish players for abusing the servers (via Zendesk) and has just revised their rules to make it more clear that abuses will not be tolerated. Give their current method a chance to work and if in 6 months we see no results, then Funcom will have to up their game, but not by stifling creativity.
An active admin on a server, who is capable of making unbiased judgements on a case by case basis, is always going to be the most affective method of eliminating spam. That is what Funcom has been moving slowly towards, obviously they can’t employ an admin on each of their thousands of servers. The Zendesk enables you to be their eyes and ears. Even the existence of a poll like this detrimental because it could be referenced 6mos or a year from now and taken way out of context.
My vote is NO LIMIT on building pieces or placeables EVER. Let’s not forget this is a sandbox game.
5 Likes
Games are for fun, if people want to build something that you would describe as a ‘personal disney land,’ then they should be allowed, as long as they follow Funcom’s rules.
I agree that logging in once a week for 30secs to maintain a build is a bit absurd. Perhaps a maintenance of some sort needs to be considered like many have previously suggested, but that is an all together different thread. This thread is about ‘limiting construction’ and to that I am very much against.
2 Likes
You haven’t looked very hard, have you?
7 Likes
This games biggest draw card is its fantastic building system. Why would you want to limit that. It’s a nay from me. No limit. It would be far more constructive to address the issue of HOW and WHERE people build.
5 Likes
Plus there are already private servers that have restrictions in place so anyone interested could go play there.
3 Likes
I went with 10000 because there wasn’t anything higher. 10000 is a lot less than you probably think it is.
I’ve used this example before, but a person might think 100 blocks sounds like a lot until they lay it on the ground and realize all they have is a 10x10 floor with no walls or ceiling. Let alone workstations, decorations, storage chests, lighting, thralls, animals, etc. if you’re going to include those in the total.
2 Likes
100,000,000
2 Likes
effectively
We tend to focus on a limited or even a single number of variables, forgetting that we are playing and using a complex and varied eco system.
And as I often say, if the ants inspire us a lot, (thank Berbard Weber) it is the cockroach that is currently in fashion.
Funcom also has to take responsibility for its choices and that’s what it is trying to do, it seems to me …
It is an open game without restriction, technically speaking, it has always been more expensive, more complex and more difficult to develop than a scripted corridor type game.
Personally, I would always support this type of initiative.
Now, the no limit and really one of my theme of reflection at the moment. Or more precisely the infinite.
This is what we represent from my point of wiew as a human, we can think and conseive the infinite while we come from what would seem a determined and finite universe.
moreover, it is easier to think infinitely large than infinitely small.
Always my point of view, this is one of our problem because it gives us the individual responsibility to set ourselves our own limits according to the context, while being solicited to act in a constant and uniform manner, see repetitive to answer needs of comfort, consolation and of security resulting from a principle of animal evolution based on a couple of submission and domination.
This game clearly highlights that and that’s part of why I enjoy it so much.
Now to be more specific, I would actually like to see a build limit function that can be activated for administrators, mainly for small private servers, so that they can evolve their game.
But not officially, on this point I would like funcom to be able to continue to develop this infinite of possibilities. and I hope with all my heart they can find adequate solutions as well as a suitable bissness model
They recently updated their server policy / rules. In this way, they remind us that we should limit ourselves and not disturb other players. I would prefer they used a carrot rather than a stick for this. But for now, it’s just a reminder. 
Since Conan Exiles is a game-service, it is possible that any problem of abuse will be resolved by a different system over the years. May each of these systems taste like carrots. 
1 Like
I too reserve my vote for a “no limit” option. That is not to say I don’t agree with limits on building. The ambiguity of the current rules serve the same purpose without summarily stifling creativity. If anything I would mostly like to see more aggressive moderation on FCs side using the current criteria.
2 Likes
We did see a new feature pop up under Clans that tells us how many building parts and placeables are. I bet it wouldn’t be hard to parse for foundations, either.
Funcom could always implement a build radius, say no more than 50 foundation blocks in a given direction from the first foundation placed. That still allows a fairly hefty footprint, but would hopefully cut down on spam.
1 Like
Unfortunately that doesn’t allow for remote builds like outposts or public map rooms. Also makes long but narrow builds problematic.
Think Castle Pyke or Peyrepertuse.
7 Likes
Wouldn’t it be better if the appearance of an online player didn’t renew the entire building’s decay timer, but just a tiny fragment (slowly)? To renew the timer each player would have to visit all their buildings, stay there for a while. 
Then, if we set up the most-used workstations in the distant points of the building, we won’t even notice that we’ve renewed our timer by simply playing.
This does not force us to work (collect materials), we can do whatever we want in our buildings (produce or paint equipment / watch the views or dance with companions). This does not create any building limit.
The idea is that refilling the timer will take longer than just appearing on the mount next to the building then fly to the next one or just appearing inside for a minute to renew entire building’s timer and disappearing for 7 days. 
It should also be considered an abuse. 
2 Likes
It’s a nice idea but we should never forget that old people(me:rofl:) play this game too and do not accept changes so easily. Some people like their habits and this game can give you a lot. To many players use this mechanics to maintain public services, like map rooms, dancers that remove corruption, water wells, fire places on North with shelter. I really like to do this to help others and believe me it’s not easy. Sometimes they decay timers go crazy and I loose map rooms before the time extinct. So I have to build again 
. If this however is going to be against the new rules and I will have to stop it, I will be a little sad, but I won’t blame anyone about it. To these servers I play for free so I cannot demand anything and I have to respect the rules.
2 Likes
What if I were the one responsible for upkeeping all of the publicly used map rooms at every obelisk? Simply playing does not include teleporting to each Obi and standing there for fifteen minutes (or however long ‘slowly’ is). Sometimes an outpost consists of nothing more than a bedroll, fire pit and a fridge. How far apart should I keep them so that I won’t notice that I have reset my timers? 
Other than that, sure, I like the idea. 
2 Likes