No, I didn’t miss it, I just thought it was so self-evidently obvious that it didn’t need to be disussed.

Having said that, I’ll cop to the idea that I overstated my case when I said we “need” these pieces. So I’ve edited my previous post to say, “many people would like”.

I dispute that claim. Adding things like ‘long wall’, ‘long doorway’, ‘right-angle roof corner’ are not a “crazy” amount of work. It’s work yes, but assuming the people who are doing this work are good at it then it’s decidedtly not a crazy amount, nor a crazy level of difficulty. Mind you, if FunCom were to assign this work to their least experienced people (which based on some of the recent offerings in the bazaar they seem to be doing) well then it would give the appearance of being crazy, but that’s a management-decision-making problem, not an intrinsic technical problem.

If you don’t agree with that logic then all you have to do is look at the many building mods for a variety of survival games, at which point my counter-argument starts to speak for itself. Look at mods like “Castles, Keeps & Forts” or anything from the “Eco’s Mods” series (both of those are for ARK Survival Evolved) and it should become pretty obvious that one skilled person can accomplish a whole lot with building pieces. If modders can do it in their spare time then certainly a reasonably skilled employee can do it (again, not the newbies, someone reasonably skilled).

I argue that this is a backwards assessment. Adding pieces that are more intuitive to use, rather than forcing people to learn a bunch of janky workarounds for a building system that’s incomplete and wonky, would be reducing the hell that players currently go through when they try to build anything interesting. It’s a whole lot easier to learn the difference between ‘short wall’ and ‘long wall’ than to learn some of the absurd workarounds and snap-point-disco-dancing that are necessary to build using the current system. Adding more pieces to create a more robust buiding set would lower the learning curve, it would lower the skill floor, while still allowing for a high skill ceiling for the people who want to create the most complicated builds. I argue this would be a win-win for (almost) everyone.

You (and others who share your feelings) would always have the option to ignore and avoid building pieces that would ‘make their lives hell’, just like people currently have the option to ignore sorcery, or ignore spears, etc. No one would be forced to make more complicated builds, but it would make building easier for people who don’t like to learn a bunch of workarounds, plus it would create even more interesting options for those people who enjoy building complicated setups.

Mind you, if what you’re trying to say is that you wouldn’t enjoy that system then you certainly have the right to your preferences. I’m not trying to dictate what you enjoy, nor am I trying to suggest that everyone would enjoy the additional options equally, nor that everyone would use them equally, and I’m 100% in favor of people using only the elements in game that they enjoy. But I dispute that a more complete building system would create more hell for players, I argue that it would make building less hellish overall, and especially when attempting to make interesting buildings.

That’s how every sub-system of a game and the game mechanics works. Not everyone uses the dyeing system equally. Not everyone uses sorcery equally. Not everyone uses corrupted stats & perks equally. Heck, not everyone uses even the existing building system equally. Adding options to a game gives it exactly that, more options, that can be used by the people who enjoy them. If you (and people like you) wanted to keep building using only the existing pieces you would have the freedom of choice to ignore the extra pieces. But under the current system there is no freedom of choice for people who would like to use a more complete building system in the vanilla game, they are forced to find a constantly evolving set of workarounds to overcome limitations that could be relirved by a more complete building system.

You could apply that same slippery slope argument to everything that’s ever been added to the game.

Sorcery - “sooner or later, you would get someone complaining about” not having enough spells.
Weapons - “sooner or later, you would get someone complaining about” not having the specific weapons they want to see.
Cosmetics - “sooner or later, you would get someone complaining about” not having the specific culture/items they want to see.
Updates - “sooner or later, you would get someone complaining about” not having classic servers.

All of these complaints have already happened, they are examples of things we’ve seen on these forums. But in none of these cases should that be considered a legitimate argument for cancelling Sorcery, or limiting the game to just a few weapons, or refusing to publish cosmetic DLC’s, or stopping all development on the game.

Everything in the game has the possibility of becoming a slippery slope, but that’s not a valid argument against considering additions and changes. It only seems like a good argument until you realize that it applies equally to every aspect of the game.

Beyond that, if a large enough portion of the player based wanted even more expanded building options, well then yes, FunCom might wasnt to consider more building pieces in the future. That’s something they might want to consider since making the game more enjoyable for the player base is what keeps people playing the game. It might end up being the case that ‘wide foundations’ etc. would be a good addition to the game based if enough players enjoy the additions, or it might end up being the case that they’re not. I won’t pretend to know the answer to that question, but the slippery slope argument doesn’t help answer that question in any way. Just throwing that argument down on the table doesn’t advance the conversation, It’s nothing more than a false obstacle, not a valid point of discussion.

The valid questions to be answered are “what portion of the player base would used the new features?” and “how much would they like it?”.

Speaking of making “every player’s life hell”, forcing players to learn a pile of workarounds because the building system is incomplete and wonky may be an “art”, but it’s an “art” that’s forced on people whether they like it or not. Having a more complete, more robust building system would waste a lot less time for players than the current system of being forced to figure out how to get around limitations in a building system that’s incomplete and wonky.