Huh? I’m referring to what the OP wrote which was:
We see 4 or more threads started every week about the issues with zendesk, suspensions/bans. Either some one has gotten banned and they feel it unjust, or a mistake, or blame it on roving bands of HOA enforcers.
Or you have people on pointing out some clear ToC violation that reports have been uninvestigated, or people feel the conclusions were wrong."
I completely agree with OP. Those issues come mostly from LAND CLAIM of people reporting other people and I was a victim of this. People running around placing foundations everywhere they please, and next to your base. With the banner system this is impossible and would remove most reports and harassement.
It’s not an ideal solution, but can be adjusted easily.
I did read the rules. You should too :), and the original post while at it.
Yes, and the rules about the LAND CLAIM are not about the SIZE or the AREA of the LAND CLAIM, they’re about its EFFECTS.
They’re not about how big you build. They’re about what you do with your land claim and what effect it has on other players.
But you didn’t understand them. That’s why you fell for the false premise in the original post. By the way, I did read the original post, but even if I hadn’t, I would’ve known what it was about. I’ve been around long enough to know what idea @DeaconElie stubbornly clings to.
Oh… you wouldn’t imagine how creative people can get to circumvent those limitations.
I don’t oppose your banner idea. It needs to be refined, but it’s widely applied with success to other games, but it creates a few problems on this one (thralling outposts within reason are not a problem… although the within reason part seems mostly forgotten). What I vehemently oppose are the restrictions to solos and small clans. The rest could be discussed, but base size is not the main problem. It’s what you do with your claim, not just how big it is.
Assuming everything you told us about your case is true, I’m at loss for words. I said so in the topic, considering the situation revolting.
I don’t know there’s definitely smarter people than me that hopefully would lend a hand here.
I just know that if we go too low or too restrictive it’s not going to be good.
Buildings are already at a disadvantage against assault, there’s next to no defense except for having inexperienced raiders, cutting off the head of the assault or “exploit” the shit out of rebuilding/repairing while being raided. Bases are paper facades, sometimes you can make them into cardboard but it takes layers and smarts. There were unraidable bases and I truly believe they removed bubbles because of it. Now there’s no in between. You only need time, numbers and experience and anyone can be wiped - can be good but also bad.
If you want to play the game in terms of having a base, loot and defense/assault you do so as most assume. It hasn’t been that simple which created the huge problem with reliance on exploits such as undermeshing and skybasing. I’m not making excuses for it only that I understand why. High to mid PVP is hard AF.
So, just like I mentioned above players are already playing with temp or fake bases and hiding their loot in other ways, which some could argue is exploitative (hiding in chests that don’t take up land claim or BVs which can be hidden in interesting ways). This would increase for any left behind that know about this stuff with such a huge change to land claim.
Let me give you a practical example.
As chests seem to cause performance problems, I avoid them like the plague. That and benches filled to the brim with mats.
So I place a vault and build a crafting square around it.
Look.
With a small stick movement I access the inventory of the base. Then I look down to the bench, and I access its inventory. I use what I need and all goes back.
I wish they gave us a block instead of that monster (a simulated door to an imaginary basement for instance). This is a way to mitigate impact by doing things efficiently. That is what Funcom asks to the players. A vault is big. I could have more storage in the same space by pilling chests, but the performance suffers immediately. Don’t ask me why, but at least on PS5, chests and filled benches cause a lot of lag both to you and others.
But then, Funcom can’t go and do what it did to you while sparing a clan that was spamming foundations in the most disgusting way like they were doing. I would boil. I know myself. I would skyrocket straight to orbit. Not only that clan behavior was inadmissible, but in the end it’s your clan that bites the dust while they go free. At least, that’s the impression you got and nobody explained otherwise.
That’s why my main point is always for Funcom to provide an explanation to the player concerning his particular situation. That would go a long way building and cementing trust. Giving you the boot and saying what amounts to little more than “you broke the law”, suits neither them nor the players.
Does it? Tell you what, why don’t you quote the part that you believe says that and we can discuss whether it really does or it’s your (mis)interpretation?
The size might have an effect, but it’s not the size itself that matters, it’s the effect. If the size didn’t have that effect, it wouldn’t matter. It’s an important distinction.
That document covers spidering and outwards landclaim as well as unnecessary decorative buildings for the purpose preventing others’ from building or claiming that land without purpose.
The examples show bridges, roads, huge outer walls and placeables/markers.
But it is. There are not many “great” base spots so taking several of them is selfish.
Also due to crappy server app acting selfish decreases server performance.
So acting like this you affect other players in two negative ways.
You may not accept it, but this is how people view it.
Make them have one base but a bigger one than a solo player, each member increases the build radius/block allowance slightly.
Since we’re talking Officials: violating the ToC is by means of land claiming for the purpose of preventing others from building, blocking, preventing unique spawns of enemies or resources or building in such a way that causes severe performance issues (placeables).
You cannot compare the rules on a private server as what must be followed on Official servers. If the rules are yours for your server, that is your opinion and implemented choice.
Noob river is called such not because it is the place for noobs to build but because that is where noobs typically build. By your reasoning they’re not allowed to build anywhere else.
I believe it’s a common sense thing. Common sense does not have to be included in the TOS, just like IRL having bad manners is not a violation of law, but…
I do understand you, but let me explain how I view this.
We are playing a game that has a serious problem with performance, hence everyone should limit their footprint to exactly what is needed and nothing more.
It’s not like you own an official server, you share it with other people, it’s a common space.
So why would you build two or more bases around it when you need only one?
But yes in reality it’s different, and it’s one of the reasons why people leave to play solo or pick private servers.
And that’s the main problem with the server moderation: everyone here believes their interpretation is the right one. Meanwhile, Funcom refuses to do the one thing that would solve that problem, which would be to be more transparent about their decisions and give more concrete explanations for suspensions and bans.
There are many reasons to have more than one base. Having a main is customary but having outposts for thrall gathering, transportation, resource gathering or just plain shelter is completely normal. Not to mention maprooms.
Even though that is my opinion it is normal and expected. Funcom has also clarified that multiple bases is fine and if you’d like me to dig that up I can. That’s not my opinion, it’s fact.
The amount of bases probably does have an impact on performance. Officials run on GPortal which is a notoriously poor service provider. It has certainly created the need for some oversight regarding building but it’s not the size or building pieces that are the problem, it’s placeables. So your lights and chests and benches and decorative items. Even worse for the animated ones. Everyone is loading all this in.
Optimization has been begged for and also a change in service provider.
Should players be concerned with ensuring that their bases don’t cause lag? Absolutely (so should Funcom, clearly). Does that mean they have to be sanctioned to 1 base? No.
Using performance as justification for land claim limits leads into too many difficult variables. This discussion really isn’t about performance.
I just wrote something in another thread about building over a large area. I’m not going to repeat it all here. But here’s an abridged version:
A 2,500 line block line going north from the beach has much more server impact on both performance of the server, and the amount of land denied from other players, than does a 15 wide, 15 long, and 30 high solid block of a building does. Even though it is nearly triple the number of blocks.
Now, were you referring to the size of a building/base, or the size of land claim? Because Umborls examples show size of land claim. I agree Funcom hasnt said anything about the size of a building (to the best of my knowledge). If you meant size of building and not land claim, sorry, misinterpreted your comment.
Yes, this refers to the size of a base, totally agree.
Sorry, I was imprecise. I actually meant both, although the distinction is a lot more subtle when it comes to the land claim than when it comes to the build.
Let me try to explain what I mean.
What Funcom ultimately cares about is whether your build and/or your claim adversely affect other players’ in-game experience. I think we can both agree on that.
When it comes to the build size, a big build doesn’t necessarily imply adverse effects, nor does a small build necessarily avoid those adverse effects. You can have a small build that wrecks the server, or blocks an important resource, or harasses another player, etc. Similarly, you can have a relatively large build that doesn’t negatively affect other players in any way.
When it comes to the claim size, things are slightly different. You can still have a small claim that negatively affects other players. But I agree that you can’t have a huge claim without negatively affecting other players. If you build a highway from the Mounds to the Sinner’s Refuge, you’ve caused issues for other players.
The points I was trying to make are the following:
Neither the build size nor the claim size are something Funcom cares about per se.
Limiting the total build size is pointless.
Limiting the total claim size is not pointless, but isn’t worth doing, because it will only solve a small fraction of server moderation problems.
So yeah, I agree with you to a certain degree, but I stand by my overarching point that trying to limit the size – either build size or claim size – is far from useful.
there’s definitely smarter people than me that hopefully would lend a hand here.
