Put building cap in PvE

I would rather they did not either, but I logged into a EU PVP-C IoS server tonight , and ran the southern beach, east to west.
The spam was unbelievable. I counted three different clans that basically have closed off that southern area to anyone else, by just spamming foundations all over.
Now you can say, that should be a report to Zendesk, but it may be months before anything is done about it.
The last Zendesk ticket I put in was for blocking an obelisk, and two months later I was still getting canned emails asking if I still needed assistance.

2 Likes

I only play official. I’ve never ran out of spaces to call my own in four years of playing. I’ve had ppl move in right next door, I simply pack up and move myself. Other people’s builds have never been a concern for me in all honesty. Only once have I seen a big enough build that it affected server performance and I just stayed away from it. Either I am extremely lucky with the plethora of officials I have played on or this problem is grossly overstated and embellished. If it became that much of an issue for me I’d simply move to a private or play solo. When have online games NOT had problems with the player base messing things up for others? Never.

1 Like

How about reporting them to zendesk? You are the guy who told me that zendesk is uselfull and Funcom is not hidding behind it to safe money, like I stated before. The reports should go through then and this peoples buildings get deleted. Problem solved.

I am not saying this to annoy or angry you but if you and Smileexile are defending Funcoms politics of renting the cheapest servers from a company that doesn´t get their ddos attacks under controll and provide stable servers and they also don´t want or don´t see the need to spent some extra dollars on hiring more people then I am hundert and ten procent against any measures that take away peoples freedom or joy to play this game. Even if that means that they build over the entire map. I am not willing to give Funcom a free pass just so that they can go and make peoples live way more complicated. Thats a shift in responsibility.

Cool idea but unfortunately will not resolve the issue.

Easy to beat/exploit that system. I could log in before I go to sleep and wake up and log out. Do that twice a month and get my 15+ hours. (Yes, I will die a bunch of times but you only need to be naked at start)

I could do other examples but my first example was the best to show the system could be beat too easily. I have multiple computers in the house so its easy to have one running the game and another doing something that you are really interested in.

2 Likes

The absolutely saddest thing about these forums is that one person offers a possible solution and twenty people spend their time tearing it down, instead of offering alternatives or amendments to it.

I am not saying it is malicious behavior, just human nature to say the glass is always half empty, but it is depressing.

2 Likes

People moving in next door is not the problem at all, but let’s spend a moment on this anyway. You say you just pack up and move. Maybe it’s less involved for you, or maybe you enjoy the process no matter how involved. Regardless, I respect your playstyle, but I don’t want to play like that. Most of the PVE(-C) players I’ve interacted with also wouldn’t want to move just because someone showed up next door.

I envy the experience you’ve had on officials. Mine has been drastically different.

If just staying away from it solved the performance problems for you, then either everyone else on the server stayed away from it too, or it wasn’t big enough to affect server performance. Client performance problems are solved by staying away. Server performance problems would have affected you any time any player on the server was in the area of that build, regardless of where you were at the time.

As a side note, it’s not necessarily the sheer size of the build, but let’s settle on the word “big” for the purposes of the discussion.

Having seen several servers with builds that actually cause server performance problems, having studied the problem over the years, and having seen other people’s research on it, I would lean towards saying that you have been lucky.

There is nothing simple about moving to a private server. Not because of the lack of server transfer, but because of the difficulty involved in finding a private server that satisfies all the requirements:

  • has the same (or similar settings) as official servers
  • isn’t chock-full of mods
  • doesn’t include mods that drastically alter the game experience (e.g. Age of Calamitous)
  • has an active admin
  • doesn’t have admin abuse
  • doesn’t have any pay-for-game-content mechanics (i.e. “donate” to the server for this “starter” kit)
  • doesn’t have any onerous rules (e.g. “you have to be on Discord in a voice channel”, or “you can only build up to 20x20x4 if you don’t have clanmates”)
  • is likely to stay around for a long time

As for playing single-player, that’s how I started. I played exclusively single-player during early access of the base game. If I wanted to keep playing single-player, I would have stayed in single-player.

All in all, I respect the fact that you’ve had a different experience from mine. Up to this point, your post has been simply a discussion of those differences. But here you started verging towards “It ain’t a problem for me, so why don’t you bugger off somewhere else?”

Let’s put it this way: if overbuilding has never been a problem for you, why are you so vehemently opposing solutions for it? If you’re concerned that a solution to overbuilding would impact you disproportionately, why not just state your concern and we could have a discussion on how a solution could avoid impacting you?

When have some humans NOT been douchebags to other humans in the history of the world? Never. By that logic, should we have never even argued for improving the society, much less improved it to the point where it is now?

Are you sure you understand what Zendesk is for and how it’s used? Because it’s either that, or you’re being willfully and deliberately disingenuous. Assuming it’s the former, let me explain why nobody does that:
image

The above is from the Zendesk request form. As you can see, you can only:

  • report players who break the Official Server Terms of Conduct
  • report a server that is down or isn’t accepting connections
  • request information about your ban and possibly appeal it

“People’s buildings get deleted” only as a measure resulting from the first type of request, i.e. a report of infraction of server rules. There is nothing in the rules that prohibits non-malicious building. I could, theoretically, opt to misinterpret the second option and submit that kind of request, but I doubt it will be prioritized because: 1) that’s not what that option is meant for, and 2) they have to prioritize issues like cheating, griefing, and harassment.

In all, Zendesk is useful for the kind of problems Zendesk is meant to solve. Different people with different problems have had different degrees of success with it, but that doesn’t mean that it’s either 1) useless, or 2) meant to be used for everything.

No, but I suspect you’re saying it to knowingly conflate unrelated issues. I fail to understand why you think that kind of behavior is useful in a discussion. Zendesk has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of hosting.

Speaking of which, since you’re bringing up my replies to you from other discussion threads, I’ve already stated my argument about improving server capacity: as long as the building is completely unlimited by the game, improving server capacity will only make people build even bigger until they overwhelm the new capacity.

Nothing personal there, but I don’t see a way to amend it so that it will work properly, because I think it incentivizes the wrong thing. As for alternatives, I’ve talked my ass off about upkeep systems, so you’ll excuse me if I don’t write more about them. My walls of text are big enough thanks to people trying to shut down all discussion of something that they don’t see as a problem because they think we’re all blatantly lying to them :smiley:

1 Like

I only recently joined the Conan Forums… but I’ve been lurking for years now. I’ll drop down probably 4 threads when I get posting ability:
Affront to the Gods
Hypocrisy vs. Worship Mechanics
Body Types as flexible Character Classes (with alternate clan mechanics)
Prestige Levels as an Endgame Reward system

I think the big thing about the Purge is that it’s supposed to be ramped up difficulty as players advance and establish themselves. My thoughts on Affront to the Gods is that it’s not really a difficulty measurement so much as a soft wall with hard consequences… this allows players to still use certain behaviors, but also encourages them to be more flexible and seek other paths rather than doing things that are a detriment to the game.

Of course, if someone really does want to build the Taj Mahal, that’s what private servers and solo/co-op are for. It just feels like Official servers should be different sort of experience, since they aren’t moderated closely.

Of course, getting fancy with Decay timers can do the job, but I feel like Decay Timers shouldn’t be confusing. If you start tying the behavior of Decay timers to a wider variety of elements, you are making them more intimidating… when you could be making the GODS more intimidating.

=

We don’t pay a subscription fee for this. The Politics of it, whether you agree with it or not, are totally out of our hands… except that FunCom lets you run Private Servers. Why do you keep complaining about things that are already addressed in a form that you admit you prefer anyway… as some sort of defense against suggestions to improve the very servers you have repeatedly stated you dislike? It’s making my head spin. Nobody needs to defend FunCom’s choice not to make use pay for games as a service. It’s already been decided. The DDOS attacks are certainly obnoxious, but they might have something to do with people being angry, competitive, or otherwise obsessed with how the public servers don’t manage themselves very well even when they AREN’T the subject of DDOS Attacks. FunCom isn’t launching DDOS attacks against itself… you realize that, right? They have an agreement with G-Portal. Given all the problems they have had for years, I am absolutely certain if an opportunity for a superior service at the same or better price came along, they would take it… but they have an agreement with G-Portal and probably have to factor in the cost of nullifying their contract with them.

Also… all the current servers, public and private probably go bye-bye if they switch right? I suspect many people who don’t use the forums right now would be furious if this happened.

How much would you pay a month for better Official Servers? I haven’t heard anyone begging for FunCom to do Official games as a service, yet I suspect that is because anyone serious about it just rents a private server.

Probably not your best reading comprehension of the day.

I think legitimate feedback or back and forth discussion is warranted. Otherwise, why have a discussion/forum? As long as we keep the discussion civil of course.

I particular have no ideas on how to improve the system since they will not really improve the system. Putting a maintenance cost will not stop big builds. It just cost more on a monthly basis. Locking the number of building pieces will cause issues and many discussions like locking the number of followers for singles and clans. There is no easy method to fix the over-building issues, without an Admin being available to say, okay you gone overboard.

Personally, I lived with New Asagarth being completely surrounded by a very tall wall, stretching 4 square zone blocks at the outer perimeter with structures / roads inside and roads / bridges / stairways that stretch from the Frost Temple to the south desert edge (where you can start building) to the Mounds of the Dead to the Jungle, plus various structures (map rooms) along the way. This was done on a PvE-C official Server back in the day and was all there before i started in Feb 2019. (Its gone now)

They claimed they had enough supplies to rebuild the entire thing again if they wanted. A boast, probably but who knows. They had a number of vaults so may been true.

So massive builds in comparison may not reach those heights but the issue on some servers remains.

I am not sure everyone perception of a massive build is on the same page either.

2 Likes

I do not think the issue is so much the massive build itself, compared to where it is located and if the person really plays or is just a refresh troll.

On my server there is an area just west of the Ice bridge Obelisk that has a series of huge theme builds, one after another. It does not hinder passage, but causes huge graphics lag when I port there.
I do not really mind it so much, but it is just a pointless refresh for a self serving ego that never plays the game itself.

1 Like

I get what you are saying. Although they are following the stated rules of the server so technically speaking they are not doing anything wrong even if they just log in and out on a timely matter every week for the last year or so.

This topic is not going to have easy answers to resolve since it will have to take into account varied play styles.

4 Likes

You forgot the most important reason - the storage of resources. The safest way to save resources is to build a huge amount of vaults and put a little bit in each. And so that vaults do not decay, you need to put foundations.

Well, a Map zone is 500m by 500m… and a foundation block is 256cm by 256cm (according to the Conan Exiles Wiki, anyway…) So that means to fully cover a flatish mapzone would be 195 by 195 blocks… 38,025 JUST to put in a floor. Of course, very little space is really flat in this game… so that number is probably greater.

How do you feel about using that number of blocks, just for foundation? Is that reasonable? Or is that a good start point for imagining what “out of control” looks like?

Of course, the building abuse that people want to stop is Foundation snakes and massive stack builds. Both can ruin the server for everyone, but in different ways. Neither of these tactics requires someone to cover an entire zone Quadrant in foundation. And both of these tactics are not intended.

I wonder what the average actively uses in buildings.

A building limit wouldn’t be that bothersome either frankly and I’m not opposed to anything really let alone vehemently opposed. My issue lies more with the way these forums constantly seek change time after time . Nerf this, nerf that impose this restriction or that restriction. I’ve asked before and I’ll ask again, when the game is just not making people happy anymore at what point do you stop asking for changes to the game instead of making your change in the way or place you play the game?
I’ve seen maybe 4-5 posts about overbuilding recently and it’s the same voices out of how many players? So many things about CE have changed over the years and not all of them have been for the better. Funcom never seemed to have learnt the small changes slowly to see how things progress trick. They make changes hard and fast and it’s been detrimental to the game many times over the years. You say funcom will eventually do something about this particular problem, I agree, and as a betting man I’ll hedge mine towards their “ solution” being one that makes even more people unhappy probably including yourself.

I’m not one for applying the same logic in a video game as I do to real world events and happenstance. When a game or someone in a game is annoying me I switch it off, life is of course a wee bit different than a game and requires it’s own course of action born from quite a different logical stance than I can apply to a game.

Bottom line like I said I’m not opposed to a building limit, if it’s needed, I just worry that by catering to a player base requesting constant change, freedoms will be lost and eventually this great game will be made not so great anymore.
Actually instead of trying to make a game wide limit why not just introduce a limit for players that DO overbuild? I’m not tech savvy but if you can ban someone’s account why can’t you restrict it? Building too much? Here your building is gone and now you have a (insert figure here) limit to your buildings. Same could be done for thralls.?

3 Likes

It sounded like you were, and I couldn’t figure out why. I’m glad you’re not and you’re open to discussion :slight_smile:

You seem to be treating these forums as one big, homogeneous (and schizophrenic) entity, instead of an aggregate of many individuals whose opinions are all over the place :slight_smile:

It’s the nature of humanity. We always want more, always want better, and, as the old adage goes, “you can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”

What you said is true: people will ask for one nerf, and as soon as it’s implemented, people will ask for another. But what you seem to overlook is that it’s not the same people. Most of the time, nerfs happen because the group of people asking for them is big enough and has been asking for them long enough and someone at Funcom thinks they have a good reason to ask for that nerf.

The only way for people on the forums to stop asking for changes would be for Funcom to drastically change their policy and state that they will not listen to any more feedback. “You get what you get. If you’re not happy with it, go play something else.” That’s pretty much the only way to squash people’s desire for change.

But I don’t think you need to worry so much about it. Like I said, it’s not like Funcom nerfs things just because a handful of people asked, without any further consideration.

My happiness with the game is not a binary thing. I can be happy with some aspects of it and unhappy with others. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I know that when I’m unhappy with a game in general, I stop playing.

That’s what happened to me between February and May. I went on a hiatus. At first I was refreshing, because I thought I would be coming back. Then even refreshing became too much of a chore, so I let all my stuff decay. Now I’m on a new playthrough in Exiled Lands and I’m having fun in general. But that doesn’t mean I can’t point out problems I see.

The key word there is “recently”. If I were to judge only from the recent flare-up of the posts on that topic, I would conclude something similar to what you said: there’s a handful of people (myself included) talking about it on different threads. Of course, if you take a closer look, you’ll notice that those threads are started by different people, not the vocal handful you’re referring to. We just jump on those topics and amplify them because we’re interested :man_shrugging:

But like I said, it’s not just the recent flare-up. I’ve seen this pop up over and over again for at least a couple of years now. Hell, I can still recall several forum usernames who used to be passionate about a year ago. Some of them are still at it. Others have quit, either the forums or the game.

Here’s the thing, though: everyone can and would say the same about CE, but you would be hard pressed to find two individuals whose definition of what improved and what got worse are exactly the same. In the end, what matters is not a single individual – not me, not you, not JJDancer, not Hel – but everyone in aggregate.

We all care about our view of the game more than anyone else’s, of course. But in the end, it’s the aggregate that has the chance of swaying Funcom. That’s precisely why I insist on voicing my opinions here. If I don’t, I could miss the chance of influencing that aggregate.

The exact same logic? No, me neither. But I do tend to apply my core beliefs to both. For example, I wouldn’t resort to crashing the server or undermeshing or ganking someone who’s going through a loading screen, because one of my core beliefs has to do with personal integrity, and I will not compromise it just because a videogame isn’t “real”. Similarly, I will keep asking for improvements in this game as long as I play it, because I believe we all have the right and the duty to try to improve things around us.

It’s certainly feasible. It’s currently not implemented, but they could do it. But how would they justify doing it? When they ban someone, it’s because they were either cheating or harassing someone else.

In other words, the guiding principle behind their disciplinary measures is whether the person or clan being disciplined has acted with malicious intent. How would you justify limiting overbuilders? Every single example of overbuilding that I’ve seen on PVE(-C) servers has been done by players who were simply doing what the game let them do, without any malicious intent.

Other people have also insisted that overbuilding should be handled by official server rules, but I still don’t see how that would be feasible for Funcom. A private server admin has the freedom to say “our rule is that building is restricted to a reasonable size”, and when you ask them to define “unreasonable”, they have the freedom to say “I’ll know it when I see it”. Funcom has a certain leeway, but not that much. Trying to handle overbuilding through rules is just not going to work.

1 Like

Limiting Overbuilders by altering their accounts abilities sounds a bit over the top… it’s what I would expect on a strict Private Server maybe. I mean… how long does an account get limited? When does the limitation go away? With the Gods, you’re trying to fly under the radar, but once the consequence occurs, players can get right back to playing. With Account Limits, a player’s top concern becomes “How can I undo this awful curse” but it’s not a function of the game or lore, it’s all about the Mod. I wouldn’t be opposed to actual in game curse mechanics, but the players would have to have built in quests they need to complete to undo them. It’s a whole different approach.

I guess I just prefer the idea of making the Gods have a more active role and tying it to socially engineering the changes they need to make so the game is played closer to how it was intended to be played. When a player continuously refuses to cave to the system intentions, then the Chat Log will announce angry God Strikes as they occur and possibly even callout the map quadrant so others can swoop in to rubberneck or fish troubled waters. It might even include name and shaming… or the Gods might have a longer timer that slowly increases the information released on an individual/clan when God Strikes become more and more common against them.

I mean… what’s more satisfying:
1.) You have a long conflict with a player/clan who uses abusive tactics… culminating in one of your reports finally sticking and getting them tossed from the server.
2.) You have a short-medium conflict with a player/clan who uses abusive tactics… but then the Gods catch on and strike that player/clan’s holdings down, letting you enjoy the show or seek revenge when they are weakest.

Because the Abusive Tactics are probably never going to completely vanish, certainly not where competition is encouraged. You can keep modifying rules until the cows come home, but as you close one door, new and unexpected doors often open afterwards. The best games have always come to a synergy with the exploits and unintended mechanics… Examples Team Fortress (And Team Fortress 2), Tribes, Battlefield…

Whatever system Funcom decides on, it has to be automated. Relying on Mod intervention is just going to lead to heartbreak, I think. If it is an automated system, it needs to be something that they have a tremendous amount of ways to modify and adjust it. The more fine-tuning they can do, the better… this is especially true if they adopt an asymmetrical system like I am suggesting. Any difference in the temperament between the Gods Jealousy can simply give a deeper impression of different personalities.

1 Like

I think the more pieces/placed items a player or clan has, the more often they should get purges (that can’t be mitigated), and the deadlier they should be. Maybe purges at more than one location at once, to “help” those people who have several massive bases on a server, to help motivate them to slim down a bit :slight_smile:

I’m for the Hard cap building limit.
I know my opinion is very (very) unpopular but the hard cap (reasoned and rationalized of course) is the way, especially in multiplayer mode.
Hey, I would even remove/hard reduce the landclaim to force ppl to fight for the “right spot” but I understand that this could lead to very toxic experiences, but in the end limiting the number of (any) pieces you can put down is the only way.

1 Like

I’ve sugested this a hundred times already, but here we go again. An old survival game had a building system called “crest”, You could put your crest around your building to make it yours, players usually surrounded it with placeables and traps to defend it, cause if anyone destroyed your crest the claim wont be yours anymore, would be considered public and anyone could open your chests and doors. The crest has 2 upgrades, you have to farm your *ss off to upgrade it, but every update would allow you to have an area expansion to your building. I think that was the best claiming system I’ve seen in a survival pvp online game so far, and I think something like that, lets say, a throne, or a banner, or even a statue or something, maybe some item related to your religion in game, would work in CE and could be the end of the toxic claiming.

Also, official pvp servers need a wipe… I’ve just came back to play it with the siptah release and I still found old undermeshes… And don’t get me started talking about the bodyvaults sleeping all over unnamed city…

4 Likes

Sounds like an interesting idea, but it would only apply for PvP servers since their is no raiding in PvE-C and PvE servers which the crest idea would entail.

I doubt they will do a wipe since they always said they will not. Clearing the undermesh is a different issue.

1 Like