On PlayStation the light beams use to cause some lag when they were all nearby each other (I’m honestly glad they’re gone). For this reason, I would build one at each outpost I made around the map. This was a far better option imo. I can use them as both map markers, AND cut down on the space I took up at my main base. Besides, sometimes they look cool at a small outpost, depending on the theme I was going for—like Mitra at my noob river Greek villa outpost.
Then you are justified to build one but why use the potential risk to justify urban spawn that everyone hates while playing the game?
I fail to understand why anyone would overbuild in an area just because there is a risk that they maybe inconvenienced for 10 to 20 minutes as the trek to find another way in their travels.
But is it worth the time? You said collecting the resources is easy enough to do and in pvp time is the ultimate limited resource. Why waste your time on a gigantic keep when you got clans to fight? If you are offlining there is no satisfaction of leveling it to rubble and if you don’t, 80% of the time, they just rebuild it up making it worse
This person stated those 3 reasons they listed were why big bases don’t get raided. That is not true and what I was responding to.
Definitely not suggesting someone should offline.
Whether it is worth it is up to whomever is making that decision. It’s not always about the loot.
Sometimes it is about the message.
In my experience those mega builds tend to decay and are thankfully gone once they’re crippled via hitting the core - divesting them of their stores of loot.
1 Like
As a previous PVP player you know how valuable time is.
1 Like
That was an extreme example though since you said you simply cannot make bases small 
We don’t have to go to the full nomad lifestyle though, there are several levels in between “giant castle / city” and “living from a tent and a pack mule”
My main point was that you don’t have to “go big or go home”… even a clan can very comfortably live in a fairly small footprint base.
You can choose not to build those enormous T3 crafting stations for example, because in most cases the T2 improved ones will be just as good while occupying half the space.
You can choose not to have ANY altars or just make one outside your base… (especially since religion on PvE isn’t the most useful thing atm, except for maybe Jhebbal Sag for blood), again on PvE they can’t steal your stuff, so no need to enclose everything in a giant build…
The bottom line here is that you need to be considerate when using the public servers, since it’s meant for everyone… if you just want to build for the sake of building and never stop doing that, just play on a private server or single player, even the rules mention that if you wish to remake the Taj Mahal, official servers are simply not the place for it…
So while I’m against fixed build limits, because we discussed this a million times on these forums (can search for the topics) and I know that some builders can use a large amount of blocks, while still being considerate of others and not actually occupy a large portion of the map (vertical builds for example) or block off content…
I am still shocked every single time I see these ridiculous numbers being thrown around 
Pretty much all my bases are under 1k blocks and can house a full 10 player clan without any issues… heck… they can even have separate RP bedrooms 
So when I see people casually say how a 10k build isn’t too bad… it is 
period. That’s either a beautiful art project that should be on single player / private server… OR in many cases an ugly ass giant waste of space that should… not be anywhere…
Still against fixed build limits though, I was always leaning towards some form of “upkeep” system… or rather turning the decay system into one, so the more and larger bases you have the more you actually have to play and engage with the game instead of just logging on for 5 seconds to refresh it all. Then if you want a giant castle for a big clan… you better be using it… else it crumbles to dust 
Upkeep system tied to the challenges would be best. Requiring X amount of challenge experience (not modified by bonuses) to reset decay times on each server someone wishes to keep their builds on (assuming the server turns such setting on).
Something active players will be able to upkeep easily by simply doing what they already do. Playing the game. While others… well they’ll have to make a choice on whether the effort is worth it or not.
1 Like
Building limit is a wrong move… The purge needs to come back and ravage the server every few weeks = problem solved and it’s a cool solution.
The bigger the base the stronger and more frequent purges… No purges for tiny homes (nothing to steal there).
Why not just regular server wipes?
The 7D2D private server I play on has a wipe every 500± updates, days.
If funcom offered a server with periodic wipes I’d move to it. Yes, PVE. The biggest issue with PVE is people with; quite literally, years of hoarding and building.
If they did this for PVP can you imagine what the first day of a fresh server would be like?
Remade and furious purge would have been a more fun solution.
A purge that is not about ‘how to beat it’ but a purge that is about ‘save as much as you can from it’.
We’d have to pack most valuable things on our elephants and watch our base getting annihilated by endless zerg of barbaric savages.
After all what is the best in life… Crush the sim builders, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of building youtubers
Wiping takes away sense of building anything worthwile, as it’s going to get wiped 100%. But horrible purge always allows you to keep something if you are smart and run fast xD
I would love to see changes to the overall game that let PvPers get set up quickly, so that servers can wipe regularly.
I’m not a fan of purges as it is PvE content and it doesn’t interest me.
That actually used to be a thing… and they were so unpopular they had to close them all down (or stop the wipes)
That’s why the devs switched to the approach of letting people keep hoarding instead 
But from what I understood, those were set to monthly wipes which is way too regular to be effective for building up and fun. Annual would be my choice but I can see going down as low as 6 months. Basically there is a variable that could be adjusted so that you can get build up for play AND maintain freshness on the server vs just picking one turnover time period and having a binary pass/fail on the entire topic of server wipes.
2 Likes
Nope. I’d straight up stop using official altogether if they enacted regular wipes. It would be one thing if I could get my thralls, character, and much of my stuff back, but no. I don’t like the idea of building up something, only to lose it all. I’ve been suspended and had to start over and it’s annoying. It’s one thing for those of you that ENJOY starting over regularly. You do it because you like to and you CHOOSE to do it. More power to you! But for those of us that feel the game only truly starts to be enjoyable once fully leveled and being able to build, it’s less so. Being forced into starting over against our will is NOT a good way to do things after not doing it all this time.
In early access I played mostly pvp and to me the blitz servers were fun, I know that I probably was in a minority, but it just felt more fresh knowing that we all were on same level 
The idea could be interesting, but it would likely piss off the majority of players so I don’t think something like this will ever happen, also people would start looking for areas to build where the purge can’t reach them, many would just start looking for ways to exploit/avoid it + add the strain to servers when a purge of such a magnitude would happen
I am definitely not against regular server wipes, servers are no matter how much they repair becoming worse by their age + I wonder how many sleeping characters possibly with filled inventories they have accumulated over the years, it could be many thousands.
Still I somehow doubt Funcom will ever set an expiring date to their official servers no matter how much it could benefit them, I would love for them to do it, but seriously doubt it will ever happen.
This could be interesting although I am definitely not a fan of being forced into dictated game activity, it generally takes away from the sandbox experience, but if it could work then I am all for it.
This is a system I can get 100% behind, but again I somehow doubt they will ever do an upkeep system where buildings needs maintainance to survive time.
And even though I am not thrilled about fixed limits, I still think that may be the closest solution they could pick if they ever considered something.
I mean look at the thrall pet limits when they were introduced, did they help?
Some may say it didn’t, but I am not gonna lie, it helped tremendously on some bases/areas(the zoo’s) and likely also generally on server performance, but what and where should limits be enforced?
I can think of a few things… The amount of building pieces used off course, but perhaps also amount of placeables and a cap on stored resources - None of this would ever be popular, but perhaps the benefits will shine through like thrall/pets limits did 
The biggest problem is that official servers are treated like personal sandbox and a hoarding place by too many players upkeeping their Mausoleums of past times, and even though limits won’t fully stop them doing such, it likely will prevent may from going totally overboard like you see on so many official servers, I love to start all over on a fresh server once in a while, but have yet to see an official server where most behave themselves and build with respect for others.
The worst example I have ever seen was gigantic bases connected with highways(floating bridges), I mean ffs one person I spoke with proudly said that they had nearly 1/4 million building pieces and more than 20000 placeables… 
For everyone that is reported through zendesk there are likely 2 or more new players doing the same shit, it is a never ending story
I think t3 needs to be made way more costly to build in to limit building and then buffed so it’s extremely hard to blow through. Castles weren’t built in a day and it should honestly take day/weeks of grinding to build a stronghold in game. T3 Bases should be castles and castles should be just that, hard to get into, hard to siege. Not this push over defenseless sand castle crap that t3 bases effectively are currently. I think a new large foundation width piece that’s as tall as a gate should also be added to the game too to cut down on hundreds of foundations being stacked to make perimeter walls.
Even an annual, start the new year on a fresh server wipe?
While I get the building cap or upkeep as a concept, what really bothers me about it is that its a system that really only has utility on funcom servers. Everyone on a private server would just turn it off (and I’m convinced it would be given a disable option). What we would then have is a bunch of development that everyone would still bicker about the implementation, while a good chunk of players would either not ever use it, not get a more broad appeal mechanic included, or worst of all worst cases, have to deal with an unintended consequence or bug related to it that wouldnt confine itself to the subset of players for whom its actually useful. I understand that the bug aspect of it can’t really he a justification for not doing it, but it would just he a bit of extra salt in the wound to have a mechanic causing problems that a lot of leople dont even use. The upkeep mechanic I could see being implemented, based on the nothing is permanent philosophy, but the problem I have with that, is that everything else really is permanent if you don’t use it. We already have a decay, demolition in pvp and purges in pve to wreck bases; I’m not wild about a new nuisance mechanic.
So I would add these as things that would just be the same debates as before, just now over where to draw the line. And then we’ll have the edgelords… “My base is compliant! Why was I banned! I had precisely 9000 vaults and a 1000 piece base! I’m suing…”
Please no.
1 Like
No, they never tried that, back in early access the plan was to wipe all servers with every update (though mainly for development reasons) and I think they did that once or twice, then stopped.
And ofc we had the pvp blitz servers we mentioned above, those were on a rapid cycle.
So no, I don’t think they ever attempted longer periods, though I have a feeling that would go over quite bad with the PvE crowd… since the temporary players might get dealt with by the decay… it’s all the hoarders fighting tooth and nails to keep their giant bases that stick around… 
sooo yea.
Can’t know for sure till they try though I don’t think it would be bad bringing up a couple of servers like that to see if they get any better… Ultimately thou it would be nice if they resolved the issues with the host and have servers actually run better… even the old ones…
Scheduled wipes suck pretty bad actually. If its every six months you see a surge of activity in the first month where everyone is stumbling over each other, 2 months of normal play, and 3 months of dead activity until the next wipe. This is a very common thing among servers that normally wipe and why many servers won’t do scheduled wipes and will wipe only with a 1-2 week notice. Even then they don’t wipe to keep things fresh, they wipe because of changing maps, database got nasty, or some other technical reason.
FC would have to do something similar, wiping in random intervals (and randomly enough that it can’t be predicted) and only giving a very short if no notice. Probably even lie and say it was because of a technical issue.
But you don’t wipe due to building spam. If you’re going to do that, then you need to wipe every 72 hours lol. Mega builds at anything beyond 1.0x harvest rates are a joke for any determined crew. The only reason to wipe is because your database is dying and cannot be repaired.