Yes, the details will need to be discussed. However it may stop the suspension of players in relation to game performance issues. Deliberate obstructive land claiming may still need to be dealt with directly.
…it already is. A piece limit will not affect that.
Took longer than usual to get to this.
Can I get an honest answer here: did you actually bother to read the forums like you said you did? Like, at all?
No, there should not be an optional building block limit, because the rules are not about the number of building blocks. They never have been. The rules are not even about the size of your base at all. The rules mention performance, but they are not solely about performance, and the performance impact of your base is not a function of the number of blocks.
All of this has been discussed literally ad nauseam.
Excellent! I can recommend several private servers with limits. If that’s what you enjoy, knock yourself out and stop trying to ruin the fun for those of us who are capable of building without those limits and without breaking the rules.
The details have been discussed. A lot.
Yes. However making a debate personal is weak.
Semantics.
The point I’m attempting to make is performance as you said are part of the rules. So maybe to putting building limits may help.
It’s NOT difficult to understand my point.
1 Like
What would build limits do to your original post issues that can be summed up as you don’t like FC’s methods of enforcement and are looking for ways to ‘fight back’ or as you put it “solution”?
The fact is Official servers are FC and they can manage as they see fit. Build limits will do nothing to your root issue and that is FC’s management of Officials.
1 Like
So is wasting everyone’s time by starting a debate with arguments based on incorrect premises. So is refusing to read up what has been debated many times before and insisting that others regurgitate it for you one more time because you can’t be bothered to make your own effort.
When someone tries to explain why building limits won’t help, that’s not “semantics”, that’s people trying to impart some knowledge you lack.
You’re right, it’s very easy. It’s much easier than looking up previous discussions and finding out why your point was wrong.
You have miss understood. Read it again focus on:
So you are saying there are no creative coders game designers whatever the title, with enough talent to put limits on building density if that’s the issue contributing to performance problems. Instead it is easier to pass the blame to the consumer.
I am fairly sure there are a lot of games out there without these issues who take responsibility for what they have created.
That is what the topic is about finding a solution, Some out of the box thinking maybe required.
People are paid for these kind of jobs. The consumer pays them.
2 Likes
No, I’m saying that coming up with a way to properly estimate the performance impact of a building is a much harder problem than armchair programmers assume it to be, so it’s perfectly understandable that a game studio is not willing to spend all that effort to cater to people who don’t like having rules on the server.
I’m also saying that even if they’re willing to spend the effort to develop that feature, it might end up being computationally expensive and contribute to performance problems on its own.
I’m also saying that this has been discussed before. Yes, this thing with measuring the performance impact of a building, specifically. That has also been discussed.
And here we go. Arguing from ignorance is one thing. Treating your ignorance as alternative facts to base your arguments on, that’s something else.
The game they created is perfectly capable of running fine. The servers they’re providing to you for free aren’t.
If there’s anything they should “take responsibility for”, it’s the shіtty G-portal servers.
But guess what? That has also been discussed ad nauseam.
No, it really, really isn’t. You keep proving that over and over.
Case in point: @erjoh tried pointing out that the build limits will not solve anything that your opening post in this thread claims to be about, and you told him that he’s “off topic”.
You’re not looking for a solution. You’re looking for people to agree with you.
No, consumers don’t pay the developers. Consumers provide revenue for the company, and the upper management decides how to distribute that revenue.
I could explain why that’s an important distinction, but I’m rapidly losing the last vestiges of hope that you might ever listen to anything said unless it’s an agreement with your ideas.
3 Likes
There’s plenty with the talent, in fact I’m sure I could make a mod that does it. But why? What would be the point? Speaking of modded servers for a moment, they don’t require building limits. They enforce building limits quite easily without it (and hard auto limits reduces flexibility for these servers so they wouldn’t even use a hard limit if available).
So it would only have a use for public servers. That’s a waste of developer time. Go into game, open the server browser and then select the option to only show FC servers. Write that number down. Now take that filter off, let it run for about a minute and divide that new number into the one you wrote down.
That will be the percentage of servers this development would potentially have an effect on. Now this is assuming that most of the bans and suspensions are because of players going over an arbitrary limit as it is now. As many already explained… that is far from what happens.
Now here’s the major issue with this. I’ve just proven that basically dev time spent making a block limit is a waste of time. Time that could have been spent giving me new content. So explain why the hell should -I- have to wait for new content because a few players can’t take personal initiative and personal responsibility and just follow the damn rules?
I’m 100% ok with them banning people for no reason at all if it means I get content quicker. Most players are.
Which is the equivalent of being 100% ok with them shutting those servers down if it means we get content quicker… just thought I’d point that out.
IKR?
1 Like
Maybe this is the where most of the core issues stem from GREED Not allocating enough resources in the right places.
Players NEED TO VOTE WITH THEIR WALLETS MORE.
Semantics.
Indirectly Consumers money is what pays them. If no one buys their products there will be no money to pay their employees.
The player numbers are dropping fast. This is happening whether you choose to remain ignorant or not.
Continually saying it can’t be done and and attempting to silence people will only compound the problem.
2 Likes
Helium isn’t wrong 
very subjective, implying the funcom servers deserve a penny more spent on them…
1 Like
Pure selfishness.
2 Likes
Pot calling the kettle black here. Not following the rules of a server is way worse. You threw people you actively played with under the bus.
That’s the point i’m making. I did follow the rules. Wasn’t until others built next to me performance issues started appearing. I do not know these clans.
You are basing your accusations on pure assumption.
2 Likes
Don’t take the bait.
1 Like
People are awfully quick to scream “greed”. I would like to believe that it’s because those people have never worked in software development, but there’s a simpler explanation for it.
You see, you don’t really need to be a software development to understand the concept of cost/benefit analysis and that a business might not choose to invest into something that is too niche to justify the cost. No, it’s people who can’t figure out that their requests are niche who can’t seem to wrap their head around the concept. Basically, it’s the people who think their idea has merit regardless of the cost or the complexity because, well, it caters to their demands. I’ll leave it to you to figure out what that says about you 
I wholeheartedly agree. So tell me, why don’t you?
I know I have. For example, I’ve been a vocal opponent of the new monetization, and I’ve voted with my wallet by only buying 2 things from the Bazaar, because those were the only reasonably priced offerings.
So will you vote with your wallet?
By the way, is the discussion of “greed” and “voting with your wallet” considered on-topic or off? 
See, I told you it was an important distinction. And you were so close to figuring it out.
The key word is “products”. Plural. Think about it.
Funny you should speak of ignorance, since you pulled that claim out of your lower dorsal orifice. You might wanna look at some actual numbers and analyze the long-term trends.
Ah, yes, we’ve arrived at the point where you’re playing the victim and claiming you’re being silenced. Because pointing out that your solution is wrong is exactly the same as saying that there’s no solution and trying to silence you. 
You know why I keep saying you should look up previous discussions? Because people like you are so predictable that we could make up a bingo card for this kind of “debate”.
In case it failed to penetrate, I’m not silencing you, I’m disagreeing with you. There are problems with Funcom’s server moderation. I’ve pointed them out in this very thread, and I’ve agreed with some of the other participants about some things they pointed out. But, as usual in a discussion with those like you, it doesn’t matter if I criticize Funcom, because if I don’t do it your way, that means I’m a bully.
At any rate, we’ve reached the point where you’ve shown your true colors and everything else is same old same old. I’ll let your have your last word. There’s more productive stuff I can spend my time on.
2 Likes
As I already said before, innocence is irrelevant here.
1 Like