For now all tiers provide same 100 stability that does not fit with their quality
- lower t1 stability by 40,
- leave t2 as is
- and add 40 for t3
as a result, we will get less sand castles but more complex designs of high-quality materials
For now all tiers provide same 100 stability that does not fit with their quality
This is actually a really good idea since it makes a lot of sense from a real world construction perspective, and it also adds to game play balance.
The only thing that I would do different from the suggested method is to leave the 100 stability cap as it is, and change the stability loss instead.
Like make the stability loss 5 points more for tier 1 building pieces, and make it 5 points less for tier 3.
That way you get the same result while keeping things easy for if you want to inspect the stability of your structures, like 100 stability is 100% stability.
Also, the devs should really halve the stability loss cost of wedges, they currently have half the range of ceilings and that makes zero sense, in fact it makes the creation of even small round towers very problematic the way it is now.
EDIT: I could see a problem with changing the tier 1 stability loss leading to some bigger tier 1 rooms that players have already created to partially collapse after the implementation of the suggested change.
So instead just leave tier one as it currently is in the game and then reduce the stability loss of tier 2 and 3 a bit, like 2.5 for tier 2, and 5 for tier 3 or something like that.
Leave the lower levels to enjoy the game. I like building stone structures in the desert. I like building wooden structures in wooded areas. (I think we should have a T1 stick and fiber option.) I do not like the looks of the higher tiers and do not use them.
You are saying that you want low level buildings to be more difficult to maintain? It sounds like you are saying since you do not like the look of the stone structures they should decay faster. That doesn’t sound balanced it sounds rather…one-sided.
low levels will not notice the difference, except that those who build excessively large buildings, trying to grab the territory or to block anything with cheap materials
T2 is not changed
stability is not responsible for durability or decay, it determines how many blocks aside from the support can be built
The one bad thing about this:
Using t1 to “plan” the base will be impossible in certain cases - which is a bad thing.
Who actually risks placing stuff wrong when (s)he can use t1 to counter this risk?
Also I wouldnt call a wheel base a real sand castle… those are usually blocks and thats it.
you can use T3 foundation for T1 “plan”)
I was playing with structures and made a piece that was very unstable; I noticed the decay timer was much shorter than the standard buildings. This is why I say: Lower stability means faster decay.
Low levels will notice the difference as will higher levels that prefer to match the environment when building.
What about solo/co-op players? Should they be forced to make something they don’t like because someone else does not like stone structures.
These building pieces are in the game for all to use and should not be restricted by nerfing stability.
Decay timer refers to the entire structure and depends on the number of elements
less durable t1 structure will require more supports, it is quite realistic
and it can be optional server settings
Server option I am fine with as long as the T1 building materials are not changed in base play. I built a small village hanging off a cliff side; rock materials make it look authentic against like-colored terrain.
Mind you that the suggestion has literally nothing to do with decay and your assumption about me not liking tier 1 makes no sense at all, in fact I do like the look of tier 1 buildings, especially tier 1 roofs.
However, I can see that taking away some stability from tier 1 could cause some player buildings to partially collapse.
As I have personally experienced such a collapse due to a small cange in how supports worked in a game patch, I would certainly not wish this to happen to anyone else.
So how about instead making it so that tier 1 will remain completely unchanged and then reduce the stability loss of tier 2 by 2.5 and tier 3 by 5, yes/no?
This way the only thing that would change would be the size of tier 2 and 3 rooms as players will be able to create slightly bigger rooms without having to place pillars that tend to get in the way of things like the map room.
I’m just not sure if the two and a half could work, but then a small cange to number could fix that I guess…
I don’t think it’d really help with that problem, since stability only matters when building away from foundations, and most building spam is mainly foundations anyway.
It might curb some of the ridiculously gigantic T1 structures you see, but probably not by a whole lot: stability is usually only a problem for those trying something other than the “giant box”.
The loss of using T1 to plan your build is a very good point against doing something like this, though. Unless we got another way to plan buildings (I’m not talking about switching into singleplayer and testing things there since that’s not always possible) - but I don’t see that happening.
Personally I’d love a “T0” structure of sticks and rope that was insanely cheap to build, but offered little to no protection. However, since you can probably build an entire castle of T1 for less than one floor of T3 costs, it’s probably not worth the effort to implement.
Then why do you want to make it more difficult to build with them? Why force players into a “smaller” structure when using these materials.
I don’t, that’s what Calapsar wants.
I merely made a suggestion to change Calapsar’s suggestion from adding to the total of stability points to a change in the loss of stability points instead, since it would be convenient if all tiers have the same maximum stability points.
Mind you that at first I didn’t see a problem with the original suggestion to reduce the tier 1 maximum stability, but it hit me that existing player buildings might partially collapse if that system were to be implemented.
I absolutely do not want existing buildings to collapse, therefore I would prefer it if tier 1 stays the way it is and just make it so that tier 2 and 3 get a small stability loss reduction instead.
I like both suggestions of reducing the max integrity of sandstone, as well as reducing the distance from foundation for it, but i can see how it would cause collapse on existing buildings.
It does make sense for the better stronger materials to be able to support more out from the vertical without breaking.
That said I think this is a change that would need to be saved for when a server wipe happens, it is the only way to make this type of change without having half the bases fall down.
I like the idea but there are 2 large downsides. The first is that some existing bases would collapse. I suppose Funcom isn’t too worried about this as they changed support beams to be decorative and that ruined some bases. The second is that people like to plan their base with sandstone first. I used to do this but now I just plan the build is my single player game going into admin mode and spawning whatever parts I need. It cuts down on time.
The suggestion to decrease the stability loss of T2 and T3 sounds like a good evolution of the OP’s intial proposal.
Personally I know it myself how hard it is to encapsule a circle big enough it would be able to hold a maproom inside of it so it would be a welcome change if it would mean something to build higher Tier, but just more HP.
The downside I see is the possibility to plan out buildings, sure you would still be able to do the T1, mabe floor by floor, but you would never exactly know how many pillars you can remove in your final T3 build.
Wedges having more stability would be really appreciated by me since I think the way it is now it limits you when you are building a structure which is not a square, and that could not be in anyones interest I suppose.
About what @Shadoza said, there is a suggestion making wallpapers/skins for walls, this would leave you the choice how to skin your base but not lossing HP, check it out:
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.