Unknown build limit?

Why does everyone think outrageous land claim is the only way you prevent offline raiding? You can make stylish bases that fit the area around you AND prevent raiding. Yeah yeah yeah treb this and yeah yeah yeah avatar that. Location matters and both maps have areas that are treb and avatars proof and raiders would have to rely on arrows…and no one is really into arrow raiding anymore. So go and get creative. Offline raiding weeds put poor designs. Foundation spamming is the vulgar insult to the game designers and coders…and I will give up my fence stacks for the removal of that technique.

1 Like

Mmmm, nah, I’m not having any of that pudding… They make a change and we have to second guess ourselves about everything we do forever after? Nah, no need to torcher yourself. They’ll let us know if they pull any more U-turns.

I don’t have the relevant links. But I know a man who does… It’s not a question of them having made a change. It’s that they expressly stated two opposing rulings on the same issue (one reversing the other) and that information was not expressly added to the rules, it remained known only to those who read the relevant forum thread.

And no, I’m not suggesting we second guess ourselves about everything. It was literally a passing thought about an interesting tactic I’ve heard about from other players and simple musing as to whether it might fall into a similar trap at some point. The point, insofar as there was one, is that there is little if anything players can do to distinguish emergent gameplay from certain types of exploit, and that I feel it must be more difficult for PVP players to walk that line sometimes.

You’d think. But experience shows that is far from always the case. There’ve been some pretty major community blow-ups about it over the years. It’s one of the key areas that people tend to mean when we try to encourage Funcom to communicate more (a passtime that many of us have near enough given up on, having seen that a big part of why Funcom communicates so little is because of the abuse received when they do).

2 Likes

I did just that in the beginning. That is how I got someone teaching me some things. The alpha raiders were shocked I came back when they wiped me clean. I told them they didn’t…I still had 8 leather and 300 plant fiber so watch out. That lead to a friendship to one of the clan and they left me alone. See the game is actually secondary the interaction matters more.

1 Like

Oh, well then it’s back to common sense again obviously.

A) It’s OK to stack fence foundations under some circumstances.
B) It’s not OK to stack fence foundations under other circumstances.

How much you wanna bet everyone reading this can guess which circumstances are which?

Let me take a shot at it:

It’s not OK when you abuse it and stack them long and deep like that image @CodeMage likes to bring up or even 1/4th that much. Or really, even two deep in any area of size at all.

It is OK when you’re doing it for a single layer either for reinforcement or for the different aesthetic created by that part.

If you need something specific then just ask yourself if you think you’re abusing it and are willing to risk you base on the bet. I think the last time @CodeMage posted that image (26 posts above this one) he essentially said the same thing and even used the word “common sense”.

Jeez, some people’s children huh? pspspsps…

2 Likes

Except that’s really not my understanding of how it was presented. But I’ll leave that to someone more familiar with how it was presented. However - the rules state:

Therefore, if fence-foundation stacking is an exploit, then it is at least potentially bannable no matter how little is used - this is why erjoh was talking earlier about needing to do some housekeeping. (This is also why I keep insisting on the importance of a human judgement in examining such cases - one would hope that they focus on the spirit of the rules - but the letter is pretty clear in this instance, except that part of it is buried in a closed thread and not immediately available to all players.)

I’m gonna assume that’s aimed more broadly to readers in general, since otherwise you’re forgetting I’m singleplayer - and I ain’t gonna report myself, no matter what building infractions I commit :wink:

This, however, sounds like you’re accusing me of something?

2 Likes

OK, so where exactly did they ever state anything about fence foundations or stacking in general? I dunno anything and never saw them say it but just from the discussions here it seems really obvious to me. You can’t stack a gazillion plated wall because it defeats the purpose of gameplay in PVP making the defender essentially impervious to attack - if they mentioned anything at all I’m certain that’s why. I dunno if they used the excuse or additional component of server lag to stress this point or not though. That seems to be one of their concerns - I gather from reading here. So is it an exploit? Yes, seems like it is to me. But if not used in that way and only because it looks better (one layer deep) on some walls or whatever then no, that’s not exploiting that building mechanic.

Yes, only speaking generally.

No no… Maybe I should have said something more like: “It sucks that some people have to go and ruin it for the rest of us.”

I have way too much regard for you and a few others here to get on any kind of high horse, become combative or accusatory - I’m the n00b here after all - just trying to understand all this stuff and then lend my understandings to the general flow as I think I might be comprehending something - other than my bellybutton lint that is. :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes

How will Funcom stop hardcore players from building strong defensive bases, playing 10 hours a day and being online for all raid time? (This is kinda getting off topic of the build limit so Ill try to focus more on that)

Lets say a clan that plays hardcore PVP follows all building rules - which so far are basically not to fence stack and “not so big as to cause server performance”. If you build a base in a great spot and have 200 layers to get through, people will still do it if it means being safe. Legal builds, not breaking any rules. People will find a way to make their bases strong.

Bingo, which is exactly what I said. Now, next week if Funcom implements offline raid protection so be it. Dont get mad when players find a way to use this to their advantage. Know how? Alt accounts. Use them to store things safely, log them off, their stuff is protected and your main clan can go raiding and pvp. If I recall, thats why it was not implemented on Siptah.

By all means no, talk about it. But the way things are right now if you want offline protection the ONLY thing you can do is to go private. Its your choice, but that is the ONLY thing you can do RIGHT NOW.

They must have liked you to only wipe you once. And yeah, its not hard to build back up. Determination, the will to win, the enjoyment of the game, whatever it may be…is what you use to keep going. Thats how you play.

Others are different.

The same goes with buildings.

Yeah, Funcom bans based on “thinking” and “likely”

Like I said, I don’t have the links - but I’ll see if I can find the last time @CodeMage posted them

My apologies - I guess I’m getting tired and failed to see what you meant. TBH I feel like it ruins it for the community team as well. I would have thought people getting into that sort of field probably enjoy a bit of interaction on social media - witness the abomination thread for example. But it’s much harder as a representative of a company or group - it’s natural to face accusatory ‘you did x’ type statements - aimed, of course, at the company, but it’s easy to see how that kind of language gets absorbed by the recipient. And, of course, the ‘internet disconnect’ problem always seems to make these things worse. (But what’s the ‘cure’ for the internet?)

That’s kind to say - and, again, I apologise for misunderstanding. For what it’s worth, I would hope that you would call me out if you felt I was in the wrong (it does happen occasionally - very occasionally :wink: ).

And, I’d say, frequently raising some decent points or applying a different perspective. All valued. We may not always agree on everything, but what a boring world that would be :slight_smile:

2 Likes

None needed. It’s fine… it’s all fine!

Umm, well I can’t speak for Funcom but I’ve done that kind of work, also as a developer and an application designer at different times, also been involved with others doing it as well. It’s not enjoyed in the sense you might be thinking. We all like accolades and eliciting smirks with the occasional joke (like the Funcom guy who said “more corn” earlier today. But mostly we/they just want to explain something once and have it be understood without addressing any confusion - typically caused by people who want you to think for them. The enjoyment comes when that happens successfully. But when we/they need to address the confusion you should hear the lunchroom remarks… it’s not fun (usually).

“very occasionally” - that made me laugh. :slight_smile:

Yup, I am defiantly out here in left-field doing my thing - oh wait, Ummm… :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes

Ah, finally managed to find the post I was looking for for the links about how fence foundation stacking is or isn’t an exploit.

Funcom did make it clear in the original response that the rules could change in the future (as is perfectly reasonable), but that isn’t really the issue. As can be seen in the second response, it sounds a lot like use of the building technique is considered to be the problem. Or at least I wouldn’t want to stake my build on it (if I was ever on an official server…). It’s not so much the change itself that is the issue, but rather that a rule which appears this stringent could be reversed after so long and yet require digging on the forums to even find out about. That’s what leads to the worries that something along those lines could potentially happen again (and by worries, I mean idle musings…).

2 Likes

So, yeah, that seems to follow with my presumptuous logic. Like other things in the game, it can be used and also abused. The abuse of it is considered an exploit of the mechanic. Or it could be reworded that: The exploitation of that mechanic is considered an abuse. Either way against the rules. But when not exploiting that mechanic for unfair advantages, it’s just fine.

The hair being split is when does it become an abuse - the answer to which I still think is entirely obvious. It may not be quantifiable in a simple sentence (although I would claim that it is) but you’ll know it based on your intent and use/misuse of the mechanic.

What can only be guessed at is at what point they would take action by demolishing your structure. My guess would be based on the severity of the misuse and whatever intentions can be gleaned via inspection and observation. And of course noting that Admins are individual persons so there’s all that too…

2 Likes

I 100% agree it is an exploit. But that would be really hard to police and ban for.

Plus, as long as they have offline raiding as the main meta for raids, it is 1 of the only ways to slow down raiders.

2 Likes

they walk if it < than the 15 minute window and a player is near to render, otherwise it is static Dat waiting for timer to sound out then insta port.

1 Like

Quite. And yes, this is the part of the rules I’m talking about.

Well, sure but as I’ve made no secret, those are almost certainly a tiny minority. What it would also do, though, is give people a concrete sense of where the limits are - and therefore a feeling of security that they’re not going to log on to an admin-nuked base one day because they veered over some invisible, fuzzy line.

Sure. Nothing will stop that - particularly those who are dishonest about their transgressions.

No argument there, really - except terms of service almost invariable include some language to indicate listed infractions are not exhaustive, “such as but not limited to X, Y and Z”. Of course you could argue that this is already the situation today, and I would concede that this is a fair point. I still don’t think examples of things that are not allowed would hurt, though.

I know you know what you’re talking about, so you probably know as well as I that this isn’t trivial. No question that it would be the best, arguably the only good solution.

Sure. And I suppose my argument boils down to whether building “normal” (but huge) builds can violate that rule, and if so: how/when. If we’re only talking about destructive spam or stacking, then it’s all good, carry on, etc.

Right. I may well be championing a cause that doesn’t exist - but if so, I maintain that it wouldn’t hurt for Funcom to say as much. Obviously opinions differ, and that’s fine - ultimately only Funcom (via Zendesk) is in a position to judge whether this is a real problem or just me chasing ghosts (who you gonna call!).

4 Likes

This is something I don’t understand.

Funcom is bad.
Funcom is incompetent.
Funcom is vague.
Funcom sucks.
Funcom lies.
Funcom doesn’t think.
Funcom can’t be trusted.

And about a dozen more negative things. If you believe this. Why are you all still here?

I want you to try something. I want you to pick up some sandwich at a local fast food spot. Then I want you to go back home and say all the same things to the people around you (parents, friends, relatives, roommate, spouse, or whatever) that you all say about Funcom while eating it. And mention they’ve been like this the last half dozen times you’ve ordered from there.

What do you think their reaction is going to be?

Well the answer is obvious. They’re going to say “why the hell do you keep eating there?” Because normal people stop frequenting a business with fractions of the problems you all have. So either you are not normal and there’s something broken (I don’t believe this), or you all are lying.

Interesting point about the foundation spamming and blocking obelisks and dungeons entrances. The problem though is that not the scenario we are talking about. We are truly talking about legit bases that are determined to be too large.

The employees at said restaurant can be incompetent, get your order wrong, promise a promotion and not deliver, have dirty floors, etc and still server good food

Maybe people eat there because the food is good and can put up with the rest? Maybe at one point the restaurant atmosphere was better?