Unknown build limit?

Oh I wasn’t speaking of you. But it probably won’t be worth their time to make a reply either. Though I’ll still likely hear about it. :stuck_out_tongue:

Agreed.

I’m definitely fine with a few peeps losing some overly ambitious ‘sandstone huts’ if it means less potential bugs made by new systems. New systems that makes our modders work a bit harder. And systems that affect our wonderful building community in a negative manner.

1 Like

I do wonder if the stacking issues could be fixed with stability programming? Of course having walls with enough HP to withstand what their real life (gasp, I came close to using the dreaded realistic word even when referring to a survival game, gasp again, I said it ! Someone get the smelling salts, Quick!) counterparts would be expected to would largely prevent players need to stack them in the first please…

Point of fact: Players had/have no control over developer decisions to use the same items and assets in all game modes or the consquences this would and is causing right now.

True. But if a developer is going to make a game with multiple game modes, and not re-use the assets and code, then they are actually going to have to make multiple games. If you just mean something as small as ‘these half-dozen items do not exist in PVP’, that I can imagine being relatively simple to program. But if you mean that various game systems need to work in different ways in different game modes, then that’s going to be hugely complicated, almost certainly cause frequent bugs and conflicts, and increase the filesize of the game even more than it already is. So, while the players do not and have not had control over these decisions, we also can’t expect the game modes to use radically different rules, systems, assets etc.

1 Like

Agreed. This reality comes with a cost of unpleasant changes when necessary and since the game shares assets then it is the designs issue not the players asking for changes when necessary . Of course this ranking of necessity is up to Funcom.

So its okay if PvE players exploit as long as its a little bit eh? Pretty sure youd still get dev wiped even though you feel its not abusive, point is its a building exploit not inheriently meant to occur without certain trickery. A fence foundation should ONLY be placeable one foundation distance apart if thats how funcom is going to enforce ToS. Do i like that? No, but fence stacking is NOT intended by the devs , even if its “not to an abusive extent”. It doesnt take a “prodigy” to code something like that, nor to understand hypocricy.

Point me to the place in the ToS where it says “a fence foundation should ONLY be placeable one foundation distance apart”. For that matter, point me to anywhere else where Funcom said that. The closest you will find is the post where they clarify that fence foundation stacking (i.e. building them excessively in-depth to make your build stronger) is considered an exploit.

Similarly, I can lag the hell out of your client by placing hundreds of torches in an extremely small space. That would be bannable under ToS, not because you placed two torches close together, but because you abused the ability to do that in order to affect performance, which is what the rule actually talk about:

1 Like

Ok, so rules on official servers, that people who play on said official servers need to follow are asking for a fix so that the rules cant be broken and allows fair play…

…shouldnt be fixed because it might affect people who play a modded version of the game on private servers?

Somewhere, on a discussion not long ago, that word entitled was tossed around. It needs to come back here for a second. To put it another way:

Lets not ruin the game for those that want to play on officials because people who play on unoffical (private/modded) servers might get upset and rant on the forums because their modded version was broken by a coding change done by Funcom to fix their game to make it fair for all.

Ill end it there. I just plain disagree.

Like Herex pointed out, exploiting even a little bit is still exploiting.

I dont want to get into too much of a discussion about Funcom rules, but arent you trying to make the same argument here that I have several times in the past about precisely what Funcoms rules state?

2 Likes

You can’t possibly believe that… Not actually. And whoever it was that told you that was having a bit of fun with you for sure. Probably thought telling you that would make you look insane when you told others (if indeed you’re telling the truth and if they actually work for FC). They were successful too BTW… just FYI…

No, I’m not. The rules state what they state, and I quoted them.

I’ve already stated several times before that Funcom handled the communication badly when it comes to foundation stacking. They first said it wasn’t an exploit, and then later said the opposite. You and I agree (I hope) that this wasn’t a good way to communicate and that it should have been done better.

No matter how hard you, @HEREX, or anyone else tries to twist this issue, you’re still arguing for ruining the game for one group because another group can’t distinguish between using and abusing the building system.

I can agree that we don’t have the proper tools to reason about the effect of our builds on server performance, for example. I can agree that Funcom needs to be better at communicating certain decisions. But the solution to these problems is not to completely screw over the builders, e.g. by introducing a building cap or disabling certain building techniques. The solution is to fix those problems, instead of introducing half-assed band-aid mechanics that will ruin the gameplay experience for a portion of players while not actually solving the original problem.

2 Likes

When they make up 7/8ths of the playerbase, they make up a majority. That’s not entitlement, that’s standard.

Officials make up a small minority. So if you want to throw the word entitled around. The phrase, the pot calling the kettle black comes into play.

Thank you for making these points.
We can utilize symantic wordplay all day long but even placing TWO fences back to back WOULD constitute " stacking" as outlined in the ToS. If FC didnt want it in the game they never would have tried to get rid of the practice in the past, which if im not mistaken, they have, and failed because they tried slapping a bandaid on the issue. Instead players just found alterior ways to get the job done.
I personally dont care if it stays in the game or is removed one way or the other, from a pvp perspective if i want in someones 50 stacked base im getting in. From a server percormance issue i agree that it makes for a less enjoyable experience for everyone but whats the easiest solution outside of coding? PvPers are punished for trying to protrct their base, riches, and thralls which are above all else a time investment. Why do pvpers landclaim spam? Because we xont want a tebuchet stairing us in the face on our doorstep when we logun next. Why do pvperz fence stack? Because amassing thousands of bombs takes little time investment and we need to waste as many of the opposing teams arsenal as possible or else they will easily penetrate our security.
I know CodeMage is no fan of a build cap limiy, and i admit im not either, but on officials we need something to help us fight agaimst toxic players abusing a questionable (authoritarian) reporting system. If you dont like build limits then might i suggest private servers or offline play? No one will mess with youre PvE experience there, build away.
If we are going to be punished for building a certain way, a way which is allowable through game mechanics, then whats the point in officials? I cant build good enough to defend my base so i grt raided easily, i build a better defensed base i get dev wiped…WTF? We are in a limbo state and it should NOT leave the players in a place of paranoia as to whether some troll is going to report them and get the dev wiped…and banned to boot. I would rather build any way i want within a certain limit and be certain funcom wouldnt delete my investment than to have some arbitrary vague guess work as to how much i can build and how i can build it.

1 Like

Perhaps officials would be more populated if they were run better . Not dev wiping for some guess work on base builds, higher farm rates so players who lose all their investment could jump back in quicker. Plus this game lost a lot of pvpers back when the game was really buggy. Thrall porking was rampant for a long time and killed the game for many people, thats just one example. Private servers just offer more freedom, you can choose what suits you, i would consider them myself but they have their own issues with abusive admins and the like. Officials just need some tweeks so that players arent punished for playing the game.

The population numbers I quoted, were before devwipes.

If the population has dwindled substantially further, then we’re in the territory of discussion on whether or not officials are even feasible at this point. In which case a few devwipes are the least of your concern, but an entire shutdown.

So… did they dwindle because of devwipes? If yes, then officials are a failed cause. If not, they are sitll on life support.

Well not too sure. On xbox there are some healthy populated servera but there seems to be so many that have such a low population (under 5) that im not sure why there are so many at this point either.

No, it wouldn’t, because there’s nothing in ToS that talks about stacking. I mean, I can back all my claims with quotes of and links to Funcom’s words, and I’ve done it so far. How about you do the same?

Well I do care, very much so, and so do many other builders. So if you don’t care if it stays, either provide good reasons for your suggestion or suggest something else that would solve your problems. :man_shrugging:

If you don’t like being banned for breaking official server rules, might I suggest private servers or co-op?

Placing hundreds of torches in a small area is also allowed through game mechanics. Making buildings that spell out the n-word is also allowed through game mechanics. Encircling someone else’s base with no-climb walls on a PVE(-C) server is also allowed through game mechanics. I could go on, but I hope the point is clear.

If you actually got banned for fence foundation stacking, then there’s nothing arbitrary or vague about that.

But regardless, if the problem is “arbitrary vague guesswork”, then focus on suggestions that solve that problem. Building cap doesn’t solve that. Removing the ability to place fence foundations close together doesn’t solve that.

2 Likes

All youre points are fine and good, i have no problem NOT foundation stacking because i can defend a base not having to rely on that kind of build. Im worried about how much my clan and i can build to the point of whats extreme and what isnt when it comes to salty children reporting and we may or may not get dev wiped which is the point ive been trying to get across this whole time. I could have a base thats 1000 build pieces or 10000 build pieces and both could be considered acceptable by most but thats purely subjective, i have to hope that if someone who is using the report feafure soley for spiteful purposes that funcom doesnt just delete everything based on what seems to me to be acceptable peramiters.
As far as spelling out the n- word in game using the in game build mechanics thats not exactly the same as abusing trickery to place fences closer together. Fence stacking requires a specific sequence of build piece manipulation that allows for a piece to be placed in cllser proximity than intended. If it WAS intended then the building sequence trick wojld not be required to do it. Spelling vulgar things with standard building techniques requires really no trickery, it can be done with straight forward solutions. As far as torch spam, yea thats abuse i agree, same as fireplace spam to overheat an area, but thats not the players fault that those things are possible. Why is there no " object to close to another of this type" effect? I space out my lightsources in my bases because they are intensive and make the base lag, so i think we can find common ground there but again, funcoms fault for allowing it.

Offiicals are the base game and the main place new players start the game. Officials are also the game servers that Funcom maintains that access to, also access privileges comes with purchase of the game.

Point is the Officials are the benchmark base game servers and the only one officially controlled by the developer.

SImply put modded are not the standard nor are they the benchmark of this game, officials are.

5 Likes

Well said.

1 Like

But reality with the new spam / over build enforcements that is already happening. Now if one wants to fence stacking, fine, but also no one knows how much stacking is too much, which we all agree is the issue. And I believe the idea is to remove the possibility all together and then fence stacking would mean abuse of system period. Right now there is sooooo much gray area, that 2 people could use the fence trick and only 1 may get banned and one never not even know it was an exploit of the building mechanics. Again, I don’t like stealing from Paul to pay Mary, but one way to fix the rng (your favorite :wink: ) of ToS enforcement is removing the possibility to do fence stack.

There is at least one simple rule of thumb that could apply. Are you pulling all kinds of tricks with the building system, placing blocks and removing them, flipping stuff around so it clips through other pieces when it normally wouldn’t, that kind of stuff, in order to squeeze fence foundations together as tightly as possible?

If yes, then it’s too much and you are abusing the building system.

I mean, it seems kinda obvious to me. You place a foundation block and snap fence foundations to it, there you go, that’s your upper limit. No placing pieces and deleting blocks for the express purpose of getting them to snap to a slightly different position to build a wall one foundation block thick but half a dozen fences dense.

3 Likes