Foundation Spamming

[Pipinghot]

22 hours ago, Shaliden said:

Not yelling, and didn't know it was a bigger font.

Fair enough, an honest mistake, it happens.

22 hours ago, Shaliden said:

you should know because using caps makes someone yell on screen. just keep in mind thanks.

So do larger fonts, both of those things are true. Keep that also in mind thanks.

22 hours ago, Shaliden said:

I may not know everything but I'm not new. please don't assume.

I didn't assume, I used reasoning and critical thinking based on the circumstances, a combination of observing that you had less than 5 posts when you started this thread combined with the fact that you weren't aware that there are rules about pillaring (even if those rules apply only to PvE). That's not assuming, it's a reasonable conclusion. This conclusion was later reinforced when you said that the picture you posted is on a PvP server where the reason for lack of rules about pillars/foundations are pretty obvious, it requires the mindset of a (fairly) new player to not understand that PvP is basically the wild west.

22 hours ago, Shaliden said:

And I guess all people do is still defend the structure spamming. Still can't build bases...

Sure you can especially on PvP. You can build anywhere you want as long as you can defend what you build from other players, that's how PvP works.

Even on PvE there are always plenty of places to build, and plenty of good places at that. When people are new and inexperienced I understand their frustration when first starting on a PvE server, it can be perplexing and disorienting compared to other games, but when experienced players complain about it the main problem is a lack of imagination on their part.

22 hours ago, Shaliden said:

yes they have reasons but for what?

Well, Grumpy already gave a really good example earlier in the thread. On of the biggest reasons for pillaring to be allowed is that it prevents people from ruining good spawn points for reasources and animals.

You may not agree with the reasons people give, but they are reasons and as long as they're not cheating and not violating the ToC then their reasons are valid whether you agree with them or not. If you think someone has crossed the line, cheating or violating the ToC that's what support tickets are for, we submit tickets to GM's and they try to arrive at a fair and reasonable outcome based on the rules.

Beyond that, if you don't use pillars to at least some extent, there will always be some doofus who builds to close to your existing buildings and wrecks any plans you have for future growth or remodeling.

And, again, on PvP, no rules because you can build anything that you can defend. No one is under any obligation to give you even an inch of land on PvP, you're supposed to fight for it. There are many reasons why PvP is not a good choice for most new players and, frankly, this reason is pretty far down the list. PvP is brutal, it's hard for new players no matter what the rules are.

22 hours ago, Shaliden said:

still doesn't change the fact that people cant build and play on official like they wanted to.

People will (almost) never be able to "build and play on official like they wanted to", because there will always be other people on the server who are competing for the same land and resources. Just because you want to build on some specific spot or area doesn't mean you have a guaranteed right to do so. The only way that it's possible to guarantee you can "build and play" like you want to is on a private server, no amount of changing the rules is going to change that fact.

* In PvP, you get what you fight for.

* In PvE, you get what you can find with your own cleverness or what you negotiate for.

22 hours ago, Shaliden said:

1 little ticket will never change things and you guys know it.

You're arguing against something no one has said. Of course 1 ticket will not change things, no one suggested that it would. Every incident needs its own ticket because GM's have to judge things on a case-by-case basis.

22 hours ago, Shaliden said:

a thread with massive uproar is what it needs.

No amount of threads and no amount of uproar are going to get WC to change the rules about pillaring, because this is not an issue with majority support. Lots and lots of people are fine with how pillaring works. You might think that you represent a hidden majority that need to make a "massive uproar", but if you're willing to face reality that's simply not true. Even the people who don't like the current system can't agree on a solution that would actually work without WC hiring a lot more GM's, and the simple fact is they're not going to do that because of the cost. The one thing that's a given in this conversation is that WC wants to spend as little money on official servers as they can because official servers don't make money, they cost money. Once you accept that this is a hard line they will not cross, then it becomes obvious that the solution to land holding has to be based on the pillaring mechanic that they have built into the game.

[wildbill]

3 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

Reasonable people can disagree, and maybe that's where we'll end up after talking, but I suggest for your consideration that the real issue here isn't a failure of game design but rather an unwillingness to spend more money on moderators.

Right. Part of the design of a game includes the business model the game runs under. The sell the game for a fixed price and no subscription that doesn't allow for the cost of adequate moderators, so leads to a game with a serious flaw.

3 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

 On Unofficial servers the server owner can choose any rule set they want as long as they're willing to spend the time required to enforce that set of rules, and the time they spend enforcing rules is time they donate to the function of their servers. If people want to volunteer to enforce rules on their own unofficial servers then more power to them, but that doesn't mean that pilars are intrinsically a failure of game design nor does it mean that WildCard's choice to substitute the pilar game mechanic instead of paying more GM's is necessarily a failure on WC's part.

Again, we can agree to disagree on our reasons, but I don't agree that the pilar mechanic "shows the game is not designed correctly", it's a design that some people like and others don't. Those are subjective feelings, there's nothing objectively "incorrect" about it.

There's no such thing as "common sense from all players" because there's no common agreement on how things should work. There are thousand different opinions on how much land someone needs, how close it's ok to build to other players, how bit a base should be for the size of the tribe, how many pieces people should be allowed to use in their base builds, and so on. People join an unofficial server because they already like and agree with the rules that the server owner has declared and will be enforcing. Official servers, on the other hand, are not and can not ever be as homogeneous (and as co-operative) as unofficial servers are. You can't hold official and unofficial servers to the same standards of social agreements or moderation. Official servers are open to anyone, from anywhere, any time, with any set of opinions, there is no such thing as a common set of beliefs about how to play the game on official servers.

I think you are saying, pillars are needed and an integral part of the game when playing on a server with no moderators. I think I have to disagree that the majority of the players want or like placing pillars or like seeing them placed. They are extremely ugly and destroy the aesthetics of the game. At least 50% of the player base agrees, as this is one of the reasons people play on dedicated servers. I know of players that get really upset if even one tree is cut down near their base. They like the "natural" look of the game with all the growth that only occurs when there are no pillars and no one having to "claim" land.

And yes, I wouldn't expect everyone to agree that this is common sense. My point was that since there is not this common agreement, you can't use that as part of the design of a game. Since you can't, and the game can't enforce it, you have a game that has a serious flaw.

[wildbill]

51 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

No amount of threads and no amount of uproar are going to get WC to change the rules about pillaring, because this is not an issue with majority support. Lots and lots of people are fine with how pillaring works. You might think that you represent a hidden majority that need to make a "massive uproar", but if you're willing to face reality that's simply not true. Even the people who don't like the current system can't agree on a solution that would actually work without WC hiring a lot more GM's, and the simple fact is they're not going to do that because of the cost. The one thing that's a given in this conversation is that WC wants to spend as little money on official servers as they can because official servers don't make money, they cost money. Once you accept that this is a hard line they will not cross, then it becomes obvious that the solution to land holding has to be based on the pillaring mechanic that they have built into the game.

Right. Official PvE servers will be pillared. Period.

So if you don't like it, don't play on them. There are alternatives, of which over 50% of players take advantage of. 

PvP is a different animal, one I stay as far away from as possible in ARK. I have played PvP in other games, but really, really, hate it in ARK.

[Pipinghot]

23 hours ago, wildbill said:

Right. Part of the design of a game includes the business model the game runs under.

Agreed, with the observation that their business model and their game design work together, and work as intended.

23 hours ago, wildbill said:

The sell the game for a fixed price and no subscription that doesn't allow for the cost of adequate moderators, so leads to a game with a serious flaw.

It's working as intended, so it's hard to agree that this qualifies as a "serious flaw". It's a deliberate design & business decision, albeit one that you dislike (and I support your right to dislike it) but that doesn't mean it's a flaw in any objective sense.

Based on your comments you would prefer to play a game with more moderation, which I'm guessing means you would prefer to play a game with a business model that supports more moderators even it that means it costs you more to play it. But you preferring a different business model doesn't mean that their business model is intrinsically flawed, it just means you wish they had made different choices, choices that you subjectively would prefer. Their business model and their design are working as intended, by any objective measure that's a success.

23 hours ago, wildbill said:

I think you are saying, pillars are needed and an integral part of the game when playing on a server with no moderators.

Certainly when playing on a public server with very little moderation. As discussed elsewhere, even on private/unofficial servers when people join the server they are supposed to be agreeing to a set of rules, and yet the owners/moderators of those servers still have to get involved and punish people for pillaring. If it's not possible to get all people to abide by the rules on an unofficial server then it should be obvious people won't all abide by the same rules on an official server with an open-door policy.

Do I personally wish that pillaring wasn't necessary, sure, but that's just wishful thinking. The reality is that a random collection of strangers are never going to agree to all want the same things and all prefer the same set of rules.

23 hours ago, wildbill said:

I think I have to disagree that the majority of the players want or like placing pillars or like seeing them placed.

I'm pretty sure I didn't make those specific claims, but ok, if I did I'll agree that they're not true. I agree that it's not true that "the majority of the players want or like placing pillars".

What I actually do believe that the majority of people who choose to play Official PvE servers understand why the pillaring game mechanic is used the way it is, even if it's not what they would prefer.

See, the funny thing about player preferences is that most players only see things from their own perspective. They don't like it when pillars prevent them from building where they want to, but they like being able to use pillars to "protect" their own land and prevent others from building there. They like it when they can build close to other people on "good" locations, but they complain when they get a good location and then someone else moves in and builds right next to them. They want to eat their cake and have it too. In the game (just like the rest of the world) most people want the rules to benefit themselves first and then only benefit other people if it doesn't interfere with their own pleasure. Most people, unless you force them to think about it, don't want even-handed justice, they want what they desire.

Speaking to your preferences - there are lots of people who would agree with you that the game is flawed and that there should be more moderators... right up to the moment when they're told that would cost more. Obviously plenty of people would be willing to pay more, but plenty of other people wouldn't because they don't understand the links between business model <-> game design <-> costs <-> moderation <-> etc. Even if we account for the people who agree with you and would be willing to pay more, there are lots of people who agree with you but if push came to shove they would not be willing to pay more. Given the choice between business models and game mechanics plenty of people would end up choosing the current system as the better of the two options.

So while it's not true that "that the majority of the players want or like placing pillars or like seeing them placed" it's also not true that the majority of players would be willing to pay the costs associated with forcing that design choice & business model choice to be changed.

23 hours ago, wildbill said:

They are extremely ugly and destroy the aesthetics of the game.

This is an example of what I mean when talking about subjective vs. objective truths.

They may ruin your view of aesthetics, and there are plenty of people who would agree with you, but there are plenty who would not. Just as one example, I disagree, they don't bother my aesthetic sense one tiny bit.

Nor do they bother the aesthetic senses of the other 6 people who play on my private server. We don't like official servers for a variety of reasons, but this isn't one of them. Now of course my example is only 6 people, by no means am I pretending to speak for the majority. My point is that there is no objective truth about whether pillars "destroy the aesthetics of the game", there is only your personal preference, that's the only claim you have the right to make on that aspect of the discussion.

23 hours ago, wildbill said:

At least 50% of the player base agrees, as this is one of the reasons people play on dedicated servers.

You're just making numbers up because you think it helps your argument.

There are many reasons why people play on dedicated servers, with the most people doing so for multiple reasons all bundled together in a package. Even among the people who play on dedicated servers for one single reason, there is not a majority of them that do so for this specific reason. The simple fact that people play on dedicated servers in no way supports your argument that "At least 50% of the player base agrees", that's a dishonest attempt at a statistics argument.

23 hours ago, wildbill said:

I know of players that get really upset if even one tree is cut down near their base. They like the "natural" look of the game with all the growth that only occurs when there are no pillars and no one having to "claim" land.

True, and yet a whole bunch of those same players (possibly even a majority of them) wouldn't think twice about cutting down trees on someone else's land. As previously noted, "Most people, unless you force them to think about it, don't want even-handed justice, they want what they desire."

What people get upset about in no way implies what rules they support when those same rules thwart themselves.

23 hours ago, wildbill said:

And yes, I wouldn't expect everyone to agree that this is common sense. My point was that since there is not this common agreement, you can't use that as part of the design of a game. Since you can't, and the game can't enforce it, you have a game that has a serious flaw.

You're missing the point here, "since there is not this common ground" you must use that knowledge when designing your game. If you ignore that knowledge, if you ignore the reality that there is no common ground then the game doomed to a level of player hostility and chaos that even ARK has never seen. The game designers have to make choices about what methods they are going to use to resolve player disputes, and those choices must include understanding the cost & support model they're going to use.

You may not like the choice that WC made (and again, I support your right to prefer a different choice) but at least they made a choice, in advance, knowing what choice they were making. What would be so much worse would be if WC didn't see this coming, and didn't include a game mechanic in their design that would help establish land claims and resolve land disputes.

In the end, it's your right to dislike their choice, but that choice is working as intended. And not the usual "working as intended" with air quotes, it's actually the real thing in this case.

[Shaliden]

I think it's ok for people to move next to other players or even wipe their bases for the location but to spread out pillar/foundation bombing around a base is kinda selfish if used wrong. But the worst is when everywhere is bombed, then its a big issue.

[Frack]

make certain items ignore foundation/pillars ,like campfires and sleeping bags

[St1ckyBandit]

Yo JK Piping writing 7 volume novellas. If writing the code for ASA becomes troublesome WC should bring in someone with such strong fingers.

[CosmicSkeleton]

On 4/12/2023 at 1:40 PM, Yggdrassil said:

If you sit and think for a  moment, actually combating spam is difficult to solve, almost everything has a counter and in pve especially pillars are essential to stop all sorts of issues because you are unable to do anything if someone builds in your way.

Maybe in official severs or if you aren't an admin/are on an unofficial with admins who don't care and don't have rules against it. For folk like me though the issue is as simple as pulling up admin prompts and typing "cheat destroyttribestructures". Best part about it is not only does it get rid of the pillars, it strips them of everything they ever built. Best way to combat spam is to punish spam so harshly that the culprits either leave or never think to do it again.

[Pipinghot]

3 hours ago, Shaliden said:

I think it's ok for people to move next to other players or even wipe their bases for the location but to spread out pillar/foundation bombing around a base is kinda selfish if used wrong. But the worst is when everywhere is bombed, then its a big issue.

Are you talking about PvE or PvP?  When you say, "wipe their bases for the location" that makes it seem like you're talking about PvP.

If you are talking about PvP then pillar/foundation bombing is not (and should not) be against the rules. Everything, everything in PvP is about fighting for what you can keep, if someone can successfully pillar/foundation bomb you in PvP then you're not strong enough to fight them, you're lucky that pillars & foundations are the only things they're attacking you with. If you want to play PvP then you need to expect that you're going to have to fight for everything, including your land.

[wildbill]

11 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

Do I personally wish that pillaring wasn't necessary, sure, but that's just wishful thinking. The reality is that a random collection of strangers are never going to agree to all want the same things and all prefer the same set of rules.

The flaw in your logic is that a dedicated server is not a random collection of strangers. It is people who have read the rules and agreed to them. They also understand if they break the rules, they can be banned from the server. Those that don't agree to the rules can simply go to a server that doesn't have rules or play on the official servers that don't have rules (at least seldom enforced rules). So even the official servers don't consist of just random strangers. They self-select from those that like the chaos and lack of rules that are the official servers.

Took you almost a page to just say, "I like ARK just as it is, so it is designed just how I like it". Sounds a bit like circular logic when you condense it down into one sentance.

ARK is a sandbox game after all. You can play it how ever you like. Nothing stopping you from running a server where everyone is allowed to pillar away at will (since there is nothing in the game that prevents that).

I can also join a server where they have rules about absolutely no pillaring, period. We can all make our choices. Both work just fine if that is what you like, but there is no reason you have to have pillaring in ARK to play the game. I've seen it work on servers I've played on for over 5 years. No pillars, except for the occasional rule breaker that is quickly corrected. I mean, nothing is permanent about a placed pillar. Very easy for an admin to remove them.

[Pipinghot]

5 hours ago, wildbill said:

The flaw in your logic is that a dedicated server is not a random collection of strangers. It is people who have read the rules and agreed to them. They also understand if they break the rules, they can be banned from the server. Those that don't agree to the rules can simply go to a server that doesn't have rules or play on the official servers that don't have rules (at least seldom enforced rules).

You clearly either skimmed or misread. When I was talking about a random collection of strangers that was referring to official servers.

Dedicated servers are not just a random collection, they are self-selected based on their (stated) willingness to follow the specific rules of the server. And even then, even though they are self-selected, moderation is still necessary. Even with a group of people who claim they want to agree to the rules of the server sometimes require moderation & banning for pillar spam (among other offenses). If a server full of self-selected people can't actually all agree, all get along and all follow the rules then it would be silly to assume that the people who join official servers would do so.

5 hours ago, wildbill said:

So even the official servers don't consist of just random strangers. They self-select from those that like the chaos and lack of rules that are the official servers.

Oh come on, you're being disingenuous and not arguing in good faith, this isn't a high school debate club.

* They were strangers before they joined the server and met the other players.

* The only thing they had in common with the other players was that they bought ARK and joined a server to play.

* They selected the server they're on by some criteria that has nothing to do with the presence of other players, typically something like ping.

By any reasonable measure, that's a random collection of strangers. Much more random than on a dedicated server with published rules that they joined because they liked the rules.

5 hours ago, wildbill said:

Took you almost a page to just say, "I like ARK just as it is, so it is designed just how I like it". Sounds a bit like circular logic when you condense it down into one sentance.

Nope, that's definitely not what I said.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not deliberately twisting my words, but even with that benefit of the doubt your assessment is careless at best.

The real message is that while you're entitled to dislike their decision that doesn't mean they their decision and/or the implementation of the decision is flawed, it just means that it doesn't suit your personal preference.

5 hours ago, wildbill said:

ARK is a sandbox game after all. You can play it how ever you like. Nothing stopping you from running a server where everyone is allowed to pillar away at will (since there is nothing in the game that prevents that).

Right. A sandbox game, and that's exactly how it plays on the official servers. A sandbox game with minimal moderation that uses game mechanics to create land claims and resolve land disputes.

5 hours ago, wildbill said:

I can also join a server where they have rules about absolutely no pillaring, period. We can all make our choices. Both work just fine if that is what you like, but there is no reason you have to have pillaring in ARK to play the game. I've seen it work on servers I've played on for over 5 years. No pillars, except for the occasional rule breaker that is quickly corrected. I mean, nothing is permanent about a placed pillar. Very easy for an admin to remove them.

Now you're being circular, we've already covered these points.

Of course those things are possible if the server admin is willing to donate their time moderating conflicts or if the game company prefers to spend money moderating land claims rather than designing a game mechanic to do that for them. You have every right to prefer a server that matches your personal preferences, that doesn't make the game design or the business model flawed, it just means they don't match your personal preferences.

[wildbill]

2 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

The real message is that while you're entitled to dislike their decision that doesn't mean they their decision and/or the implementation of the decision is flawed, it just means that it doesn't suit your personal preference.

Of course those things are possible if the server admin is willing to donate their time moderating conflicts or if the game company prefers to spend money moderating land claims rather than designing a game mechanic to do that for them. You have every right to prefer a server that matches your personal preferences, that doesn't make the game design or the business model flawed, it just means they don't match your personal preferences.

Could be, since we don't know the goals of the devs, who can say if they achieved what they wanted or not? Although I like to believe they failed, or why else would they try so hard (I didn't count how many times they tried to fix the pillaring, but it was more than once). Why would they fix something that isn't broke. Another game was even made based on ARK code (Atlas) where they tried multiple methods to solve the pillaring "problem", and failed there too. Maybe not the same devs, but the same code.

I personally hate official servers. I played there and was driven off of them by griefers that destroyed my base (on a PvE server).

I think we can leave it at my opinion is the game sucks on official and is seriously flawed (based on PvE play). Your opinion (which might be mostly based on PvP play) is that it is fine.

Good thing it is a sandbox and we can play it how we like it.

[Pipinghot]

4 hours ago, wildbill said:

Could be, since we don't know the goals of the devs, who can say if they achieved what they wanted or not?

This is a case for which the best argument is, "the proof is in the pudding".

WC has had years to fundamentally change how land claiming is done and yet... it still basically works the same. There are plenty of methods available for land claiming (methods that were available in other games before the first line of ARK code was ever written) and plenty of methods that have been suggested in the forums over the years and yet... it still basically works the same.

The simplest and most obvious answer is that it's working as intended. Is that answer guaranteed to be the correct answer? No, not guaranteed but common sense (and Occam's razor) both give some pretty strong evidence that this is the answer.

4 hours ago, wildbill said:

Although I like to believe they failed, or why else would they try so hard (I didn't count how many times they tried to fix the pillaring, but it was more than once).

But did they? Like, did they really?

I would argue that no, not really. They've put on a show of trying. They've gone through the motions and made announcements that they're trying. And to be fair they have small tweaks to the pillaring system over the years, like requiring that you attach a second building object to the pillar to prevent it from despawning, but I would argue that at no time did they ever "try so hard".

They could have tested and tried any number of claiming systems. But they didn't. They could have taken a more harsh approach to pillaring. But they didn't. They could have changed the ToC (and then enforced the changes. But they didn't.

The only thing they've really done is make it a tiny bit harder to pillar. If you look back at the changes they've made they're nothing more than tweaks to the original system, none of them are really trying to hard to change the system in any meaningful way.

4 hours ago, wildbill said:

Why would they fix something that isn't broke.

Why indeed. And since they haven't made any significant attempts to change the land claim system it doesn't look like they believed it was broken to begin with.

4 hours ago, wildbill said:

Another game was even made based on ARK code (Atlas) where they tried multiple methods to solve the pillaring "problem", and failed there too. Maybe not the same devs, but the same code.

In fairness to you and this point, I can't speak to Atlas. Never played it, never had any interest in it, never paid any attention to it. The only response I can give to your question is that Atlas is a different game and maybe they had different intentions for Atlas than they had for ARK. Your comment, "Maybe not the same devs, but the same code." may provide the answer, different devs had different intentions for Atlas than they had for ARK.

But really any discussion about Atlas is a tangent, and not material to discussions about ARK. Whatever intentions they had for Atlas have no bearing on a discussion about ARK.

4 hours ago, wildbill said:

I personally hate official servers. I played there and was driven off of them by griefers that destroyed my base (on a PvE server).

That's something we can agree on. I hate official servers too, just not for same reasons you do.

4 hours ago, wildbill said:

I think we can leave it at my opinion is the game sucks on official and is seriously flawed (based on PvE play). Your opinion (which might be mostly based on PvP play) is that it is fine.

I played about equal amounts of PvP and PvE, not that this matters in this discussion. No on has "credentials" that give their preferences greater weight than anyone elses.

Having said that, I only visit official servers for about 4-6 days a year nowadays, I've been running my own private server for years now. Because "the game sucks on official", I just think it sucks for different reasons than you do.

4 hours ago, wildbill said:

Good thing it is a sandbox and we can play it how we like it.

Agreed, which is the only reason I'm still playing it at all.

[Dreadcthulhu]

I would like to chime in a relatively simple measure that would help alleiviate pillar spam, without requiring much admin time.  Give every tribe two flags, and have structures within a decent radius of the flags have normal decay timers.  Have structures outside of the flag area decay at say 2x, 4x, hell maybe even 8x rates.  That should cut down the amount of pillar spam to amounts that people are really dedicated to maintaining, without requiring active admin intervention, or stopping people from setting up temporary traps or shelters.  

 

[GrumpyBear]

9 minutes ago, Dreadcthulhu said:

I would like to chime in a relatively simple measure that would help alleiviate pillar spam, without requiring much admin time.  Give every tribe two flags, and have structures within a decent radius of the flags have normal decay timers.  Have structures outside of the flag area decay at say 2x, 4x, hell maybe even 8x rates.  That should cut down the amount of pillar spam to amounts that people are really dedicated to maintaining, without requiring active admin intervention, or stopping people from setting up temporary traps or shelters.  

 

We have made this suggestion at least 100x in the last 5 years.  

[Castle117]

i like how Rust handles land. you put up a Tool Cupboard and it is extra storage, has a radius for land ownership, and it deducts rent for the type of buildings you build. no decay unless you don't pay your rent.  you can't build outside of your Tool Cupboard radius. rent is paid in materials stored in the Tool Cupboard. 

[Pipinghot]

1 hour ago, Castle117 said:

i like how Rust handles land. you put up a Tool Cupboard and it is extra storage, has a radius for land ownership, and it deducts rent for the type of buildings you build. no decay unless you don't pay your rent.  you can't build outside of your Tool Cupboard radius. rent is paid in materials stored in the Tool Cupboard. 

Yup, one of the many methods WC has specifically chosen to not use, because that's not what they want.

[GrumpyBear]

1 hour ago, Castle117 said:

i like how Rust handles land. you put up a Tool Cupboard and it is extra storage, has a radius for land ownership, and it deducts rent for the type of buildings you build. no decay unless you don't pay your rent.  you can't build outside of your Tool Cupboard radius. rent is paid in materials stored in the Tool Cupboard. 

this problem presents its own problems.  Considering how big tribes can get, how do you allot space equally to tribes of 1 person and tribes of 20 people?  Do the 20 people tribes get punished for working together?  Do 1 person tribes get punished for playing solo?   

Communities of players who are already good at working together with others towards shared goals will monopolize resources.  By making it a simple one size fits all solution, these players will use that to their advantage in ways you can't yet imagine.  I can already see how tribes would plop down right on top of key resources and rely on the fact that WC let them do so, and WC only gave them a specific amount of area to build in on top of that.  That will mean tribes will use their key alliances to dominate multiple spots on a map rendering the map less useful for all tribes not in their alliance.  The radii limiter will make it harder for the GMs to say these players aren't playing fair.

 

There is a reason why they have avoided this idea, and I'm pretty sure its something along these lines.

Edited April 18, 2023 by GrumpyBear

[Castle117]

10 hours ago, GrumpyBear said:

this problem presents its own problems.  Considering how big tribes can get, how do you allot space equally to tribes of 1 person and tribes of 20 people?  Do the 20 people tribes get punished for working together?  Do 1 person tribes get punished for playing solo?   

Communities of players who are already good at working together with others towards shared goals will monopolize resources.  By making it a simple one size fits all solution, these players will use that to their advantage in ways you can't yet imagine.  I can already see how tribes would plop down right on top of key resources and rely on the fact that WC let them do so, and WC only gave them a specific amount of area to build in on top of that.  That will mean tribes will use their key alliances to dominate multiple spots on a map rendering the map less useful for all tribes not in their alliance.  The radii limiter will make it harder for the GMs to say these players aren't playing fair.

 

There is a reason why they have avoided this idea, and I'm pretty sure its something along these lines.

The TC solves many issues that Arks lazy decay and pillar/ladder/foundation approach can't address. TC expands around the base, it's not just a fixed circle. more TCs can be added to grown the base. they can have a combo or key lock. the upkeep for the area is based on the type and size of the buildings. It seems more of an active approach to land ownership, not just putting down pillars/ladders/foundations all over the map. 

 

[Pipinghot]

4 hours ago, Castle117 said:

The TC solves many issues that Arks lazy decay and pillar/ladder/foundation approach can't address. TC expands around the base, it's not just a fixed circle. more TCs can be added to grown the base. they can have a combo or key lock. the upkeep for the area is based on the type and size of the buildings. It seems more of an active approach to land ownership, not just putting down pillars/ladders/foundations all over the map.

Pillars/ladders require constant refreshing, you have to actually visit the location of every one of them to keep them from decaying. That sounds pretty "active", and hardly counts as lazy (neither for the devs or the players).

It's also worth noting that you're comparing apples to oranges (I think). As far as I know - Rust has frequent wipes and Rust doesn't have a pure PvE mode (correct me it I'm wrong on either point). ARK, on the other hand, is specifically designed to let you have a base for as long as you can maintain it. I personally know of bases that have been kept alive for 4-5 years, non-stop, maintained by active players.

This also leads me to a question - do you know whether it's possible for a tribe in rust to reduce their land claim, or is the size automatic based on the size of the tribe? Something that is allowed by the ARK mechanics (and which I've seen on official servers) is people making friends with neighbors and building close together intentionally. One of the benefits of ARK land claiming is that you can deliberately un-claim land to let friends build close to you. Is this level of flexibility offered in Rust?

Also, no tames in Rust, the amount of land needed even for a small base in ARK is typically more than Rust. Not an insurmountable problem, but another illustration of how Rust and ARK are apples & oranges.

Edited April 18, 2023 by Pipinghot

[DirkInSA]

Speaking of tangents - I think the most relevant suggestion here is "wait until August" ..... Then all pillering will be history   

 

[Pipinghot]

1 hour ago, DirkInSA said:

Speaking of tangents - I think the most relevant suggestion here is "wait until August" ..... Then all pillering will be history 

Unless I've missed something, pillaring in ASA will work the same as it does in ASE. Is there some announcement I've overlooked?

[Castle117]

1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

Pillars/ladders require constant refreshing, you have to actually visit the location of every one of them to keep them from decaying. That sounds pretty "active", and hardly counts as lazy (neither for the devs or the players).

It's also worth noting that you're comparing apples to oranges (I think). As far as I know - Rust has frequent wipes and Rust doesn't have a pure PvE mode (correct me it I'm wrong on either point). ARK, on the other hand, is specifically designed to let you have a base for as long as you can maintain it. I personally know of bases that have been kept alive for 4-5 years, non-stop, maintained by active players.

This also leads me to a question - do you know whether it's possible for a tribe in rust to reduce their land claim, or is the size automatic based on the size of the tribe? Something that is allowed by the ARK mechanics (and which I've seen on official servers) is people making friends with neighbors and building close together intentionally. One of the benefits of ARK land claiming is that you can deliberately un-claim land to let friends build close to you. Is this level of flexibility offered in Rust?

Also, no tames in Rust, the amount of land needed even for a small base in ARK is typically more than Rust. Not an insurmountable problem, but another illustration of how Rust and ARK are apples & oranges.

 

"lazy" isn't an insult just a method. i like lazy methods (simple). TC Takes some thought and it's not like Fallout 76 plot assignment. yes, Rust is wiped once a month; this makes land grabs even more intense but manageable with the TC approach. 

i thought we were talking alternatives to pillar/ladder/foundation methods. clearly some are not happy with how Ark and Conan Exiles handle land management. 

 

[GrumpyBear]

31 minutes ago, Castle117 said:

 

"lazy" isn't an insult just a method. i like lazy methods (simple). TC Takes some thought and it's not like Fallout 76 plot assignment. yes, Rust is wiped once a month; this makes land grabs even more intense but manageable with the TC approach. 

i thought we were talking alternatives to pillar/ladder/foundation methods. clearly some are not happy with how Ark and Conan Exiles handle land management. 

 

having it set to a set radius is the exact problem with it and resources in ark.  By making it a set distance, players can set their radius right on top of key resources.  They can argue that this is the core mechanic and they werne't doing it out of malice.  By having the system we have, a GM or the tribe can remove the offending structures without eliminating a tribes land claim altogether.  By having it a set distance, the gms won't be allowed to just uproot a tribes base.   It also won't stop tribes from working with their partners outside of ark so as to not hint that alliances are parking all their radii upon all the mountaintops.  To the gms, it will be a bunch of disconnected tribes doing what was intended.  

To the rest of the players on pve, this will result in less metal, crystal... stuff that makes the early game easier.  It will allow those who work well together monopolize servers.  This will make those online real cash traders have more of a market for their wares, to which they most likely will be connected to those tribes who will use this tactic.  They already do it to some extent already, this won't stop the worst behaviors, it will just stop the rest of the players from being able to fight back by claiming the land so it can't be abused.

[Castle117]

52 minutes ago, GrumpyBear said:

having it set to a set radius is the exact problem with it and resources in ark.  By making it a set distance, players can set their radius right on top of key resources.  They can argue that this is the core mechanic and they werne't doing it out of malice.  By having the system we have, a GM or the tribe can remove the offending structures without eliminating a tribes land claim altogether.  By having it a set distance, the gms won't be allowed to just uproot a tribes base.   It also won't stop tribes from working with their partners outside of ark so as to not hint that alliances are parking all their radii upon all the mountaintops.  To the gms, it will be a bunch of disconnected tribes doing what was intended.  

To the rest of the players on pve, this will result in less metal, crystal... stuff that makes the early game easier.  It will allow those who work well together monopolize servers.  This will make those online real cash traders have more of a market for their wares, to which they most likely will be connected to those tribes who will use this tactic.  They already do it to some extent already, this won't stop the worst behaviors, it will just stop the rest of the players from being able to fight back by claiming the land so it can't be abused.

 

https://wiki.facepunch.com/rust/the_tool_cupboard#:~:text=A tool cupboard%2C commonly referred,and every base needs one.

 

it's worth a look. it outlines use, control, and area it covers.