Game mode: Single-player
Type of issue: Bug
Server type: Local
Region: Local/NA
Bearer thralls’ inventory is the same as regular fighters/archers. I have captured tier 1, 2 & 3 bearers and they were all like this. I assume this is not working as intended as this makes them functionally pointless (apart from stealing their backpack to use yourself).
Perhaps a fix on this is being delayed until after the thralls disappearing/falling through the map issue is resolved, as I can imagine the wailing and lamentation that would occur if lots of people starting actually using the bearers only to lose huge amounts of inventory on their expeditions.
This seems to be commonly experienced judging from online comments, though I’m not sure if it’s the same for everyone.
Yet I did not see this problem noted on the PC Issues Status list, so I’m flagging it as a bug.
Please provide a step-by-step process of how the bug can be reproduced. The more details you provide us with the easier it will be for us to find and fix the bug:
1.Capture & break a Bearer thrall.
2.Access their inventory.
3.Experience disappointment.
4.
In a way this game is a victim of its own ambition. It has a LOT going for it. The devs have managed to create an awesome foundation of a game with amazing potential, they just haven’t been able to fully realise that potential for whatever reason. If only they could add mounts, magic, flesh out the world with some more content and improve the thrall system to make settlements come alive… and polish it all up… this game would be one of the greatest ever.
It truly seems not intended. but you can overload ANY thrall with stackable Items.
If interested in “how” let me know. It is some how… a bug using case… I think.
Yeah thanks Thyris, I just found out about that, but would prefer to play without exploits.
I suppose I could just take a bearer thrall and (try to) limit myself to a certain amount of stuff using the exploit.
I’d much rather it was fixed though.
Interesting. I can easily think of other types of victims when I think of the irresponsible “ambition” of this game and how it was sold to the public. This is at least considering the new platforms to be released as a “complete” game on its official release date.
Well, it is good to consider that before the CE has the brilliant initiative to expand its own content, the Funcom team prioritize bug fixes, performance deficits, fill in any “gaps” and other problems inherent in the “base game”. This goes beyond “official communications,” because words and deeds can not always be in tune… and may even contradict each other. I personally prefer to think that they may be able to “tidy up” their own home before adding new rooms during this full-time maintenance period.
Could you be more specific? I’m not clear on what you mean, perhaps because I only became aware of this game recently and wasn’t party to what was going on during early access and release. I believe I have a decent handle on where things are at, but I’m interested in who you would consider victims and why…
Naturally, Robarbarian. Well, I do not usually go into (many) details on this subject because this is far from being a novelty among players in general, but I understand that you are not aware of this. Well, I played CE only for ps4 and the experience was frustrating and unacceptable for a “full” game on its official release date. Daily the game “frozen” for me, among other problems (bugs and performance drop). With just under a month of constant gameplay, I decided to literally give up playing CE. I simply tired of continuing to play and having to tolerate or “adapt” to problems that were part of my daily life.
Technically, the game was not ready to be officially released without generating problems of different natures between the public and how Funcom knew this would generate (justified) frustration and irritation from the outset (after all, the company knows exactly what it is selling), I understand that the developer has misled consumers. Obviously, that does not stop there being more patient, tolerant or even condescending players, but that does not exclude the presence or severity of these problems. As I have said in other posts, I understand the need and importance of money, but it must be earned in a “right” way. Selling a problematic product on the market on purpose was an absurd attitude. Partial result: outside the obvious wear of the reputation and credibility of Funcom, a significant part of the players abandoned the game. Unfortunately, Funcom was not fair and honest with the consumer.
Just like you, I also recognize the potential of the game, but before thinking about the future, it is better and wiser to look at the present and claim that the game can provide a stable and satisfying experience among players (overall). What complicates the case further is knowing that there are no deadlines or formal guarantees for this.
The purpose of this message is to let you at least be aware that Funcom’s irresponsible “ambition” has directly contributed to disrupting the CE trajectory and harmed consumers on different platforms.
So by ‘irresponsible ambition’ you’re implying the intentional sale of a not-fit-for-release product which you consider to be duplicitous?
Fair enough, though I would argue that the ambition was to make an awesome game and any irresponsibility is not necessarily attributable to the developers, at least surely not by intention. Competence is another matter, but I am not in a position to judge it.
Personally, I’m less sure about their motivations behind releasing it in such a state. Game development is a pretty complex and challenging affair, and I’m simply unaware of the reasons why this particular game was released when it was, and in the state that it was. Who’s to blame - the investors? The developers? Someone who made a wrong decision at some point that caused developmental headaches later? Were such decisions reasonable at the time in hindsight? Did the development team desire to release it when they did or were they given no choice?
In Firespark’s recent interview Joel mentioned that they had actually been given an extension of their initial allotted time for development, and yet at some point the suits holding the money bags said no more time, ship it. It seems to me from listening to that interview that the dev team wasn’t given a reasonable amount of time to begin with for such an ambitious game. Yet who made the decision to attempt it in the little time they were given? What was the process behind that decision and how did the game’s vision come about in the first place anyway?
These are the sorts of things one would need to know to assess irresponsibility and apportion any warranted blame.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to excuse the state of the game. It’s way too buggy… still… and some of them are of the nasty type, not just glitches.
I’m sorry to hear of your experience, and I hope you can come back to the game one day to enjoy a fresh, smooth and stable… and with any luck… enhanced… Conan: Exiles.
I consider at least an irresponsibility to sell something to someone in precarious or unacceptable conditions having awareness of it. And in that sense, I understand that my judgment of the situation is quite logical.
As for the context in which you referred to Funcom’s ambition, do not worry… I get it. My intention was only to show the panorama of this same ambition more comprehensively.
As for the “real” responsibility behind the official launch of this game, I have personal conviction that Funcom continues to be guilty of this. Yes, because besides being the creator and seller of this product, the consumer remains the penalized party in this transaction at the end of this equation. I personally do not pretend to be more “understanding” when I realize that I was deceived. A personal positioning. And I must warn you of one factor: this experience involving a game that is not working “correctly” was unheard of for me on ps4. Of course, other games may contain occasional problems, but this is somewhat timely… usually rare. When this “unpredictable” character in the technical aspect contemplates the daily life of the player, it is easy for him to start questioning the very initiative of having bought this game in these circumstances.
But do not worry. I am satisfied with my decision and, without wanting to look vengeful or bitter, I would prefer to invest my money in other games if I could go back in time (in fact, in my country I pay dearly for electronic games). As for the fact that I eventually return to playing CE, that depends more on the progress of Funcom’s work… and I feel seriously skeptical about it.
I hear you, I’m not arguing the state of the game, just the reality of the circumstances surrounding its release. I understand it’s a matter of moral principle to you, I just don’t think things are so simple. It’s not like they are selling a defective microwave oven or something.
Believe me, such a buggy release is not ‘acceptable’ and should impact upon funcom’s reputation and sales. I believe it has, though they appear to be genuinely attempting to remedy this. The consumer also has responsibility in making wise purchases to hold a company accountable. Caveat emptor.
However… given that games generally benefit from more development time, there will always be tension between the desire for more time/polish and the need to release/recoup the financial investment. I do not know the executive circumstances that led to the release of the game in May, that’s all I’m saying. I fully agree that the ultimate responsible falls upon funcom, though that is an inhuman corporate entity, not the very real human beings who made decisions, argued and underwent the challenging technical and political process of video game development.
All we see as consumers is the end result of that process.
I’m curious… if you were in the shoes of one of the investors (assuming you were able to come to an accurate assessment of the state of the game prior to release), having already given the developers an extension but seeing the amount of time being asked for by the devs dragging on and your investment dwindling, would you have given them more time… even accepted a loss and the ramifications of that for your own corporate responsibility?
Okay, I understood your point of view, but my opinion remains the same.
As for your hypothetical question, I will try to satisfy your curiosity from a different angle. Even a powerful investor remains a consumer throughout his life. It’s inevitable. And if he happens to buy something problematic and be deceived by the current “conditions” of that product, he will not try to “understand” the (theoretical) circumstances that led the seller to “rush” trade; the natural tendency is to exchange the product for another similar or obtain adequate financial compensation for their investment. In addition to considering that one error does not justify the other, I consider that certain unfair forms of immediate profit may generate much more disturbing problems throughout the life of CE. Yes, because the money given does not return to our hands, but the consumer will have a legendary memory to remember how was our contact with Funcom… and how this will influence in future sales or dlcs. Funcom is picking what it has planted.
You see, if Funcom had been honest and transparent with the “special conditions” of this sale, I would not complain, for each player is responsible for his own money. But I did not pay for a game for its full price on its official launch date to “bet” that “one day” it can offer a stable and satisfying experience. If this becomes a “usual” practice in the gaming industry, imagine the degree of insecurity and mistrust this will generate among consumers.
Hahah, its true… but it was a good conversation. =)
@Robarbarian
What Thyrus talks about is a glitch and Funcom defined it as an Exploit and now has it on their test live patch notes that it is being fixed so it can’t be done.
