Discuss: Rules about Walls and Villages

[Yup]

The question isn’t offensive in the least My only real point is, where does it end?

We went from one extreme, (no outside interference in the governing of local server communities that ran this way for the better part of 4 years), to the other, (instant bans for a vague and ill-defined rule-set with no recourse or appeal, lets face it mistakes have and will always be made by humans or whatever dumb AI/heuristic humans manage to conjure up, in the administrating of this rule-set).

To me, this rule-set seems to become more vague, more undefined and more encompassing by the day. One of the great things about Conan is the human interaction, having a common human enemy to overcome can produce fantastic emergent game-play. A major problem with this rule-set is that it tends to stifle this type of game-play, as players quickly learn that they can lose many hours of hard work, either through misunderstanding this vague rule-set or by the rule-set being taken advantage of by unscrupulous players, or even by the administrators of this rule-set making mistakes in it’s application.

It’s the wrong way to head IMHO and the truly ironic thing is that the game still has loading tips that tell the player unequivocally, (I’m paraphrasing), “you can build almost anywhere, try building on cliffs!”

It’s sad to see the game heading in this bubble wrap, sanitised direction, maybe if the majority of the player-base had asked for it, (51%+), I’d be fine with it. But they didn’t, it’s just once again a minority of a minority of a minority on the forums that get their squeaky wheel oiled.

P.S. Funcom has all the tools built into the game to gather real player data on fundamental game-play changes like this, (i.e. they could come up with simple questionnaires that ask for player feedback on important issues like this during the loading and login screens), but Funcom, for whatever reason, doesn’t take advantage of them and uses the forums as a litmus test of their player-base, (which has destroyed many games over the last 30 years).

[Yup]

@CodeMage

Those of us who asked for moderation initially, asked for help with griefers and cheaters. On PVE(-C) side of things, griefers would often use the building system to harass other players without any in-game recourse: if someone encircled your base with no-climb walls, there was nothing you could do about it. On PVP side of things, undermeshing and other forms of cheating were rampant.

I’ve seen it all on PVE-C and PVP servers.

@CodeMage

I could go over the rest of the history, but the long and the short of it is that it indeed ended up causing problems, and now here we are, trying to get Funcom to clarify and maybe even change the rules.

From their recent clarifications of the rules, it seems that their goal is not merely to do away with griefing and the most egregious forms of overbuilding, but rather to moderate for equity. Should they do that? I don’t know. It doesn’t sit well with me, either, because it doesn’t look like they can provide the same level of service a private server can.

The servers I play on now have an average population of 2-3 per night, it might make more sense that these rules are changing the way they are if the game was popping with overflowing servers, but right now it’s not. I don’t understand Funcom’s vision and I am not sure they have one, I would not be surprised if it’s an inexperienced skeleton crew running the maintenance part of the ship and reacting rather than planning. Obviously they don’t owe me or anyone else any explanations or transparency into their decision making, (or lack thereof), but if you want to instill confidence in your player base…

@CodeMage

But more than “should they do that”, I’d like to ask “How do you propose to change it?”

I don’t pretend to have any answers, even though I was a 3D rendering engineer/Shader Monkey in the gaming industry for 20 years and now more in the sim side of things, that still doesn’t qualify me to even make a guess. But it’s easy to see what they are not doing and that is gathering valid data before making their decisions, i.e. basic science, (once again just my subjective opinion).

@CodeMage

In the end, they steer their decisions based on their own data and their own vision. So far, it hasn’t propelled the game into the same kind of fame as Rust or ARK, but the long term trend on Steam Charts shows a cyclic pattern of peaks, valleys, and overall growth.

What I’m trying to say is: they’ll do what they want to, and it’s usually hard to convince them otherwise. How exactly do you propose we should change their mind in this case?

I don’t want me, you, or any individual; small groups, large groups or anything less than a majority of the actual player-base to be able to change their minds about fundamental game-play. I guess that’s the real issue here for me. Nerf this, nerf that, is the mantra that everyone claims they hate in these forums, but that’s exactly what has happened in this case, just on a more subtle level.

[TeleTesselator]

@Yup

The question isn’t offensive in the least My only real point is, where does it end?

Yup, that’s the general overlay to my expressed concerns here. Basically, we asked them to take care of cheaters and the truly absurd and they came after us.

Now, we’re in negotiation mode just to get enough “freedom” back to be able to go outside at night.

Where this will end up I have no idea. FC has some idea from which they are proceeding. Many if not most players seem to have different ideas and confusion is resulting from those confounded by the actions being taken. I don’t think anyone believes this is an expression of cordiality, but I’m pretty sure none of us who asked FC to get on the ball with these things wanted that person’s account suspended over it - nor likely even their assets demolished without warning. In light of the two the later seems acceptable and with properly defined and disseminated rules, even justified.

But are they properly defined? I would argue the point. And being properly disseminated, I would claim: Not Even Close. The one saving grace here are private servers - but that choice is also muffled and muddied by SOP: A new player installs the game and if online-play is desired is taken to a list of servers most of which have “Official” in the title - so of course most will make that choice - not knowing the conundrum they’ll be facing.

Anyway, the light you’re shining on the topic is implied by most of us with concerns and is worth looking at nakedly. Thanks.

[CodeMage]

@Yup

But it’s easy to see what they are not doing and that is gathering valid data before making their decisions, i.e. basic science, (once again just my subjective opinion).

That’s kinda hard to know, because we don’t actually have access to the data. There are few public sources, like Steam Charts, but any game worth its salt has to have some kind of telemetry built into its servers, and we don’t have access to that.

I have often disliked Funcom’s decisions, and I make no secret of my disapproval for the outcomes of their QA processes, but none of that is enough information for me to say whether they gather data or not, and how they use it in their decision-making process. It’s perfectly possible to have good data and interpret it in a way that results in a bad decision.

Mind, I’m not defending them, I’m just trying to point out that they have all they need to be convinced they’re right. I’ve spent a long time on these forums, and I still don’t have a magic formula to convince them otherwise, but I would really like one other than what seems to work on a rare occasion, which is to have everyone shout as loudly as they can

@Yup

Nerf this, nerf that, is the mantra that everyone claims they hate in these forums, but that’s exactly what has happened in this case, just on a more subtle level.

Nah, not everyone. In fact, those of us who dare to say we hate it often get treated badly for it. Like it or not, nerfing is Funcom’s favorite tool and a significant number of forum regulars seem to be not only okay with that, but encouraging it actively.

Regardless, my question to you wasn’t meant to be hostile or combative, it was genuine curiosity about whether you saw a path to change.

[TeleTesselator]

@Yup

P.S. Funcom has all the tools built into the game to gather real player data on fundamental game-play changes like this, (i.e. they could come up with simple questionnaires that ask for player feedback on important issues like this during the loading and login screens), but Funcom, for whatever reason, doesn’t take advantage of them and uses the forums as a litmus test of their player-base, which has destroyed many games over the last 30 years.

Yup, that’s an absolute indisputable fact! It seems like large portions of players are aware of this but companies aware of this, are in the minority. Strange.

@CodeMage

Nah, not everyone. In fact, those of us who dare to say we hate it often get treated badly for it. Like it or not, nerfing is Funcom’s favorite tool and a significant number of forum regulars seem to be not only okay with that, but encouraging it actively.

Yup… but he did say it was a minority (or a “majority of one”) who got the squeaky wheel oiled.

@CodeMage

Regardless, my question to you wasn’t meant to be hostile or combative, it was genuine curiosity about whether you saw a path to change.

No one likely thought you were being hostile. He answered well enough I thought: He dunno and can’t guess. Maybe just start doing a few of the things listed as not being done…

[LostBrythunian]

Thank you for that clarification.
Knowing what hat one wears when making responses helps to clarify them a bit for this one.

Also, that idea about certain placeables not claiming land, or having a public foot print, yes, please note the enthusiastic support for that, if it was not already abundantly apparent.

Furthermore, the level of official engagement and transparency on this topic has been greatly appreciated.

[Firecrow]

@Yup

I don’t want me, you, or any individual; small groups, large groups or anything less than a majority of the actual player-base to be able to change their minds about fundamental game-play. I guess that’s the real issue here for me. Nerf this, nerf that, is the mantra that everyone claims they hate in these forums, but that’s exactly what has happened in this case, just on a more subtle level.

Look, I am 100% behind you on this, and indeed I think this is how it should be in real life democracies as well. Unfortunately, people long ago learned how to hack/subvert society using communication, to get the interests of small groups heard. A small Christian group in the 1930s managed to get the whole US film industry to police itself into making movies inoffensive to “family values” for decades. Not to mention the way elections pan out in modern democracies.

Have no illusions, the masses have learned from their overlords and started doing this too. Just witness all the attempts by Discord sub-groups to control a game’s direction in their favour, trying to convince companies that they’ll lose money and players if they don’t capitulate. People deliberately run influence campaigns (with various degrees of competence) to get their small group’s agendas across constantly. If we haven’t figured out how to combat this where it matters, in real elections, then I wouldn’t hold my breath that the video games industry is immune. In fact isn’t that what we’re all doing here in these threads - fighting influence wars against one another like children trying to get their way from a parent?

Well, not all of us. What I’m saying here is that you (and many others in this thread) seem like a smart individual, genuinely trying to help Funcom after they genuinely asked for feedback. The problem is, this is not a fair fight. Your enemy is organised groups of players using a variety of bloody 4Chan strategies to get Funcom to bow to them. This is why minority views get implemented. How are we individuals, trying to make things better in good faith, going to prevail against this?

Whew, sorry. I think I might have maybe violated a no-politics rule but I got carried away.

[biggcane55]

i cant support your agenda to not have agendas.

[CodeMage]

@Firecrow

The problem is, this is not a fair fight. Your enemy is organised groups of players using a variety of bloody 4Chan strategies to get Funcom to bow to them. This is why minority views get implemented. How are we individuals, trying to make things better in good faith, going to prevail against this?

I like the sentiment, but it’s idealistic and oversimplified. I’ve long respected your views and your ability to express them respectfully and clearly, so I hope you don’t take anything in this post as a personal attack.

You make it sound like there’s a shadowy group of people manipulating Funcom, but the truth is that if you pick any topic on these forums, you’ll always have several groups of people with different opinions fighting tooth and nail to “prove” their opinion is correct. And each of those groups will have people agreeing with each other on some notion, while vehemently disagreeing about something else in a different thread.

To make things worse – and I know this might be harsh and unpopular – I find this whole notion about the “majority knowing what’s best for this game” to be laughable. I mean, even if you could get “the majority” to express themselves outside the rare moments when they suddenly flock to the forums in a flurry of newly created accounts to scream at Funcom over an unpopular decision, and even if you could get them to agree on a particular problem, good luck getting them to agree on a solution. And once they do agree on a solution, what makes you or anyone else think that it would be a good solution? Even if you assume it’s a good solution and you’re willing to bet on it – and make no mistake, every solution is pretty much a bet until it’s implemented and you see its consequences in action – what makes you think it will actually be feasible?

Game design is hard. People often forget it’s hard, and most don’t understand how hard it can be anyway, but that’s okay. We’re all clueless about many things and there’s nothing wrong with that. Where it often goes wrong is when this assumption that the majority knows better just because they have the numbers turns into populism. The majority is worth listening to, but you’re not going to have a doctor repair your roof or a butcher repair your car, and that won’t change no matter how many doctors you have up there or how many butchers you have peering under your hood.

So let’s stop making this thing about “us vs them” for arbitrary definitions of “us” and “them”, and maybe go back to the original purpose of this thread, which is to offer feedback on these rules and explain why we think our feedback is worth listening to.

[The7thCrest]

@erjoh

enough that would require over 300 explosive jars to get rid of it

Really? Upset over 300 Explosive jars? It’s EASY. I can make over 300 jugs myself in a single day solo. You’re just not playing the game at the highest level if 300 jars are hard for you to get.

[The7thCrest]

@CodeMage

You’re right that it doesn’t originally come from PVE servers, and that it’s quite uncommon there, but I’ve seen it a few times over the years. Most of the times it was just a case of people coming from PVP to PVE and building crap like that so nobody can get close. Once or twice, it was a way to connect two bases to have the same refresh timer, and the people who did it didn’t realize they could remove the connections.

It definitely doesn’t belong on PVE. I might not be 100% convinced whether Funcom should moderate overbuilding in general, but this? I can definitely get behind removing claim webs on PVE(-C), with extreme prejudice.

I couldn’t agree more with this point. Any game mode with no building damage should have a 0 tolerance policy for claim webs.

@CodeMage

Those of us who asked for moderation initially, asked for help with griefers and cheaters. On PVE(-C) side of things, griefers would often use the building system to harass other players without any in-game recourse: if someone encircled your base with no-climb walls, there was nothing you could do about it. On PVP side of things, undermeshing and other forms of cheating were are still rampant.

Fixed it for you.

@CodeMage

How exactly do you propose we should change their mind in this case?

Only way to change any company’s mind. Stop paying for alt accounts and DLC and express our discontent on the forums. There’s a reason I haven’t bought another account or the Nemedian DLC yet.

@TeleTesselator

Yup, that’s the general overlay to my expressed concerns here. Basically, we asked them to take care of cheaters and the truly absurd and they came after us .

Now, we’re in negotiation mode just to get enough “freedom” back to be able to go outside at night .

Yea. The reason though is that they are looking at the land claim, and the land claim radius for the “Truly Absurd” and “Us” are not that different. The block spam is hideous, but the land claim for both structures takes up roughly the same footprint.

@LostBrythunian

Also, that idea about certain placeables not claiming land, or having a public foot print

Please be precise with Language here @LostBrythunian. Placeables DO NOT GENERATE THEIR OWN LANDCLAIM.

This is not hostile, just trying to make sure it’s clear on the forums how the game actually works. Putting down placeables without building pieces does not generate a land claim radius.

[Rekt]

@The7thCrest

Placeables DO NOT GENERATE THEIR OWN LANDCLAIM.

This is objectively true. However, placeables do have low decay timers if not placed on something else. What tends to happen is this:

Player wants to light their front yard. Player notices their torches decay super quickly. Player places foundations all over the place in order to maximize decay timer.

Player-san has made a critical error: Player did not pick up the foundations, which do generate land claim

If Player had placed foundations first, then the torches (thus linking their decay timers to the main structures) and then removed the foundations, then everything would be golden. (Special shoutout to @TeleTesselator for pointing this out and to 15 minute work breaks for letting me test it)

[The7thCrest]

Everything @Rekt just said is accurate. But I want to make sure it is clear to everyone when people say “Placeable spam” they mean placeable + blocks spam. Here’s a thought: why don’t we just make torches and similar placables have a longer decay timer on their own to stop the need of placing pieces?

Another thing a lot of players don’t know is… if you stand next to your torch, the decay timer goes up to like 48 hours I thing… something close to that, But unfortunately a lot of players don’t know that and it results in the situation @Rekt described. TBH If I didn’t watch Youtube videos and experimented ad nauseum I probably wouldn’t even understand how the land claim and decay systems work. It’s very un-intuitive and mysterious. Most new players have no idea how the stuff works.

[biggcane55]

How close can another player build to placeables only? i believe if there is say a single torch daisy chained with the ghost foundation trick, it would still prevent the other player from placing a foundation down using its (foundation) radius. Have not really tested myself, but that is what i would summize would still cause excessive claim.

And if we extended everything to have longer decays for these items, it would still lead to another “How many is too many” issue. Esp. torches, being alot of lighting is a b… to calculate for game engines.

[The7thCrest]

@biggcane55

How manyis too many” issue. Esp. torches, being a lot of lighting is a b… to calculate for game engines.

I agree. This is why I think we totally need to move towards a “Budgeting” sort of build limit. Lights should be more restrictive for the reasons you say.

EDIT ALSO: It would still be the same “how many is too many” issue that we currently have, only with less building piece (i.e. claim) spam.

[biggcane55]

Maube thatbis where start. Lighys dont have more than 1 hour decay no matter what. Then you place fuel in them to get up to 1/2 max server setting decay. When fuel is gone, and hour goes, it decays. This would make it hard to spam, or at least more work than trolls would want to do to exploit it.

Then work yourbway backwards thru heavy intensive items to cull unnecesary placeables being a troll tactic.

[Tystin]

Been following this thread a bit. For clarification, although I might have a handle on it; a build such as this would be considered Not Acceptable on official servers as it goes beyond usable and is for decorative RP purposes… correct?

Far left

Middle

Far right, npc camp

All of this is owned by one clan and extends past their base both to the right and left, thereby taking up the beach front, and it grows by the day.

[Taemien]

@Tystin

Been following this thread a bit. For clarification, although I might have a handle on it; a build such as this would be considered Not Acceptable on official servers as it goes beyond usable and is for decorative RP purposes… correct?

Probably. If it was only the first three structures in the first screenshot, it would probably be fine.

Ironically the last time I played on Siptah, that exact spot was used for an admin build to function as an NPC coastal town. It was about 1/3rd of the size shown (the total area, not just the one shown in the first shot) and accommodated and entire server’s worth of meet/greet, trade, banking, quests, fast travel system, and facilitated Age of Calamitous’ faction system on Siptah.

[LostBrythunian]

If the ships’ holds were full of crafting stations and there were dancers on deck, it would probably be ok other than the dock connecting it all.
Just, make it more like a beer commercial.

[TeleTesselator]

@Tystin

Been following this thread a bit. For clarification, although I might have a handle on it; a build such as this would be considered Not Acceptable on official servers as it goes beyond usable and is for decorative RP purposes… correct?

Yes! Two cases documented. On one server the base was wiped, on another server the base was wiped and the user banned for 7 days. No spam, one ship in both cases. In one case the ship was used for workbenches and storage - although he also had a boat-house (condominiums) on shore. In the other case the single ship was his entire base - with an additional small thrall processing outpost quite far away inland.

@LostBrythunian

If the ships’ holds were full of crafting stations and there were dancers on deck, it would probably be ok other than the dock connecting it all.

Maybe now that @Umborls is reading these things. But if we go by the history, then no, NOT ALLOWED.

Same with the scorpion builds… That was the girl’s only base. No other structures. Banned and wiped!

I was asked by the owner of that build to not share it - so I’m removing it.