I really don’t care anymore what am I banned for, I accepted the fact that we have overbuild and landclaim too much or really whatever.
What bothers me now, is the arguments you use, like “loss of performance” caused by a player is a reason to ban. Or a bit of landclaim around the base so you won’t get trapped by enemy player in your own base for unknown period of time (depending how quickly funcom would react to a report about it). And however I wish to not break the rules I won’t really know the limits, coz the arguments you use are not working the same for every player, and I just simply wanna play uninterrupted and worryless about if my base is okay for the admins, depending on what mood they’re on today, it would be cool to have something you can refer yourself to if you were treated unfair when u tried to follow the rules which are imprecised. Like I am being told now by Mr. Arizer that I cannot build in water because it cause a loss of performancez okay I won’t next time they will come up with something else. Do you understand what I mean? And there is nothing said about these things, and if they really can ban you for this then there should be some information about it I guess, if they don’t ban you for this, then your argument is invalid Mr. Arizer.
It’s not like he has something to decide about it, it’s about the information players get, which like I said are unspecified.
Monstrosity for no reason, Idk if a base reason isn’t enough, especially that it was just one base, clan which is building beside me has 5 of such monstrosities which are half bigger than mine. They’re standing okay. And there isn’t really any other reasons to play on PVE server if not building as that’s all you can do there and this game is too grindy for a single player to be changing server every month and build something new. I do agree there should be limits, I just wanna see and know them and be aware of them. With these rules they should remove pve servers completely.
And as long as there is something you dont like, for example like putting limits on building pieces you can use, I think that’s something I would be happy with, at least I will know limits and will try to adapt, but there will be an actual rule I can refer myself to. This solution they came up with is simply not good, maybe there is someone else who has a genius idea how to satisfy majority.
Basically all this in short. I only wanna know how to avoid a ban after the new changes. And as long as any of you cannot do anything about it I really don’t care what you say, and a reason of ban isn’t any of your business, they remove bases but they leave blocked obelisks on the very same server, this is not something you can fight with this is a fact you can’t argue with me about, and I think if they clear bases they should check the map properly for other abuses like also specify their rules which we are discussing here, or do their job properly if they are doing something like wiping the server to make it fair to players, coz your arguments doesnt really work, and the rules are still unspecified and this is what I have a problem with. I just wanna have it clear and not get a ban IN FUTURE.
In real life as well, not everyone know how to behave in emergency situations unless they’re being told how to behave. So they can just try to get out of these situations not having experience with it and they can even loose their life in the outcome. I can also be trying stuff in conan but I might loose my account in the outcome too. And that isn’t something I would like. And instead I just wish to be told and properly explained how to behave so it’s clear for me. And as you can see here I am not the only one who thinks the rules are not clear.
Strangely, this also applies to buildings in very shallow water, where only one foundation is needed to rise the building above the water level.
In comparison, a base, that is five times the size of the big bases on the water I was talking about, does not cause any lags.(for me) It just pops up without causing issues when you ride past. And this thing, trust me, really is a monster. (It definitely does not go down to the amount of building pieces used)
But of course, I can’t tell anything about performance issues on the server side. It might not actually be a problem. I can only speak from my own experience, so this might be exclusively happening on my server.
Suit yourself. If you neither understand nor care why you were banned, your chances of avoiding future bans are probably not very good.
It’s got nothing to do with the player. Nothing in the rules says Funcom will make their decisions based on which player (or which clan) broke the rules. If you broke the rules, it doesn’t matter if you’re Nenneke or CodeMage, what matters is that you broke the rules.
And for those who will accuse me of nitpicking, it’s important to point out this difference because of this:
Stuff like that is why I “nitpick”, because you’re asserting that they were “treated unfairly” depending on an “admin’s mood”, after admitting that you have no idea why you were banned.
It’s not about who is breaking the rules, it’s about the performance of the game which is different for every player, so what one might consider a performance loss the other is not experiencing any issue, you say this is true and will be happening but what is gonna be taken in consideration is a performance loss on a server side, which we cannot really see or check. That is why I say that “performance loss” argument is a bit of BS and again unspecified if it actually matter and a simple player is not able to check what exactly causes the loss of performance or prevent it without proper rules. Let’s just take an example, I’m not gonna talk if it’s a fact or not, but as it was mentioned before let’s say: If one player built a monstrosity and the other a small hut, but it’s built on the water not on the ground like this other monstrosity and the performance is same even if the number of building pieces is soo different? So I cannot build on the water because I cause performance loss because game find it more difficult to handle on the water? And is that my fault and a reason to ban me? That’s why I think this argument is just BS.
I was talking about base disappearance and server wipe but untouched blocked obelisk. And that they don’t do proper job then if they wipe only part of the map which is breaking the rules.
They will copy and paste a part of the rules again, as you constantly do, and of which I am aware of, yet I still don’t consider them properly specified.
I really don’t know how many times I need to repeat myself, but I used word “unspecified” and “rules” like 30 times already if no more, yet you still talk about everything else
No. That would be ‘client-side’ performance. Server performance will be consistent. A player who perhaps normally has no client-side problems may experience performance problems as a result of server problems, but the server’s performance is not different for each player (though it may give the appearance of being different, since whatever is causing server problems will likely also be causing client problems at the same time).
Yes. That is the problem - players cannot directly view server performance (though I believe there are some commands that can be used that may give you some information - but I don’t know what those commands are, or whether you have to be and admin to use them). This creates somewhat of a grey area, but there are some judgements you can use. If a build is not causing client-side problems, then that at least would mean it is less likely to be causing server-side problems.
I’ve not encountered this problem, but if it is the case, then the rules certainly should specify it as an example. If there is evidence of building in water being a problem, it might be a good idea if people reported it to Funcom - without the information, they may not make the connection themselves (or at least not until a lot more people get banned).
To the best of evidence - they wipe the stuff that is reported - they don’t go looking round the map for other violations. If other violations have not been reported (or are just waiting in a queue) then those violations will remain.
Let me see if I can explain the problem with fixed build limits (since this thread is now 375 posts long, so you probably won’t go back and read where it’s all been said already) -
first, as @CodeMage pointed out - different pieces and different ways of arranging a build can cause different amounts of strain - for example, a 10x10 box (100 foundations, 40 walls, 100 ceilings) will probably cause less lag than 10 foundations with 230 torches - same number of pieces, different workload. Similarly @Taemien pointed out at some point that arranging those same 100 foundations etc in a single straight line will also cause more problems - same number of same pieces, just a different arrangement. So either a build limit would not cover every situation, or it would have to be set so low that it guarantees to prevent the worst case scenario.
Secondly - if a build limit is set to 100 blocks (or 1 million - the actual number isn’t important), then someone that builds 101, but causes no problems will have to be banned, but someone that deliberately builds 99 pieces that do cause problems cannot be banned because they didn’t go over the limit. Basically, if the limit is X, then there are always going to be people that build X-1 and stay within the letter of the rules while doing everything they can to break the spirit of the rules.
So now we are left with a ‘limit’ that either has to be so low that no one can build anything, or doesn’t cover every situation, and the people that want to abuse the build system can still do so, but will now point to concrete build limits as evidence that they weren’t in the wrong. This is why each situation has to be individually judged by a human being - a set of rules won’t actually solve the problem, it needs someone to use their best judgement to try to determine which side of the line ‘grey-area’ builds fall. We can all agree there are blatant abuses - bases that are clearly against the rules - it’s the bases that are on the ‘borderline’ that are the problem. While it remains unclear exactly where that line is, it will be difficult to know for certain that you aren’t crossing it - the best advice I can offer there is to build what is definitely ok - something that is clearly not too big, not using land claim, stacking etc - if you don’t go near the line then you should be in no danger of being judged to have crossed the line.
So fixed limits won’t solve the problem. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem to be solved - while players feel that they don’t understand where they stand in relation to the rules there are going to be problems - and Funcom have admitted this as well - it is a process as Funcom’s admins and the players have to ‘home in’ on exactly what is or isn’t acceptable. I still feel that the best thing would be if Funcom could provide maybe some screenshots of what they consider ‘grey area’ bases - perhaps deliberately built for the purpose - that could demonstrate examples of what is or is not acceptable. But the problem even with that is that some players will then try to treat that as ‘fixed definitions’ rather than some examples, and will again try the same rules lawyering as they would with build limits. The difference here is twofold, though - first - a series of pictures specifically listed as ‘examples’ is much harder for someone to pretend are ‘rules’ than a fixed number is - and second - this option doesn’t punish all players for the actions of the bad ones (and the innocently mistaken ones, let’s be fair).
Yeah well, I am not here just to argue but I’m here because I have a problem with certain things which I described above. And I’m also not here for fun of arguing and picking on someone’s words out of context and undermine their competence for fun instead of sticking to the topic, but most of the arguments which people mentioned above are just not something I have an issue with or care and seems like repeating myself 30 times wasn’t enough for some to understand () as they keep continue to argue all over again about stuff we already talked about But seems like none of you can give me the answer to what I am actually asking for, so it’s kinda pointless to discuss it more if we just gonna keep picking on each other and quote the rules million times and then I will have to explain myself another million times more that I know that, but… it’s still not the answer I’m looking for… etc etc. Good luck to those who still wanna keep arguing and enjoy your day everyone.
Oh actually there is someone who made it more clear. Thank you
I don’t expect funcom to set up limit on building pieces, but yet it would make it more clear definitely, I said I don’t think it’s the best idea, but they don’t pay me for ideas and I don’t have a good one, nor a better one, it was just an example what I mean by making it more clear. But you’re right, some screen shots of what they don’t tolerate would be good to see. Just some more information about it. And the water thing was also just an example, as someone said that it may cause performance loss, it’s obviously not officially confirmed or anything but if was it would be cool, as you said, to inform players about it and about all the other things with same issue and just somehow solve the problem instead of punishing players for doing something wrong without informing them about it.
Yeah, just to be clear though, I wasn’t attempting to undermine your competence. But you have to admit there are millions of situational comedy sketches where something that is obvious to the audience is unknown, unrecognized, or unseen to the straight man. Those are usually the most entertaining - for me anyway. I had some pretty good belly-laughs in this thread. Not at your expense, but just given the situation. I probably shouldn’t have mentioned it though - sorry if I offended.
I think the bulk of the motivation to argue on this topic is precisely not the legal and contractual. I think there are bad takes that try to argue that the legal operatus will support the feelings of those who feel themselves aggrieved. However, the underlying motivation is to argue that they “ought” care what people think. This most clearly manifests when thinking in terms of PR and sales.
Some, perhaps, but not all.
If Funcom is not enforcing the rules flawlessly, then we should reserve some skepticism for their rulings. The real question here is “Why not?” Under what rubric are you operating under that suggests that Funcom isn’t likely to be ruling flawlessly? Whatever justification you end up using will be the same justification that I use to justify skepticism toward Funcom.
Keep in mind that I find it unlikely that Funcom will be more competent in dealing with the chaotic environment than most institutions. Unless you give me a good reason to give Funcom a special exception, I will need evidence that there isn’t a significant amount of bad calls on Funcom’s behalf. This isn’t to justify any one person’s claim, mind you.
Of course. However, that also doesn’t preclude disagreeing with the reasoning behind that conclusion.
Yeah, I could never get into that myself.
Ah, I see, I think.
No prob. Language is frequently deliberately vague and ambiguous (for good reason). Hence, mistakes in communication are almost assured. We aren’t speaking Lojban or Ithkuil afterall.
There is a noninsignificant number of those players, granted. However, I am referring only to those who are so “movable” and only to those improvements that we might call “innovations”. See:
I think that might be a really good idea, actually.
Not everyone has that kind of money, and some of us have accounts with all the DLCs, pre-order bonuses, and twitch stream rewards. Some of us are in both of those categories, and if we were to play on official servers, would want to be able to have those kind of accoutrements. I am not trying to boast here, but only make a point. It isn’t straightforward to reclaim what was lost. I wouldn’t want my account permabanned, that is for sure.
True. It is why I am so militant about people using Hanlon’s razor. It is what separates reality from fantastic delusion.
I would disagree. As mentioned, the utility in anecdotes is to provide counter-evidence against a universal claim. In that regard and only in that regard, they are relevant.
Again, not necessarily. I am not extrapolating from unfair bans, I am simply making a deductive argument based on what I consider reasonable assumptions. I only use anecdotes to confirm a lack of a universal. I am not making any other claim from them, not even the severity of the problem. That is derived soely from the assumptions I have stated earlier.
The fact that it is a slippery slope argument on its own doesn’t make it fallacious, absolutely true. However,you haven’t justified the leap to “If Funcom starts going into more and more details about why they took action against each report, how long do you think it will be before everyone and their uncle is suddenly a Conan Exiles lawyer”. That I don’t see. Again, I am working only within the realm of “innovations”. Outside of that, I don’t see a strong argument fom them at all.
I am mostly critiquing an argument. My only real request is an eradication of permabans. Outside of that, I am providing criticism for the various arguments I see. To be clear, I am no expert, however, the area of mathematics I am most familiar with ('most 'doing a lot of work for a collection of classes that I mostly got C’s and B’s in) is logic. I find myself desiring either to improve arguments that have merit, but aren’t being well formulated, or roaring against arguments that seem to super popular but are actually quite horrid. That is largely the motivation for doing what I do here.
Perhaps, but those asking for the unreasonable get to have those unreasonable demands ignored.
What are, specifically, “Memory intensive items” that may be overused?
Not looking to pick a fight, more looking for a list that can be useful for determining what should be avoided if one wishes to stay in bounds.
Now for the contentious part.
Hard build piece limits are a major source of disagreement. This leaves standards vague on the end user side. Beyound that, the case by case nature of resource blocking bans causes me to think a warning system may be useful. But that is human resource intensive.
With the power dynamic this largely is the result. If the power difference was slightly smaller than the situation would be more akin to what you are referring to. Keep in mind that I am primarily trying to improve the situation for players who are upholding the spirit of the rules, and yet get unfairly banned. In that regard, you could say that there are 5 parties. Those that report bad players and don’t get unfairly banned, Those that report and do get unfairly banned, those that are bad players and don’t get banned, and those that do, and finally Funcom.
I would argue that the subjective element should be minimized as much as possible. The easiest way I see to do that is to remove permabans. That minimizes the number of unbanned bad players and banned good players by making the effects of the ban less intense, while still having it sting enough to encourage good behavior.
That’s almost impossible to tell without running analytics on various code portions. You can get some idea yourself of GPU usage hits by setting up isolated tests where you add a large number of the item or items and record your FPS. Memory usage is a whole’nother animal though and not practically discoverable via client-side tests.
I think not possible nor particularly useful. I certainly wouldn’t expect Funcom to spend any energy at all on documenting this. It just kind of is whatever it is. Don’t be outrageous, use common sense, and you should be fine.
Piece limits sound lame to me, but if implemented I hope it’s by server control panel. I would be more interested in an acreage limit but still, even that seems kind of lame. IMHO if Funcom is actually having trouble with server resources then they should probably cut the number of servers and reinvest the difference into more powerful nodes. Or charge more for the game - or something along those lines.
As far as a warning prior to demolishing your properties that shouldn’t be a problem at all. Many people especially in gamer and other on-line computing classes, love control and enforcement. People would do this for free! They would get the initial complaints from a server they don’t play on, load and fly there in god mode (unable to affect anything), scope out the potential infraction and then notify the user strictly via form letter, the actions they will be recommending to the server operator, if things aren’t remedied by such and such a date. After that date the SysOP looks to see if the trouble is still ongoing and demolishes the structures - or whatever. etc. etc. All free to Funcom beyond creating the special ranks, form letters, and etc.
If this base caused any lag for people, then thoose people should get a new computer. Even the smallest building can cause lag if you have a 10 year old potato that needs 3 minutes to boot up windows and takes 20 minutes to load into any game on low settings. Seriously. This argument is so flawed. Its now really getting hillarious with the arguments here. Funcom knows exactly that their foundations are causing problems do to bad coding. Yet, I do not see any attemps to fix it. Rather we shoulder it to the backs of the player, telling them to build less. How can a company do such shady things and people be ok with that? People should rather telling Funcom to fix their mess instead of blaming players for building to big in a game that is all about building.
Everything in life costs money. But if Tencent, one of the biggest corps out there, has non to invest in their games, then I have to ask how does it come that little companies are able to do it then but Funcom/Tencent apperantly not? How does it come that a small buisness in Serbia is able to provide good quality official servers and administration for a big survival EA title that is hosting way more people on one server then Conan will ever see on 10 of them. Wonders and Miracles. But maybe just because this companies are willing taking the risk to throw more money into their games, because they know exactly how important a good reputation of a gaming company is for their future projects.
The exact same thing how, for example, Amazon is doing buisness since started. Mr. Bezos didn´t make money for the first couple years until he became the nr. 1 bookseller in the world. He knew it upfront but netherless throw the money into the pot, because he was willing to invest into his future and stood behind his idea. Up to today he is still doing buisness this way and is thriving. He is now investing in his new food store system the way once again.
Some years ago I could have might understood this argument when Funcom still stood on his own little toes. But now, with Tencent involved, I absolutly do not.
Which spam? You are lecturing people like me at a daily basis that the word “spam” is not stated in the rules.
Ähm, nein dude. Hier wirds jetzt echt lächerlich. How can something that is out of my rendering distance and therefor not getting calculated cause any serious performance issues for me? Unless the server itself is crap and we all know that this is the case with g-portal servers. Spread out pieces of foundations cause less lag then hugh bases that try to render all at once for obvious reasons.
I disagree. If the reason why “everybody is doing it” is caused by Funcoms own mistakes for years, for example misscoding and leaving it like it without fixing, then the players can´t be taken at fault. They simply play the game with the options they have. If Funcom doesn´t want that, then they can easily change that state by fixing their code and changing certain game mechanics. The bannings happening now on official servers is wrong. Its wrong, because they try to go the easy way instead. The way that is more costeffectiv for them but goes at expense for the actual players. This is not a good buisness practice. Its shady and dishonest and it will put the nail in the coffin for Funcoms future projects, cause people will remember. And they will remember with their money.