Funcom apparently doesn’t understand that the players have at least been its customers

I don’t care about Tencent and their alleged mounds of cash, I don’t care whether there’s a tiny company in Serbia running laps around Funcom, or any other of your armchair CEO arguments.

You can spin all kinds of fantasies and theories, but I’m pointing out a cold hard fact: dedicated admins cost much more money than Funcom is spending on these servers right now, and that money has to come from somewhere. I would prefer if that money didn’t come out of the budget that would otherwise be spent on improving the actual game, just because people like you would rather play at being lawyers in a forum instead of playing Conan Exiles.

I am, at this point, sick and tired of your intellectual dishonesty and have no desire to keep trying to reason with someone who cannot see past their own entitlement.

Yes, I’m lecturing people like you, people who pretend that spam is something vague and undefined, or who redefine “spam” to mean a decorative build. The vast majority of players who talk about foundation spam are talking about stuff like this:



So when I say that “people are tired of spam”, I’m talking about crap like that, and most people here have no problem understanding that. Those who care enough to take part in these discussions and yet pretend they don’t know what “spam” refers to are being willfully and deliberately disingenuous.

And it takes a special kind of disingenuity to pretend that “spam” refers to this:
image

That’s why, when I talk to “people like you”, I have to clarify that the rules don’t use the word spam, precisely because “people like you” like to pretend they don’t know what everyone else is talking about.

That has also been explained on these forums repeatedly. I’ll explain it again, for the sake of anyone who actually wants to know.

Most modern games – Conan Exiles included – are server-authoritative games, where the server is the final arbiter of truth and the authority on the state of the game world. The brunt of what the client does is rendering, rather than actual game logic, although some logic does run on the client in order to be more responsive and for optimization purposes.

Now that we’ve established that a lot of the actual logic runs on the server, it shouldn’t be hard to take the next step and realize that the server – just like every other computer – has finite resources that it has to use to simulate everything. I could go into more detail and give examples, but I’ve wasted too much time arguing with you, and I’d rather give those details if someone is genuinely interested, rather than pretending that they’re not only lawyers and CEOs, but also software developers.

Ah, yes. I was wondering when you were going to stop relying on simple FUD and start conflating two unrelated things. :roll_eyes:

“Spread out pieces of foundations”, colloquially referred to as “foundation spam”, are not against the rules because of their impact on performance, but because of their impact on other players’ enjoyment of the game. That’s why the rule that talks about “abuse of the claim system where blocks are placed for no other purpose than to prevent other players’ access to resources and building spot” is separate from the rule that talks about builds “leading to loss of performance both on client and server-side”.

Players have been given plenty of warning and plenty of time. You can adapt or you can keep disagreeing. Eventually, those who disagree will either be banned because they broke the rules, or ignored because they didn’t break the rules. The rest of us will be able to play more comfortably.

When I see you credited on MobyGames, I’ll believe your expert opinion on how easy it is for Funcom to change their code.

I really, really, really hope that people like you put your money where your mouth is and vote with their wallets. If I knew that was a certainty, that alone would be a reason to buy Dune.

5 Likes

They do not. They know their g-portal servers are crap, so is their code. That is why you have flying animals, getting invisible players/weapons, see npcs that you can barrely hit because they port all over the place and their like. This is happening on all servers, if empty or not. This game is running like s… and you will tell me that the players should be the onces that get punished for causing lag for playing their game? You can´t be serious! Building hugh “castles” that is what Funcom shows and encourage people to do in their advertisements for their game. Dlc´s sell better with a video like the last one they did. But reality then turnes out to be very different from what they advertise.

What they do is baning stricktly from incoming reports. And they appearently do not even take the time to get in contact with the person that gets accussed of breaking the rules to see if it is true what they get accussed of or not. Let alone to set a timeframe for players to remove the overbuilding, spam or whatever it is that he/she got reported for. Nobody can tell me, that they come to their own servers and do not see and feel the lag that is going on on all of their official servers. Even if they are just teleporting into a specific area. If server fps are off, there is no way they can miss that.

Truth is, that they do not care how their servers run, all they care for is somehow working of the tons of reports that get in, so they do not drown to death with incomming reports. They are clearly understuffed as hell. But thats is not the players problem to solve.

Oh, there we go again.

Then don´t? Nobody is forcing you to answer me, right? But you see the thing with you is, that no matter what I or others argue with you will always counter back because you are defending Funcom no matter what, because you don´t want certain things to get changed. Changes that would affect your personal gameplay like you stated recently by your own. And that is the reason that no matter how many people would come forward and tell they got banned for no other reason then playing the game you would always say its their fault. You would point your fingers right at them and blame them for doing something wrong just because you don´t want a building limit implemented. There is no proof that they could offer you, that would change your mind about that they must be abusers, exploiters, cheaters or what not. If you would have to admit that Funcom is mass banning people for false reports then you would risk that stuff like building limits would be implemented.

Its not and that is the reason why the ship is spam, no matter if it looks good or not. The player already has a base. The ship simply isn´t needed and has no purpose other than showing off the base builders skills or in the worst case blocking others from building there, therefor its against the tos. Simple as that.

The fact that it is not seen as spam from you and others because its a beautiful ship instead of a simple spread out of foundation doesn´t make it more right. Spam is spam, or should I better say landclaim, no matter how it looks, because it affects the server or other peoples gameplay when they go near that “thing”. And that is the point. Pur and simple. You and others are accusing people of landclaim when they throw foundations around their base but defend a massiv ship that does the same. I call that hypocritical.

Its the same “crap” as your ship. Your ship just looks better. But something looking better doesn´t make it more right or something else then spam.

If you and others are accussing people that a wall of foundations around there base stops other people from building there, then well, I can argue the same for that ship.

Nothing you say in your opening paragraph has any bearing on whether they ban for client-side lag or server-side lag - you simply describe a bunch of server lag and say that proves something. So I’ll just quote my previous post again and suggest you read both parts, not just respond to what you imagine I am saying -

Except that - as @TeleTesselator already confirmed - the person has some of their crafting inside the ship - it is a part of their base and in active use. So, no matter how you attempt to redefine the rules, it is not spam. And, as I already explained to you and @CodeMage already explained to you, the rules do not say ‘spam’ - they refer to ‘building for no purpose other than to block other players’ - so even if the ship was purely aesthetic, it would not be in contravention of the rules since it would have been built for a purpose other than preventing other players from building.

Right - so a bunch of foundations spread across a vast area for no reason other than to prevent other players from building is the same as a ship that covers a small area, was clearly built for purposes other than preventing other players from building, and contains a part of the players active base. And you wonder why people accuse you of arguing dishonestly.

Ah, the perpetual fallback of the failed and dishonest - never mind the many times CodeMage (or others) have criticised Funcom - just claim that’s the only possible reason someone could disagree with you and pretend that somehow invalidates any of the arguments you’ve been presented with.

No one is talking about walls and you know it. A wall around your base made of foundations is obviously different to a spiderweb of foundations extending out into the landscape. And the fact that you can be shown images of exactly that and still pretend we’re talking about walls just highlights the utter pointlessness of everything that you keep posting.

As for fixed building limits - it has been explained so many times that even I am sick of explaining it So I’ll just link you back to the last time I laid it out in detail - less than 20 posts ago). It cannot be done the way you want it to be done and pretending that this has not been explained in detail multiple times is frankly moving beyond stubbornness into obstinate stupidity.

4 Likes

As this discussion (a lot of which seems disingenuous and illogical - or at least uninformed) discusses server performance and server lag in more than a few places, I’d like to add my experiences to the mix.

I’ve almost never seen nor detected any server lag.

I play PvE on an official server in Asia with about 40 active players and usually there are 5 to 15 on at any given time - depending on time of day. The server if highly populated with massive bases sometimes 300 meters or more in one dimension - and you can’t ride more than about 1km or 1.5km without seeing one. And you can not ride more than about 800m without seeing sprawling “spam” all over the landscape(s) in probably 60 to 75% of the buildable areas - not a complaint, just an observation.

I log on almost everyday typically between the hours of 5pm to 5am. In my 6 months on this particular server I have detected server lag exactly twice. It was a long weekend and there were about 30 people on at the same time - maybe more. The lag consisted of occasional and very slight rubber banding and inventory not showing up immediately upon opening containers or benches. There was also some trouble updating follower positioning as I rode through the land.

My base is large approaching huge (probably between 3000 and 5000 pieces somewhere) with at least 3 of of every kind of crafting bench except for a few types and hundreds of planters and poop-boxes - all in use. I have multiple chests at every crafting station filled with both input materials and crafted products. [Weee… I’m rich!!! :smiley:] I’m a single player in a clan with one other person who has only logged on once. I have MAX-1 number of thralls (79?) all kitted out with fancy armor and only one inventory space free each - as well as several improved ice boxes full of babies and unplaced adults of various species.

After a couple of updates ago (maybe it was the 65GB one people like to complain about), I have never again seen a server lag or inventory taking more than 0.01 seconds to display - even though there have been around 30+ people on at the same time - on a few occasions.

So I’m wondering if maybe we all aren’t talking past ourselves and there is no longer any “server problem” - even though people seem keen on dumping all over g-portal (whatever that is). I for one, being on a heavily trafficked server with a large base, MANY thralls, and massive inventories, am just not seeing a problem.

Anyway, I thought I should maybe introject that while we’re all being hyper about server load. -=shrug=-

1 Like

Obviously didn´t made a difference in @Nenneke case or did it? The pictures do not show any evidence of any rule breaking nor that the building has been to big and therefore influenced server performance. And yet, she gets banned because of a report. A report that was clearly made from only one single person that for whatever reason seems to have fun in wiping out whole servers with Funcoms help. And this is not the first case that have been reported that whole servers got emptied out this way.

If Funcom doesn´t want to properly maintain their servers or spend additional money on active Admins then they should close their officials servers for good. So people do not have to go through all that troubles and get banned for no reason other then playing their game the way they think is in line with the rules. I doubt that most people are not willing to remove what is too much in a devs eye if Funcom would talk to the reported people first to avoid a ban, which would benefit both sides. But instead they are reading a report, joining the server, teleporting to the position and start removing the whole base and everything around it regardless if the base itself is the problem or just what surrounds it. And the moment you then come here to this forum and say its not ok for you that funcom is handling their incoming reports this way you get a stamp on your head, because you dare to critisize them. Funcom in this forum gets worshiped like god, and we all know, god doesn´t make mistakes.

The ship is not part of the actual base, its not neccessary to store rum in a seperate building outside the base, if the actual base has enough space to hold it there and therefor it is spam. Well disguised spam, indead, but still spam.

With your argument I could easily say the same with any wall or towers or other builds that I put around a base. Just because I pop some chests or workbenches ontop of something doesn´t make it automaticly beeing a legit building with a meaning. It still prevents others for building there or makes the servers lag or whatever you tell people every time the minute they are posting their complains.

I have no idea why Nenneke got banned. You have no idea why Nenneke got banned. Nenneke has no idea why they got banned - because, and here’s the key point, Nenneke decided the reason wasn’t worth their time to find out (which they have the right to do or not to do).

So pretending that you somehow know what happened seems a little unreasonable, given that the person involved doesn’t know or care.

Fine by me. But there are a lot of people that do enjoy playing on those servers. Maybe you shouldn’t decide things like that for them?

As both @CodeMage and I (and many others) have argued repeatedly. I don’t know why you would imagine that you are the only one who sees this, or that you are the only one to argue it.

This is the same ‘They destroy any base that is reported’ claim that has been made repeatedly. Show some evidence - not evidence that they might make a mistake in some cases - they have already admitted to that, and it has been made clear repeatedly. Show some actual evidence that they don’t examine the situation and just take all reports as a reason to delete and ban. Because you have no evidence of that, and it’s a pretty serious accusation to make.

How many times do I have to explain to you that this is a flat out lie? I have literally just pointed out to you that CodeMage and I have both repeatedly criticised Funcom, and your only response is to make this same BS claim again. Please do me the courtesy of actually reading what I type to you rather than just making things up. As for coming to the forum to complain - if all people can do is come in and say ‘Funcom suck’, then yes, they tend to get pushback. But if they complain sensibly, like for example @Octavian earlier in this thread, then they get sympathy. Much of what you seem to perceive as ‘victim blaming’ is actually people trying to explain how the system actually works and why certain ideas won’t solve it. You repeatedly coming back and trying to pretend that this is people trying to “put a stamp” on people doesn’t change facts.

Yes it is - it is in use and contains workstations.

Nor is it against any rule

Which you haven’t demonstrated is the case anyway.

No it isn’t. And no matter how you try to redefine it, it never will be. But beyond that, as has been repeatedly explained to you - the rules do not mention spam - they state:

And as I have already said - walls are fine, we’re talking about spiderwebs of landclaim - stop pretending otherwise, you’ve even been shown images. Towers are also fine - within Funcom’s definition of whatever is ‘too big’ (a separate issue that I have raised multiple times, in this thread and others, expressing that the grey area is a problem). Nowhere do Funcom’s rules suggest you are only allowed to build a square featureless box. Aesthetic building, as I have now told you at least three times, is not prohibited anywhere by the rules.

Indeed it doesn’t. No one has claimed that it does - but nice strawman attempt.

That is a direct accusation that you are clearly and intentionally aiming at me. Show evidence that I have ever done what you are accusing me of. Not only do you ignore repeated explanations, but now you are throwing around false accusations.

5 Likes

Yeah, this is intellectual dishonesty on your part bro. @CodeMage showed clear examples of what’s being talked about. He defined it for you Officer Obie style; “with colored glossy pictures and circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explainin’ what each one was, to be used as evidence against you.”

3 Likes

You just gave everyone that spams lines of foundations a way out of being banned.

Make 2x2 huts so close as to prevent enemy buildings in between and place a crafting station inside it. Hey, not breaking rules, its a building in use right?

This is demonstrably false. If FC banned simply on reports with no evidence then we wouldn’t see people complaining about cheaters they’ve reported not getting banned fast enough.

I know you’re frustrated by the rewording of the rules, but hyperbolic statements like this do no favors to your arguments.

2 Likes

Not really - the rules have multiple ways to catch abusers - it doesn’t have to be based on building for no purpose other than to block players. But also, this is the point about it requiring a human admin to actually look at the reported building and judge whether it contravenes the rules or not. This is precisely why ideas like fixed build limits will not work, because then people would have the ‘rules-lawyer’ option of obeying the letter while contravening the spirit. The precise reason that they do not have that option is because there are grey areas in the rules and it assumes a basis of human judgement to cover each individual case. The problem with this is that, in the early stages, players are not sure what will or will not break the rules, and even the admins are likely still figuring out exactly how to judge some cases. This, inevitably is going to result in some bad calls. The hope is that these will be as few as possible (but it still sucks for those unfairly judged, even if it does remain only a few).

3 Likes

Of course! If you’re actually building and not just spamming, knock yourself out. And as long as you don’t break the rules, everything is fine.

Building “crafting huts” still requires you to invest more time, resources, and effort than just spamming a spiderweb of T1 foundations. And if you abuse crafting huts to an extreme, you’ll end up wrecking the server performance and fall afoul of a different rule.

See, the problem is really this:

This is the perfect example of what I’ve referred to as “rules lawyering”. And it’s the prime reason why the rules will never be fully specific and detailed as some people demand, because people with this kind of attitude will just create a bunch of completely avoidable and unnecessary busywork by trying to find loopholes.

No matter how much people try to be clever and find a way to circumvent or exploit the rules, Funcom is the one with the last say here. They’ll keep banning those who break the rules and they’ll keep adjusting those rules to ban whatever they consider to be undesirable behavior.

The idea seems to be to make sure people aren’t abusing the building mechanics. On PVE, that abuse is used for griefing, trolling, or just being a dick in general. On PVP, that abuse is used for defense that exploits the flaws of the building system. Funcom seems to dislike that. If that makes raiding “unbalanced”, feel free to discuss how raiding mechanics should be adjusted, instead of insisting on abusing the game mechanics.

3 Likes

Alice’s Restaurant. I always found that an odd but funny song. I still think that the message was nonsense, but meh, a tangent.

That is a point of agreement, I think with everyone here. Funcom does, infact, have that as an option. However, I don’t think that is the best solution to these problems.

Depends on how you define a god. You do have point in terms of a normalcy bias. That is a real issue that needs to be tackled. However, your debate opponents aren’t necessarily as enthralled to the normalcy bias as you imply. Defending Funcom’s actions can be reasonable if you have certain beliefs in your list of assumptions, which tend to be reasonable. Instead of claiming conspiracy, I would recommend that you attack those base assumptions. That will not only be more civil and professional, but also more effect and will show greater competence at debate.

2 Likes

Is there a particular reason to do this? It seems like an odd thing to do. On my private server I like to build bridges through things, but I am not seeing the value of a T1 build.

Genuine query from an ignoramus on this topic, is the use of trebuchets and dragon explosions not sufficient to make this tactic unworkable? Again, genuine ignorance on my part (you can tell I don’t play PVP), thank you for your time.

2 Likes

(singleplayer, so no expert, but I’ve been reading here long enough to have gained some understanding) -
on PVE servers the ‘purpose’ of those sorts of spiderwebs is typically to prevent other players from accessing the area to build or to block resources from spawning. Occasionally it is apparently intended as some sort of path from a to b, or linking two widespread bases - but generally it seems to be about literally 'claiming ’ the land so others cannot use it (and thus no one can encroach too close on your base). (I’ve seen instances of people fully walling off New Asagarth or the Mounds of the Dead so that no one else can access it - on PVE - though I’m assured that’s probably not as common as I think.)

In PVP it seems to be much the same, but with the point of preventing enemies from setting up trebuchet or god altars etc within reach of your walls. If they have to destroy a vast network of stuff before they can get close to you, then presumably you have a lot more time. Leastways, that’s my understanding of it.

3 Likes

Yeah there’s one base on my server that is all tree houses. There are about 25 horizontal “elevators” connecting 30 or so nodes, stations, or whatever you would call them (tree huts?). Each one seems like it has a different function from what I could see. Woodworking in one, smelting in another, storage in 2 or three others, etc. etc. The whole thing spans a huge area but only four access points from the ground - that I could see - well around 30 different trees. :octopus:

It was the 60’s, nothing made much sense… :stuck_out_tongue:

3 Likes

At the end of the day, they know what they did wrong. They just don’t wish to take personal responsibility for it.

It might be time to start flagging these posts for talking about administrative actions. There’s no reason to talk about why someone got banned on the forums. That’s between them and their Zendesk representative.

1 Like

There’s some truth in what you said: I counter back because I don’t want certain things to get changed. Inside the truth, you injected a lie: that I defend Funcom no matter what. I’ve already demonstrated on numerous occasions that I don’t.

That, as usual, is a misrepresentation of what I’ve been saying all this time. Here’s a non-exhaustive list of what I actually have done that seems to irritate people like you:

  • When someone asserts that Funcom is unfairly banning people on a massive scale, I point out that there’s no evidence for that claim.
  • When someone asserts that Funcom does not base their bans on anything except the evidence provided in the ticket, I point out that there’s no evidence for that claim and also that the claim is contradictory with the complaints that Funcom never bans cheaters.
  • When someone complains that the rules are not specific enough, I point out that making the rules too specific would only invite “rules lawyering”.
  • When someone requests numeric limits for “massive building” rule, I explain that the impact on performance is not a clear function of number of building pieces and placeables.
  • When someone says that Funcom should warn people before banning them, I agree that it would be better and point out that it’s not currently implemented and would need to be added to the game.
  • When someone says that they were banned for a specific reason, I sometimes ask why they claim they were banned for that specific reason. Other times, when the alleged reason seems justified in alleged context, I point that out.
    • For example, when Spieleabend claimed Nenneke was banned for building 2 lines of foundations around her base, I didn’t question how he came to that conclusion, because it’s irrelevant: if that was the reason for the ban, then it was justified because the rules were broken.
  • In general, when someone tries to spread FUD by posting hyperbolic or inflammatory claims without any shred of evidence, I point out that it’s, in fact, FUD, and that the burden of proof – which you still don’t care for – is on them.
  • When someone argues with a fallacy, I point that out. When someone is being intentionally and deliberately dishonest, I call them out on it.

Here’s what I try very hard not to do: jump on a specific case and claim it must be their fault because Funcom must be right. That’s what you’re accusing me of, and that’s what I’m pretty sure I haven’t done so far.

Again, case in point: I’ve said quite clearly that the pictures Spielabend provided don’t show anything that would lead me to conclude that Nenneke broke the rules.

What that means is that either Funcom made a mistake, or there are other infractions of the rules that are not shown in those pictures, or there were infractions that could not be determined from any picture but the report was convincing enough to warrant an actual investigation.

I’ve never claimed that Funcom can’t be wrong and that they haven’t made any mistakes. Let’s be honest, it would be stupid to claim that, because all humans are fallible. It would be even dumber to claim that given Funcom’s track record in general: they make a lot of mistakes and, no matter how much I appreciate their efforts, they also don’t handle their communication very well. I’m still salty about having defended fence foundation stacking as a legit example of emergent gameplay, based on the words of one of Funcom’s staff, only to have another Funcom community manager say the exact opposite in that same thread.

But there’s a big difference between “Funcom isn’t perfectly fair with their bans” and “Funcom is banning unfairly on a massive scale”. I’m willing to accept the former without any evidence, but the latter needs proof.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s bullshіt, plain and simple. I haven’t done that and I don’t intend to.

And if you dig up an actual example of where I did that, without misrepresenting what I did, than I’ll go right ahead and apologize for it, because that was the wrong thing to do.

First of all, I’m not actually requesting that anyone should prove beyond the shadow of doubt that they were banned unfairly, because providing that proof is literally impossible. The only way to provide the kind of evidence that would lead to that proof is to get a snapshot of the game database, which is impossible on official servers.

It’s a good thing, then, that I’m not actually asking for proof of individual unfair bans, like you accuse me of doing.

When someone claims that their specific ban was unfair, I don’t expect them to prove it, but I also don’t have to take their word for it. Like I keep explaining to you: if you present a claim, you also have to present some evidence for it. If you don’t present any evidence for it, there’s no reason for me to accept it. And if that offends you, it’s not because I’m wrong, it’s because you’re unreasonable.

Just because you say something, it doesn’t mean I have to accept it. Just because I don’t automatically accept it, it doesn’t mean that I’m claiming the opposite. It’s as simple as that.

But none of that really has anything to do with what you’re saying, because you’re conflating the individual claims with a broad, generalized claim.

I don’t really care too much whether Funcom banned Nenneke unfairly. I do, however, care very much that people like you will take that particular ban as a basis for their claim that “all Funcom’s bans are unfair”.

Not at all. Like I said many times before, I’m against building limits because they won’t actually solve the problem.

If you or anyone else presents enough evidence that “Funcom is mass banning people for false reports”, I will say that I was wrong – like I’ve done on numerous other occasions when I was wrong – and apologize and move on. And I would still be against the building limits even then, because they won’t solve the problem.

The reason why I’m arguing with someone like you about this is because I don’t trust Funcom not to cave in and implement building limits because of your ridiculous rhetoric. @Taemien might trust them not to do that and I respect his opinion, but I’m not optimistic enough. If believed Funcom to be flawless and incapable of making a mistake – like you accuse me of doing – I wouldn’t even be arguing with you. I would trust them not to be swayed by FUD.

4 Likes

I think @CodeMage deserves some kind of award for patience. Wow…

Me neither BTW! Companies ruin their games all the time because of a 1% who are loud and obnoxious! It’s actually a rarity when they don’t.

7 Likes

On PVP servers, the reason is to extend the claim area around your base, so that people can’t build trebuchets close to you. On PVE(-C) servers, the reason is to stop people from building there.

I don’t play on PVP servers, so I can’t offer my own opinion on that, but I can tell you that people who do this on PVE(-C) servers do it for one of the following reasons:

  • They feel entitled to that area and they don’t want anyone building there.
  • They are specifically doing this at the edge of your own claim to harass you.
  • They are doing this in a resource-rich area in order to grief everyone else on the server.
  • They are used to playing on a PVP server and this is just their habit.

Apparently not. Like I said, I have no firsthand experience, but I can follow the logic they use and it seems sound to me: it’s much easier to farm up a bunch of raw stone and wood you need for spam and artificially extend your claim area to the point where trebs can’t do much damage to your base, than it is to log in and find out that someone offline wiped you.

I believe this is a real problem with the raiding game mechanics and needs to be solved. Allowing people to spam is not a solution, though. The mechanics need to be changed.

4 Likes

T1 can be for some an aesthetic look they like. Even T2. on non raid servers they are viable ways to build imo.

2 Likes