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

In the Conan Exiles Admin Panel, there’s a tab that says “Resource.” It includes Stone, Branch, Wood, hides, horns, shards.

If you build and enclose your base with a tasteful wall and leave erratic rock spawns around your base, you’re being a cool builder. If you build promontories to despawn all the rock near your base in order to remove player temptation to “encroach,” well that’s being bannable. I would expect Admin looks for pattern behavior and acts accordingly.

3 Likes

Im not disagreeing with anything youve said. Does Funcom give certain resources more weight then others? We dont know. I was told above that “rare” resources would receive more attention then others if blocked and I asked for clarification on what that person considered rare.

IN THAT CASE that some resources have more weight then others, saying “blocking resources” technically isnt true, because they overlook blocking rocks but draw the line on brimstone. <—vague rule, lots of uncertainty. On Siptah, its far less of an issue with resources spread then it is on EL, I think we can all agree on that. So, it basically boils down to “dont block brimstone on EL”. Simple solution to remove all doubt then - make brimstone lake a no build zone (which has been called for numerous times!!)

Okay we’re getting somewhere. Let’s pretend you’re a middle-aged, particularly fussy and somewhat vain Asuran who very much would like at least one copy of his and his brothers’ NPCs. I am a person who wants to build where I want, with no regard for you or your hopes/dreams. I build a castle above Sinner’s and mess up this spawn. You would, and should, yell loudly and forcefully.

I think the thing you’re missing out on is that the response you get from ZenDesk is directly proportional to the effort you put into it. You might not report an ironstone field being blown away by an animal pen, but you should report if that same player is also despawning my cute little troll of a dancer. :stuck_out_tongue:

There are lots of places to get sulfur. Still, if you want to be on my radar for reporting, disrupt a couple nodes. Players will talk about it instantly.

2 Likes

Blocking content and it should be illegal. Simple.

I agree, so does that make brimstone less valuable then? Makes it moreso along the lines of other common resources?

See why we need better, clearer rules on things like this? Well go round and round for another 100 replies and end up right back here.

We’ll go round and round for another 100 replies because you redefine language so that words mean the opposite of their actual meanings. You call for more ‘concrete rules’ and when asked for an example suggest a less concrete version of the existing rules and then base the actual decision making on humans deciding about the grey areas. And we’ll end up right back here, because whether it is you or someone else, someone will decide to ignore all of the points explained in excruciating detail throughout this thread and claim the same nonsense yet again.

Examples of ‘concrete rules’ -
“Do not block any content ever under any circumstances” (meaning ban for a single stick blocked)
“No bigger than 10x10x10” (meaning ban if build beyond that space)
“No more than 1000 pieces” (meaning ban if build 1 piece over)

None of these will work. We have explained that to you over and over. We have explained why in more detail than anyone should ever need. And yet still you persist in calling for ‘concrete rules’.

You complain about ‘grey areas’ - yet claim that you want the rules to work on a ‘case by case’ basis. As I have already explained till I am sick of it - the grey area is what allows decisions to be taken on a case by case basis. If the rule is concrete then there is no judgement, it is simply a question of did it breach the rule (block 1 stick, go 1 block over the limit etc) or did it not. Whereas the current system allows room for a person to judge on a case by case basis whether this case breaches the rules or not. That is what a ‘case by case’ basis means.

[quote=“DanQuixote, post:483, topic:180741”]
The current rule states:

No, it goes on to list EXAMPLES of what Funcom calls ‘content’. Nowhere does it call this an exhaustive list, or a fixed definition. Dungeons and obelisks are straightforward - if you block them, you will receive a ban. Resources and ‘other areas of the game’ are grey areas that will require a human to judge whether you are breaching the spirit of the rules or not - that is the whole point, as I have explained to you over and over again. It is not a negative thing, it is the thing that allows the rules to have a ‘spirit’ to be adhered to and that allows each situation to be judged on its own merits (case by case) and not just based purely on the ‘letter of the law’ (as a ‘concrete rule’ would be).

Yes, very easily defined - absolutely anything in the game. That is the meaning of ‘content’. If you claim that is a concrete rule, then you are saying ban for blocking literally anything at all, even a single stick.

This is already an attempt, by you, to add further definition. Now you are saying ‘Don’t block content, so long as that content is necessary to play the game’ - that is already extending the rule beyond the little vague bit you claim it needs. And yet you need to extend it further. As @CodeMage tried to show you, you need to also answer in every individual situation.

Two different situations from the same rule under different circumstances. Exactly the sort of grey area that requires a human to judge. Exactly the opposite of a ‘concrete rule’. So now your concrete rule has to say 'Don’t block content, so long as that content is necessary to play the game. You can block rocks, but you can’t block a rock if it’s the only rock on the map". But what if there are only two rocks left - is it still ok to block one of them? A human could judge that grey area, but a concrete rule has to define it. What if there are three rocks left? What if there are 20 rocks left? Your rule has to have a concrete definition that answers these questions (and every single other number - you have to put an absolute number on the minimum number of rocks that have to be left on the map - otherwise it is not a concrete rule and does not answer this situation). You also have to have the same answers for every other resource in the game.

Again, you answer both yes and no - again you rely on human judgement deciding the individual case by resolving the grey area. Again the exact opposite of a concrete rule. The way you have written your answer, it would appear that blocking Nunu is a violation if the person reporting can’t afford 50 feat points, but not a violation if they can. That’s ridiculously subjective.

Silver Mine and Obelisks you actually managed to give only a single answer for each of, rather than hedging in both directions (and later denying that you did it). But for your rule to be ‘concrete’ it needs to actually explain and list those points specifically, otherwise it is reliant yet again on human judgement (which you claim not to want). @CodeMage even tried to explain this to you:

Yet you ignore this and pretend that ‘it’s a simple yes and no’. But you need to have a yes and no for every single situation that could possibly come up. For rules to be ‘concrete’ you need to define every possible situation that could arise and provide the answer for that situation. Anything else is a grey area, requiring human judgement. And the FACT that two of your four examples depend on circumstances and can’t even be defined as simple yes/no answers even by you in the context of the rules version you’re making up, shows how far away from ‘concrete’ your ‘don’t block content’ rules is.

As the question to you pointed out - ‘others will answer them differently’ - you might decide that 100 rocks is the cut-off point, but maybe I am happy with there only being 20 rocks left on the map, but maybe CodeMage would not be happy with fewer than 200 rocks left on the map. Your grey and fuzzy rule has no way to deal with this. It requires a human admin to judge the situation on that server and decide that actually all three of us are wrong and deserve bans for blocking all the rocks apart from a tiny remnant. So once again your rule has proved no different from the existing rule.

This is the ultimate grey area within your rule. ‘Content’ means content - it means anything that is contained in the game. Everything that goes to make up the game is a part of its content. So either there is no way to avoid blocking content, and every build is automatically illegal, or you have to redefine the word ‘content’ as you have attempted to. And then you have to define every possible situation under that or there is room for disagreement - grey area - and the rules have to develop into a complex tome that covers every situation that could possibly come up.

No - this is why it needs to be judged by a human being, on a case by case basis, as it currently is. Otherwise you have to define an answer to that question. And you have to put an exact quantity on how much brimstone can be blocked. And then you have to define exact quantities for every other resource. Anything else is not a ‘concrete rule’. Or rather, it’s not a concrete rule that functions - you can say ‘Don’t block content’ is a concrete rule, without bothering to define situations, but then you have made
it illegal to build anything anywhere in the game. Otherwise, you have to define answers to all these situations.

The simple fact is that your proposed ‘concrete rule’ is no different to the existing rule, except to remove a few examples and make it more vague. Vague is fine by me - I’ve made that clear, but you are claiming you want it ‘concrete’ - yet your proposed rule does not achieve that by any definition.

3 Likes

Funcoms rule.

My idea.

Sheet, almost the same thing, except I removed all the examples that lead to grey areas.

My line in reply is how someone reads a report about a possible infraction. Example, someone reports a player for “blocking a tunnel that leads from point A to point B, see look at my pics, its blocked” (ps, we saw in the forums a person banned for this) Does this build in this case break the “is it part of the game neccessary to access to play the game”? Yes - ban No - move along. My introduction of the line is not creating any grey areas, its a simple question of if they broke the rules. And yes, cases like this, with simple ‘concrete’ rules if you will, still need a case by case decision, since all reports need to be dealt with by a person. Maybe I messed up my explanation on this.

Sorry, Funcom says resources, not me.

Well, actually, yes it would, if we are talking about rules. Server performance and the discussion on that, it wont, but if we want concrete rules, a building limit or a blocking restriction would work. Im not for that though, and is a topic for another day.

[quote=“DanQuixote, post:531, topic:180741”]

Youre looking for grey areas where there isnt any. In the off chance that my rules were to become actual Funcom rules, if that one rock was the only rock in the game, blocking it would result in a ban. If there more then one, more then one way to farm stone, then no, since its not blocking content of the game necessary to play it. See where Im at? The vast majority of people who complain about resource blocking is on EL, the brimstone lake. Is that the only place to get brimstone? Nope, ban worthy? IMO no. D*ck move? Sure.

Side discussion here, we as players need more ways to deal with issues like this, spam - more ways to simple use a weapon and destroy it in seconds. Siege hammer ring a bell? :smiley:

[quote=“DanQuixote, post:531, topic:180741”]

If there was literally zero way to earn feat points in order to bypass a blocked god teacher, always a ban. We as players have ways around that, should one or more be banned.

I was generalizing I guess as to how to answer each of Codemage’s questions, coming from the perspective of “as a player can I handle this and solve it myself before I go running and crying to Funcom”

Then every single rule will always and forever fall into this, and never have any outcome.

Can you still farm rocks in this hypothetical situation? I dont care if you like to bash 200 rocks, and the next guy likes to hit 10, can you still farm stone, is it blocked?

There is literally no grey area in this. Seriously, if its content in the game and you cant block it…its pretty simple as to the answer. How can you come up with a potential grey area from this?

If Funcoms rules were so clear why are people asking for clarification?
If my proposed idea says content, its purely that, content…which ultimately is the same thing as Funcom says, but I dont leave examples that leave grey areas.

No ones making you continue. We know your position, and no one will change it.

The only “grey areas” are in your own imagination. But even that I doubt because you are clearly just making up nonsense arguments and attempting to shift goal posts in every direction possible in an attempt to push a narrative. You know just as well as everyone else in this thread that there are no grey areas yet you still argue that they are because you cannot admit that simple fact as it would end your argument.

Were you by any chance responding to a mirror when you wrote that last line there? Just curious.

2 Likes

Guess thats why we never see people coming to the forums asking why they got banned.

And yet, people keep quoting and replying to me.

And yet you keep quoting and replying to every single person and someone fail to comprehend anything any one of them actually say. :woman_shrugging:

2 Likes

“The first time someone calls you a horse, you punch him on the nose. The second time someone calls you a horse, you call him a jerk. But the third time someone calls you a horse, well, then perhaps it’s time to go shopping for a saddle.”

If there’s a whole bunch of us that “don’t understand” a concept you’re convinced is so simple and clear, then you might wanna ask yourself how you’re failing so hard at explaining it.

But it’s way more likely that you know exactly what’s wrong.

It wasn’t the examples that led to so-called grey areas. Those are still there, with or without the examples. What you call “grey areas” are ambiguities that will always present themselves whenever something is described through natural language.

Your “simple question” relies on the word “necessary”, which is ambiguous. What in-game content is necessary and what isn’t? Ask different people and you’ll get different opinions.

Yes, we all see where you’re at, but the problem is that either you don’t, or you’re pretending not to.

So let’s make it clear: you’re proposing to make a rule more vague, claiming that making it more vague makes it clearer, claiming that the more vague version is easier to enforce, claiming that it should be enforced through logic that is neither implicitly apparent nor explicitly explained in the wording of the rule, and completely ignoring any problematic consequences of that logic.

Let’s unpack this:

  • The original complaint is that the rules aren’t clear enough, because people aren’t sure what is bannable and what isn’t.
  • One of the rules has a non-exhaustive list of examples. Those examples were added to give people a better idea of what the rule is talking about, without reducing the rule to a specific, finite list of forbidden things.
  • Your proposal is to eliminate those examples. So instead of narrowing down the doubts people might have about the rule, you want to expand those doubts. “Don’t block content” is a rule that will make everyone ask “But what is content?” Yet somehow you claim that is clearer.
  • Your reason as to why this is supposedly clearer is that the enforcement logic should be “If it is part of the game and necessary to play the game, then you shouldn’t block it.”
    • This enforcement logic is not specified in any part of the rule. “Don’t block content” does not define that the content should be “necessary”, it just says “content” should not be blocked, without defining “content”.
    • Even if your logic was spelled out the same way you originally did it, it still wouldn’t be clear, because people wouldn’t agree on what is necessary.
    • Your particular definition of “necessary” – which is far from being universal, by the way – is that if there is another way to accomplish something, then it isn’t necessary. Even that is not specific enough and there are ambiguities to poke holes in. For example, I can loot iron from dead NPCs or chests in NPC camps. Does that mean it’s okay to block all iron nodes on the whole map?
  • Even if your rule was clear to everyone who reads it (it’s not), even if the logic was unambiguous (it’s not), the outcomes of applying it would be worse than they are now. Using the logic you described – over the course of several posts, rather than in a pithy sentence you claim is enough – if player A blocked up all but one brimstone node on the map and player B later blocked up that last one, then player B would be punished, because brimstone wasn’t “necessary” before player A blocked it up, but it became “necessary” after that.

Depends on the people. Some don’t know in what way they broke the rules, and would like to know more. Some think it’s unfair that the rules staid the same but their enforcement changed, and they see that as lack of clarity in the rules. Some see others breaking the same rules without getting banned, and assume that means the rules aren’t clear. Some know exactly what rules they broke, but don’t want their actions to have consequences, so they make it sound like rules are unclear. Some have an ax to grind with Funcom, so they’ll take any opportunity to jump on the “Funcom sucks” bandwagon.

There are many, many reasons for this, and a few of them are worth addressing. The rest are just the same garbage toxicity you’ll find on these forums when dealing with literally any other game-related issue.

No, it’s not. You made that much clear. Of course, it would be naive to assume you won’t try to move the goalposts again and pretend that you didn’t say anything of the sort. Or hell, just claim that you said what you said but it means the opposite somehow.

If it were the same thing as Funcom says, then you wouldn’t have to change it, would you?

It’s not like any of us have a lot of choices when it comes to dealing with bad faith arguments. :man_shrugging:

2 Likes

Yes. I made that point to you (repeatedly - it’s almost as if you ignore everything that is said to you). You have not changed anything meaningful about the rule. Yet you claim that your rule is ‘concrete’ and Funcom’s is not. If it is ‘concrete’ then it can be applied without interpretation. If it is not concrete then it is the exact same as the current rule and relies on human judgment and is not concrete. I asked you to provide a viable example of a concrete rule. You have not.

[quote=“Nemisis, post:532, topic:180741”]

Which is how it already works. People read a report and judge whether it is an infraction or not. That doesn’t make the rule concrete, it makes it subjective and requiring human judgement. Otherwise a computer could do it. You are literally arguing for the current rule set, while claiming to be arguing against it. I’ve pointed this out to you before and you continue to ignore it and claim that your version of the rules is magically more ‘concrete’ while being exactly the same as Funcom’s version.

[quote=“Nemisis, post:532, topic:180741”]

As I have already explained - Funcom says ‘resources’ as an EXAMPLE OF CONTENT, NOT A DEFINITION. Removing the examples does not change the meaning of the word. Content still means content, still means content, still means content. If you do not define content (in your case redefining it to mean ‘only necessary content’) then it means all things contained within the subject. The content of a game is all things that game contains - you may wish to limit that list, but then you need to define those limits. Which is the problem that has been explained to you over and over, yet you still pretend does not exist. For a concrete rule, you need to define each of those limits, precisely, so there can be no argument over them. Either someone has breached the rule or they haven’t breached the rule. If you cannot do that, then it is not a concrete rule, no matter how you attempt to twist the language. And anyone judging the evidence from a report should be able to see ‘yes they clocked a’ or ‘no the did not block a’. But that means that you have to define whether or not blocking ‘a’ is against the rules - and if you don’t explicitly define that then the rule remains vague and in need of human interpretation.

[quote=“Nemisis, post:532, topic:180741”]

You literally present two different answers. ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. They are opposing answers and you claim both can be true depending on the circumstances of the specific situation. That is exactly what a grey area is.

And again, the judgement call is exactly what the current rules already do with regard to these situations. It is your ‘concrete rules’ that would need to define an actual answer and can’t.

So already (as I have had to point out multiple times and you still don’t appear to understand) - you have had to change your rule from ‘Don’t block content’ to ‘don’t block content that is necessary for playing the game’ - showing that your rule is fluid, constantly changing and the polar opposite of concrete. And now you have to define ‘necessary for playing the game’. Everyone plays Conan for different reasons and has different requirements for the game - different things that are necessary for their enjoyment. So you now need a ‘concrete rule’ that takes account of all these different necessities, and protects all of them. And you have to define each of those situations.

Except that Funcom (and seemingly a majority of players) consider it to be banworthy. So you have another area of interpretation poking a big hole in your so-called concrete rule. So now you need a rule that states either it is or it isn’t ok to block Shattered Springs. (And no, before you try to take this out of context and pretend it means the opposite of what it does - Funcom does not have the same problem with its current rules because they have grey areas and human judgement built in - as I keep having to explain to you, that’s the point - that’s the difference between a subjective rule (Funcom’s rule, which can work, because it uses human judgment) vs a concrete rule (what you claim to have come up with but haven’t come even close to providing).

[quote=“Nemisis, post:532, topic:180741”]

No. And it is unbelievable at this stage of the discussion that you can claim this. I can only view this as dishonesty at this point. ‘Concrete rules’ cannot be open to interpretation and argument over whether or not something breaches that rule - it is a black or white situation where, given direct evidence, there is only either guilt or innocence. Subjective rules utilize grey areas and human judgment to interpret whether or not something breaches the spirit of the rules. You are the one calling for concrete rules. Therefore the examples you need to provide need to actually be concrete rules. There could be argument over whether a rule is a good rule or not, but under your system it would have to be clear to everyone how the rule applies in every given situation - there cannot be any guesswork or judgment calls. Yet you judge the Brimstone Lake to be fine to block under your rules, whereas most players would consider it not fine - and your rules fail to set in concrete which is the correct answer. And that’s on one of the biggest most obvious. You need to define the answers to every possible question where players might have different opinions - not necessarily to agree with all of those opinions, but to tell them which answer is the rule.

Funcom’s rules are subjective - they do not fall into the same trap as yours, because they state it is about following the spirit (‘don’t be a douche’) rather than specific details.

You are completely ignoring the point being made. Under subjective rules (current system) the situation can be looked at server wide and judged on ‘is there enough rock left’ - but a concrete rule system would need to define an exact amount of rock that needs to be left - otherwise it is not a concrete rule system, it is a subjective rule system. And the example I gave was illustrating the point that different players will disagree on where exactly that line should be drawn - you may consider it possible to still harvest rock if there is only a single rock left - after all, it’s still harvestable, but a different player might not consider that acceptable. You claim to be removing ‘opinion’ as a measure of what is or isn’t acceptable - then you need to define the fixed answer in every one of these potential situations - otherwise your ‘concrete rule’ isn’t concrete.

[quote=“Nemisis, post:532, topic:180741”]

By you deliberately taking it out of context and ignoring the pages and pages of preceding argument. It is the ultimate grey area in your rule, because you either have to redefine ‘content’ as not meaning everything that is contained in the game, or you have created a rule that says ‘blocking anything at all even slightly is illegal’. So, as I have explained before, the only way your rule can be considered concrete is if you are saying all building is illegal. Since you claim not to be saying that, but your rule fails to provide concrete answers to any of a myriad of situations without having to be further defined and have additional rules added, then your rule is not a concrete rule.

I didn’t claim Funcom’s rule was ‘so clear’ - and you can obviously see that, since you quoted the text in which I didn’t say it was clear. I said you made it less clear - which is a statement of fact. Taking a rule that states something and then provides a couple of examples, keeping the same rule and then removing those examples is removing detail - that makes it less clear. The fact that you keep pretending ‘don’t block content, here’s a couple of examples of content’ is less clear than ‘don’t block content - this is absolute, but we won’t give any examples’ frankly shows that you are either dishonest or don’t understand the words you are writing.

And now even you admit that your ‘concrete rule’ changes nothing - except for your final claim that removing examples removes the grey area - it doesn’t, it merely broadens the grey area to encompass exactly how each person reading it might interpret the word ‘content’. Without defining what content is, and exactly which parts of the game fall into that category and which don’t, you have provided no clarity at all.

Nice little strawman at the end, suggesting that I am somehow impossible to persuade of anything. In fact, if you go back and read other exchanges, such as with @Dogoegma, you’ll find that I can be persuaded by reasoned argument. However, I am not persuaded by attempts to redefine the meaning of words so that they mean the opposite of their actual meanings. A concrete set of rules would need to be a concrete set of rules. You have offered no such thing, only the same subjective rules as already exist and an attempt to redefine the meaning of concrete as completely subjective.

As for why I continue arguing - that too has already been explained to you in detail - Funcom has a history of seeing bad arguments spammed on the forums and only skimming them before acting on it. It is entirely possible that they will see people like you arguing for ‘concrete rules’ and decide to enact some actual concrete rules and wreck the game for everybody. And it’s only if there are enough comments pointing out that your example of a ‘concrete rule’ is in fact the same subjective rule and you are merely redefining what ‘concrete rule’ means, that they might be persuaded to keep their existing rules and allow players to continue playing the game.

4 Likes

Don’t worry, they’re not going to use this thread for any sort of policy, rule, or feature changes. I’m pretty dang sure about that.

3 Likes

I’m relatively sure too. But then, I was relatively sure that one loud troll complaining about the karmic effect wouldn’t have an impact either…

1 Like

I don’t know if you see that but you kinda answered yourself, you picked on me because I assumed that Funcom is banning people depending on their moods, and later you say you don’t understand why they do that and not this and that some stuff should be improved.

Well I also don’t understand. I guess there is a reason, but I also don’t see it. And that’s why it makes me feel like treated unfair and have my assumptions. I don’t say I don’t deserve a ban, I said that I didn’t take it to consideration that they will be more strict with some rules, but it is unfair to me that I get a ban for breaking the rules, and they don’t get a ban for breaking rules, and I can argue what I personally think is more of an abuse, either my abusing building system or like in this case them abusing building system AND meshing, but that’s not the point.

The point is that these people are still playing on their main accounts, and their alter accounts and not being punished for breaking the rules, which was obviously reported to Funcom… and I ask myself, why me and not them? How is that fair…

I also mentioned above, that these guys are using alter accounts to play and spam landclaim and block obelisk, because they are very well aware of Funcom banning system, and they do everything to avoid any punishment. That I was lucky that I got a screen shot of their accounts switching between two clans, one which is meshing and one which is not, the character name this guy used is even the same, the clan names were the same too, had maybe one double letter as you can’t have identical, but like I said I got ss of them switching in between these clans, I got screen shot of these guys talking on discord too with this clan name, and character name talking about reporting us, meshing, and being happy that admin is gonna check and wipe people’s bases. As it was from discord it might have been unnecessary and not taken seriously in the report, but it’s always some addition, to show this person’s character. And even if I wasn’t able to prove that this is the same person, another question is, then why even the meshing clan wasn’t banned?

And now, I guess we all know that people who have alter accounts definitely didn’t buy conan twice, or people who have 5 accounts like this guy I was talking about, because of the offending words he was sending to us and other people I know that I managed to ban his PSNs twice, yes two PSN accounts, I met him more than a year ago and all this time he keep just talking crap and trying to make this game disgusting for others. So I guess we all know as well that he definitely didn’t buy and pay for conan 5 times. And why is that? Why I also can check if he is still playing or not? Because I can also make an alter account, and as long as my main account with conan is on my PS and it’s is registered as main PS I can use games from this main account on other accounts too, it’s kinda family friendly thing, for parents and kids but as everything, can be abused too :woman_shrugging:t3: and yeah, I also do use another account and log in and check, and can keep “playing” I can do that obviously, I can also abuse system making another 10 accounts and don’t care about ban, as I can always make another one. But I am not like this… I’m not like this guy, and even if I log in to check if he got a ban I don’t really play either, I said I have lvl 13 on this server he was meshing, and except a bedroll and campfire I didn’t place a single thing on this map. I get a lot of information from people who have enough of him too (even my enemies! Coz they also are human beings and have some common sense) also many are writting from their alts and tell me that they saw him on this and that server so I know where to check. And this is another server where is not following the rules, and yet not being punished for it… and how if we send reports? And there is another question, maybe they have someone friendly in FC administration? Who knows…

But honestly I want my main account, I wanna play fair, I want be fully aware what is allowed and what not in the game so I can avoid breaking rules and be aware of them, and so my base doesn’t disappear a week after I built it and wasted my time. Who like to waste their time for nothing? I was saying that I wish Funcom could specify some stuff which is unclear for me and many others, and that even if I play fair and I’m not breaking the rules that I can count on Funcom to help players which are trying to play fair against those who obviously and intentionally are breaking rules and are bullying others with cheats. But so far so I see they let those cheaters go, so that didn’t change, they will focus on people who didn’t catch up on last updates with building system… and it’s sad… :pensive:.

And honestly despite the cheaters, I really can deal with people blocking obelisk, I can deal with people’s huge landclaim, I can deal with people undermeshing, there is always a way to get rid of that, knowledge of exploits helps you to defend yourself from them or be aware of weak spots. For example, before when people knew how to mesh into other’s bases I knew how to build to protect myself from it, etc. You can also raid a mesh, and if there is no profit for me to do this and I might not get loot by destroying mesh, it’s possible to do it, not everywhere they can put bubble inside the mesh to protect themselves from Avatar, and if it’s outside the mesh you can always destroy it. THERE IS ALWAYS A WAY.

And no these guys wasn’t meshing on the server I played and got banned, if you wanna say that I meshed to raid them and this is a reason to ban, they joined already a full server where it was a miracle to log in as it was constantly 40/40, server with a lot of action, 10man clans, loads of proper bases, hardcore server for hardcore players, we had fun there without cheating. And these guys they knew most of us from other servers, we raided them, our enemies raided them too, not only once, so they reported us out of hate and week later whole server got banned, I am assuming because of overbuilding and too big landclaim. And meshing doesn’t work like before, and you are not really able to mesh into place which is landclaimed by someone else or it’s area where you cannot build. So you can just throw an avatar on it and that’s all, no loot, no profit. Unless it’s high up and it falls down out of a mesh.

But when Funcom is coming in, and getting involved, they only ban one side… ? They wipe my legit base, which okay has too much landclaim, but they don’t wipe the undermesh, and blocked obelisks and spam landclaim… when all of that was reported, how is that them doing a proper job? This is not me trying to excuse myself, I am just wondering why these guys are not being punished too?

1 Like

Scroll up to the top of the topic, there is such information and I made and a screenshot and cut out the interesting bit.

@diego126 I really wish I could help you out but none of these people here really can do much about it, and neither do I. And I also don’t understand Funcom’s actions. That is why I don’t really play now, I can play with my alt, but just to waste my time and have my base wiped again…? Because they didn’t clarify themselves and their rules but they are being more strict with them? And strict only to casual players not for undermeshing tryhards… I’m sorry you’re worried, I am sad coz I’m worried too… :disappointed:

2 Likes

Technically (and only on a technicality, otherwise it is solid as far as I can see) that isn’t correct, so @Nemisis has room to maneuver here, however, given the argument provided, I am skeptical that this is the direction that he is going in. I think the claim that is being presented is that there are some ‘obvious’ assumptions that make any sufficiently explicit rule ‘concrete’. The problem that he is running into is that, not only is this unlikely to be true, but more importantly he hasn’t justified that this claim is ‘obvious’. Personally I blame positivism, but that is a digression.

The problem of perception is incredibly challenging for computer science. It is fascinating when the ability to perceive is taken for granted. It is extremely challenging to tabulate and calculate a function to determine whether a player “has the ability to do X” except in the most trivial of cases. What variables are we considering? Are we going to weight player skill? Set a specific bar of skill? In the exiled lands how much weight does on oncoming sandstorm provide to the calculation? How much processing power should be dedicated to what would probably have to be a neural network? To little, and it won’t be effective, to much and it will cripple gameplay. How much of a gap between the two, if any, could we exploit? Would we have to increase minimum computation requirements to even play the game? What would be gained?

1 Like

I appreciate the shout out. Thank you.

1 Like

Cool, thanks for that. I wasn’t expecting to have such a large number of replies. Heh, the more you learn and all that.

1 Like

I think it would do best for your argument to structure it like so.

P1) Most PVP are attempting to exploit some mechanism of the game to win, by definition of a competitive game
[justification]
P2) The rules are sufficiently vague that it is likely that most players violate some of the rules some of the time.
[justification]
{I would also point out that there is likely a bias toward sophistication as being a “superior” use of exploits (ie an exploit that requires a great deal of creativity and mental acuity), from P1). You could point out that in competitive games, generally, either there is an exploit (like a winning strategy) of some kind or the game is purely based on chance. That kind of reasoning could greatly support this premise (though you also have to connect it to Funcom’s rules after that).}
P3) There is a probability distribution in which any player is likely to be banned from the mods given them being reported. Given P2), this is bound to happen given enough reports, to any player regardless of “fair play”.
[justification]
P4) Players about to lose are more likely to unfairly report other players.
[justification]
C) Many/most bans are thus unjustified
[justification]

This seems to be a decent enough argument structure, and I think that if you could show it true, would prove your case. I think Premise 2 would be the most difficult to prove, but you might have some insight from playeing PVP that might help there.

1 Like