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

I see. That only follows if we assume that FC is indeed misusing the ban system and banning players who are not in violation of TOS.

I’m not willing to make that assumption without some proper evidence. I’m hopeful that someone will provide some outside of anecdotes, that isn’t presented in a way that gets the thread locked, so we can properly move this discussion forward. Although, I admit I am also doubtful it even exists.


From what I can see, this assumption that they misuse the ban system comes mostly from the Appeal to Tradition fallacy. “We’ve always been allowed to build like this” is true, but that doesn’t mean that it was always okay, it just means that it wasn’t enforced until recently.


Yeah, so it can be done. The reason would be so that it doesnt lead to full clan bans for ONE person who builds spam. To me, if they have the ability to do it, and dont…tells me that Funcom doesnt care if there is 1 guilty or 10, 10 will get punished. I disagree with that, and it shows laziness and a disregard to its players.

Now, the reason why I call it lazy and a disregard is because Funcom chooses to have its own servers, chooses to implement a set of rules, but skips on the third step about proper enforcement. Having the building logs would solve that issue and ban those responsible . Seems easy, straight forward and the right thing to do.

That would be assuming that one admin would be actively logging in and monitoring constantly. Which is not what I think is needed (although it would be nice, and end alot of reports) An admin that can monitor reports from alot more then 3-4 servers daily (since we know from Taemien that 95% of reports dont need action)

If they sell that many more new copies they can afford to hire a few people till it quiets down. We know the approximate population on officials at the current player count (its been discussed on here before). Think of it like this:

You have job X that is done by worker Y. You get more work assigned to you, so work is now XX. It makes sense that worker Y cant do job XX at the same efficiency as when it was only job X. Two ways to fix this: Leave it as worker Y does job XX and work piles up leading to errors or work not getting done (we know who that frustrates!) OR hire another Y, so now YY does job XX at the proper rate.

To me it boils down to if Funcom wants to host its own servers, AND have a set of rules on it, they NEED to police it properly. I think failure to do so is not the proper course of action.

1 Like

Ill tell you that as soon as you tell me how to monitor livestock health, create feed programs, feed assessments, identify health issues, know treatments, be able to administer said treatments, know when and be able to deliver baby animals when they are unable to do so, resuscitate new born animals, operate heavy machinery, be able to fix motors and hydraulics, trouble shoot electrical issues, change bearings, rebuilt motors and seals, service and maintain machines, calibrate GPS units, calibrate seeding machines, seed crops, care for them, watch for disease, calibrate harvesters, harvest at the right time and at the right moisture, store products safely and under proper conditions.

You see where Im going. I dont expect a person on the internet to know exactly how to run and operate a cattle and grain farm. But I can ask another farmer. You will have a basic idea of how things are done, but not HOW to do them, in what order and at what times.

Why would you expect me to know coding and database things if I havent taken the schooling to learn it? I can have some basic ideas about things, same as you with real life farming.

Not everyone is an expert in everything.

I agree battlemetrics isnt 100% accurate with somethings, but it does still track the number of players on a server. This is thanks to Funcom pulling out of Steam ID’s, and making their own Funcom ID. It was at this point that players lost the ability to track other players (which was great for tracking exploiters and cheaters, although private servers never had to worry about that because they can act faster) When Im referring to the server ranking and player counts Im using the information on the server I play on…and base that on how many players play how many hours and watching the server rank climb.

If one player plays 4 hours a day, and the server rank is 500, watching 6 people play the same time or more, and watch the ranking climb. This is what I did, and my server was about rank 800-1200 with just one player depending on time played. Now, with about 5-8 playing actively, it jumped to under rank 100.

I can use this information that if the top 100 servers have about 6-10 active players and up (as server rank goes closer to 1 of course) and a rank 1000 server has 1 semi active, you can easily figure out that if funcom has “1000’s” of servers, there is alot of them with 1 player or less. Those servers wont have reports. Thats my point.

Well, time to toot my own horn on this one.

It wasnt Conan, but Arma 3, a number of years back. I grew in the ranks of a community to the point where I became leader and the host of our Wasteland server. We grew it to the point where it was the #12th Arma server in the world, #2 Wasteland server in the world and #1 in North America. We had over 150,000 unique log ins over the course of about 6-8 months. At any point in the day, we had 3 admins online, that could spectate, but one 1 would be able to actually kick, ban, spawn things, etc. All volunteers on a server to which I paid for.

So yeah, it can be done, and Ive done it.

1 Like


1 Like

Except you didn’t really need that information to draw that conclusion. Funcom has been explicit about that since they published the first version of their rules. The section about “Personal responsibility and clan membership” has been in the rules since the beginning.

Or reluctance to prioritize a feature that will mollify the minority of players (those who get banned by association) over the features that the majority of players want, such balance, new content, etc. To me, it’s a sign of regard for the players that they don’t waste their limited time on stuff that will appease those who can’t be bothered to read the rules and choose their clanmates with care. :man_shrugging:

So, let me get this straight. They sell so many copies that the existing admins get overwhelmed and people start complaining again. Then they go through the process of hiring enough new admins, while the people are complaining about server administration. Then they train those new admins, while the people are complaining about server administration and the mistakes the new admins are making. Then, eventually, it “quiets down”, meaning that either: 1) the population stays the same and now they have to keep paying these people that they didn’t have to pay before, which brings us to the original question of “who’s going to pay them”, or 2) the population falls again and they … fire the “surplus” admins?

And that’s under assumption that this is all gradual enough, instead of a population spike we see every time there’s a free weekend or some other marketing promotion.

To me it boils down to Funcom offering a free service that comes with a set of rules that anyone can read, and then enforcing those rules the way they described it in the same document that describes the rules themselves. It also boils down to people calling them “lazy” because that free service does not match their expectations.


just wait it comes for you, you will understand better, in meantime you can just do some research about what is happening very recently.

Oh, for the love of Mitra, is this Twitter? I really didn’t expect “they’re coming for you” and “do your own research” here…


Yog runs Twitter, your prayers have gone into their suggestion box at the bottom of a nearby Rift.

We had Admin visit our Official Server. It was like a Passover. Believe me, one of the builds is ridiculously expansive, yet nothing happened. I think unless you’re really, really pushing it, you’re going to be on the safe side. YMMV


For me personally, I’m not sure if it is fair to say that they are misusing the ban system but instead I would like to clearly understand what is permissible or not. I’m assuming that having a large base can violate TOS but what is that limit in that on our server some bases were wiped and other seemingly equally large bases were not.

As for evidence, yeah that is not going to happen since everything is wiped and we are banned. That being the case you can take us at our words or not but lets assume what we are saying is true and that our base was not doing the obnoxious foundation spam that in some cases would cover entire grids or blocking resources. Instead we just had one very large base and a number of other medium/large bases some of which were wiped some of which were not (once again, the only ones wiped were the ones being raided). In that case/scenario what are your thoughts on being wiped for just having a very large base (no spam or blocking)?

I agree that without clear evidence it is hard to show you what we are talking about therefore my simple request (again) is for some way to see whether you are approaching the invisible limit to avoid it from happening to others in the future.

For those of you who feel the need to defend Funcom no matter what (lacking the same evidence) and in effect implying that we are lying, I hope none of you come back to this forum in the future with the same complaints if it happens to you. In our case we played on the server for over three years, worked with Funcom to ban real cheaters, built a large community of friends, were fighting/reporting the recently arrived cheaters, and truly did not think we were breaking any TOS when suddenly out of the blue “poof” everything was taken away.

After the ban expires I probably will pop back on but I’ve already heard from many friends/fellow players that they have removed Conan and given up on it based on what happened.

1 Like

I’m one of those “defending” Funcom in this thread. I can’t speak for others, but I’ll tell you where you’re wrong when it comes to me.

For starters, I don’t defend Funcom “no matter what”. There are things that Funcom should do better and I agree with them. For example, they should communicate better about why someone got banned, without getting into unnecessary details. “You were banned for abusing the building system” is too generic. It would be better to say something like:

  • “Your clan was banned because of the claim spam around the base east of the Tower of Bats”, or
  • “Your clan was banned because the base at the Oasis of Nekhet was built in a way that affected server performance”, or
  • “Your clan was banned because the base in the Godsclaw Pass blocked resource spawns”, or
  • “Your clan was banned because of fence foundation stacking in the base near the Corner of Bones”

This is something they should do when people request ban information.

Second, when I “defend” Funcom, I’m not implying that you’re lying. “Lying” means you’re intentionally spreading falsehoods, like that nice chap who claims that Funcom didn’t do a single update to improve the game, ever.

I do believe it’s possible that you don’t know how you violated the TOS. That doesn’t mean you didn’t violate it, or that there’s anything wrong with the TOS. At most, it means that they should communicate more clearly, like I said above, because some people are too used to building in ways that were tolerated before and now they aren’t anymore.

Third, most of the complaints here aren’t as reasonable as yours. The thread is full of entitled demands, ridiculous claims, conspiracy theories, and people simply refusing to accept facts because they don’t like them. Oh, and name-calling. Lots and lots of name-calling. I don’t speak out against that because I have an overwhelming urge to protect poor little Funcom. I dispute things that are wrong because they’re wrong. Of all the names I’ve been called here, “white knight” comes closest to the truth, which is that I indulge my quixotic impulses for my own stupid, pathetic reasons :stuck_out_tongue:

Lastly, if I do happen to go through the same as you did – in other words, if I get banned for something and all my efforts to get proper feedback fail – you bet your ass I’ll come back to the forums and post about it. I’m not ashamed of saying “yeah, you were right” and eating crow. If I was wrong, I was wrong, and it’s just as important to me to admit it as it is to argue against what I think is wrong.


They ban clans because how easy would it be to have 1 alt account as member and do all the spamming? Also, being in a clan means whether you did the deed or not, you benefit collaterally. By making all members responsible for even 1 of thier trolls, they are using peer pressure to help suppress trolling by the ones that truly care about thier clan mates.

Our clan motto was don’t write checks we all have to cash.


I take screenshots of my builds. Could you link some research for me so I can become better informed on this subject? I am happy to join your position, that FC is unfairly banning users, if a compelling argument can be put forth.

So if a base is wiped by FC, with a Zendesk confirmed reason of “build abuse”, and it did not spam nor block, my first question would be - did it hinder performance?

This seems to be your assumption as well, please correct me if not, given your statement from earlier.

You accept that the base could very well have broken TOS, but being that “performance hindering” is arguably the most subjective measure we have in the TOS, it is difficult to know with certainty that is exactly why it was demolished. That is why you are advocating for some form of limits, to mitigate this subjective uncertainty.

I dont think there is anything wrong with taking this position. The issue is that so far - while there have been numerous arguments as to why this is a net negative, the only positive arguments are reliant upon emotion appeals. Which is not universally compelling. If there are people in favor of limits (in any form or fashion) I wish we had more concrete translatable arguments as to why they are a good for a majority of players.

Come on… It was so good up until this. No where here is anyone whiteknighting Funcom that I can see. There are people defending the basic tenants of reason/debate and holding arguments accountable. Asking for proof IS NOT calling someone a liar. Lying means willfully deceiving someone - a person could very well be ignorant of facts or lacking understanding and deceive others.

Also, no one has to prove that FC isnt corrupt. If you are making that claim the burden of proof is on you, not on others to disprove. “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens

If you come here with compelling evidence that Funcom has unfairly banned/destroyed you, and people still defend Funcom - those are your fanboys. Until we get to that point, its just responsible debate practices.


Aww HEEELLLL no! :exploding_head:


Yes, that is what Funcom promotes, is banish 10 for the acts of 1. Im disagreeing with that when the option is there to spend a bit more time on certain offences (building/spamming in this case) to determine which of the 10 are guilty. To punish 10 for the acts of 1 in my mind is wrong and should be changed. We disagree that its a priority or not, I just think it should be.

And one could argue the content that is being brought out caters to a playstyle and not another. PVE players want more PVE content and some bug fixes done. PVP players want exploits fixed. Two different playstyles, two different routes on how to move forward. Do they just say “eh this side doesnt have many players, we wont focus on that anymore”?

Yes, thats what you do when your business spikes up and down. Happens alot. Heck, check out the job applications for Funcom and see how many are listed as temporary…hint, its the vast majority. If they can have a temporary job for am “Influence Manager”, they can have temporary teams to deal with reports.

Or is an influence manager more important then dealing with reports?

They get called lazy when they offer a server, rules, then ban entire clans for the actions of one (despite the fact they say it). Im sure some will say at this point if I dont like it to get my own server and run my own game (oddly enough I would if I could get an EA copy of the game pre launch of the North expansion). Dont have the team to act on the rules properly? Temporary jobs.

1 Like

Find any game out there that people cant have multiple accounts. Its easy if you have a laptop. And, there is no solution to stopping it.

1 Like

I don’t know, because that’s a hypothetical. Let me know when there’s a huge disparity between the number of PVE and PVP players, and then we can take a look at just how much that disparity affects the way they prioritize their work.

For all I know, it might very well be. “Influence manager” sounds like something that would indirectly bring new people to the game, who would buy new copies and DLCs. You know, stuff that actually keeps the game alive.

At any rate, it’s pointless to keep discussing this. This insistence on how they could hire more temps to provide the level of service you would normally have to pay for, that’s exactly what I was talking about earlier.

Like I said, there’s a group of people who just don’t want to understand that they’re being offered a free service; that if Funcom invests more than a certain minimum of effort into dealing with people who make that free service worse for others, they do it as a courtesy, not something they’re obliged to do.

No matter what arguments are presented to them, that group of people will keep moving the goal posts, because they feel entitled to more. Funcom is banning the whole clan because the game doesn’t tell them which player built what? They should read the logs! The logs can be huge and getting the information from them can be difficult? That’s their job, they’re lazy! There are too many servers for them to spend that much effort on each report? They should hire more people! Who’s going to pay for that? Maybe they should have thought of that before hiring “influence managers”!

:see_no_evil: :hear_no_evil: :man_shrugging:


Then go do it. Cause its going to be the only way you’re going to be able to play multiplayer with an attitude like yours.

One problem here is that your are taking the position of skepticism towards critiques of Funcom without justifying the skepticism. What reason do you have to give Funcom such trust? Funcom is an institution that has privileged access to information outside the ability of regular people to acquire. You are implicitly increasing the burden of proof in Funcom’s favor by default. If Funcom were to do something bad, it is not obvious that an outsider could show that this is the case with this level of scrutiny.

I am not saying you have to accept these claims, far from it. Rather, I am noting that your argument suggests that claims ought to have have tougher standards than equivalent claims that favor Funcom. Perhaps you trust gaming companies in general for reason X, or maybe you trust Funcom specifically for reason Y. Those would be helpful here.

It seems your best bet is to argue the incentives of Funcom and to make the point that one ought to default to trusting Funcom’s actions given their incentives. That sounds reasonable to me. However, I am personally skeptical that their incentives will necessarily justify this claim. Further, I suspect that the decisions of the moderation and admin teams will not necessarily match up with the incentives of Funcom as a whole. This complicated things in that we can’t only consider the company as an aggregate, but she have to also consider it as a collection of components.

I think that Funcom should be held accountable for its moderation actions for the company’s sake itself. Humans are error prone, and there is simply too much activity to reasonably govern by the moderation team. This is a bad mismatch of incentives and structure. Either Funcom should reduce its responsibility and moderate less, or they should change their systems to make it easier and more effective for their moderation teams to moderate.

Personally, as I have argued, it seems better to just remove the permabans. This adds a simple moderation tool that vastly increases the capability to moderate while also making easier to be held accountable by the player base (by not removing these players permanently, their input remains in reach of Funcom, which could be valuable for all kinds of reasons).

1 Like

Indeed. Though I am more skeptical of institutions more generally. I, by default, assume that organizational bureaucracies are slow, inefficient, ineffective, and prone to corruption. I am pleasantly surprised when I am wrong, however, I feel that I tend to right more often than not. It doesn’t have to do with any moral failings, and rather how these systems tend to be arranged. It is usually the institution itself, and it’s policies moreso than any specific set of individuals.

I suspect that the same system that declared me to have violated the TOS or community guidelines of Discord is also at work at Funcom. Unless I am showed that these are sufficiently distinct, I am going to default to considering them identical for the purposes of critique.

Hence, when I hear that players are being banned unfairly, I am going to use Hanlon’s razor and default to assuming that there is a nontrivial subset of these complaints that are valid. My complaint against Discord was and is valid. Many might not like my viewpoints on particular matters, but I haven’t done anything on Discord that could be mistaken for “threatening” or “abusive” behavior. My behavior here was my behavior there. Unless you consider what I have done on this forum “threatening”/“abusive” then I think I am on solid grounds to make this claim.

You could demand that I provide proof that I am innocent of the charges levied against me by discord, but I don’t have access to my chat logs, Discord deleted them despite my protests. I likewise am unaware of how a player would show that they were banned unfairly here. Funcom has the institutional power here. I am not claiming that you should believe every complaint (that is silly). Rather, I would argue that it should be assumed that there will be some amount of misplaced justice that comes from the way these systems operate, and we should therefore, try to improve these systems to approach no misplaced justice with gradual improvements. That sounds reasonable to me.