Your argument is disingenuous, as I said before.
They can just ban them and rid the community of that BS.
Yes, they could do that. And hell, who knows, it might even work. The problem with hypotheticals is that they’re, well, hypothetical. I’m willing to bet that out of all the people here complaining about how they were banned, there were precisely zero who built up a beautiful, decorative spiderweb of foundations as part of a decorative build.
Another problem with hypotheticals like that is that you need to be willing to bet your own continued access to official servers on something that might or might not work. That’s what I meant when I pointed out that they have the last say. Someone might try to be clever and disguise their spam as decorations, but it’s not guaranteed to work.
I understand the point you’re trying to make, but I think that the borderline cases you describe are not as common as you imply, and I also don’t think Funcom cares about them at all.
I’m pretty sure that the real problem with the “new rules” isn’t so much that there’s a huge group of people with gray-area builds being targeted by admins, as it is that Funcom did a crappy job communicating about certain things that people need to start taking seriously.
Fence foundation stacking is one of those. No tolerance for claim spam is another.
I completely agree with both of those suggestions.
And people are still going to be wrong. @Taemien is right in this specific case: it’s a disingenuous argument based on the continuum fallacy.
1 Like
That is not the solution to deal with grey area issues. If you think the best way forward is to strictly ban everyone, well then, Im glad you dont get to make the calls.
Its fine if you dont want to go any further with this, I know its been talked about lots. But then, if the answer is just that plain and simple, there would be need for anyone to question it right?
Yet, here we are. Because its not a well thought out and explained rule.
Sure, I agree its hypothetical in these examples, but the fact we can think of them and come up with them for debate means the rules just arent specific enough. If it was clear cut in the sand, we wouldnt be at this point.
Were gonna have to disagree on this. Think of just pure in game examples and not real life. If Funcom says not to block resources, that entails all resources. Not just ones that some people find to be more rare, or valuable. Again, thats why specifics matter. Remove the grey area on these rules and there would be no 400 reply discussions lol.
Like I said, making the letter of the rules impervious to lawyering is an unattainable goal. The more you work on making the wording immune to deliberate misinterpretation, the more complex you make them and the more impenetrable the lingo. At some point, they end up being written in impenetrable legalese. Congratulations, you’ve now made them useless because nobody will read them and understand them.
I am thinking of pure in-game examples. Is it okay to block one random brimstone node? Yes. Is it okay to block all brimstone nodes on the map? No. Where do you draw the line? For every N you pick, there will be a situation in which someone will block N-1 and ruin the game for everyone else on that server without breaking the letter of the rule.
That’s why there can’t be one-size-fits-all numerical limit. Claiming that the rule about blocking resources is invalid without a numerical limit is the textbook example of continuum fallacy: the vagueness of the rule does not imply its invalidity.
Same goes for other types of resources. Blocking one tree is nothing. Blocking all of the trees on the map – no matter how hypothetical – is clearly something that shouldn’t be allowed. Where do you draw the line?
The answer is the same for all resource types, regardless of whether we’re talking about bushes, brimstone, or NPC spawns: it will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
This shouldn’t be controversial at all. There are plenty of things that are decided on a case-by-case basis in the real world, too.
If you want to know why this discussion has so many replies, look no further than a handful of people repeating the same disingenuous arguments and pretending that they don’t understand the rebuttals.
4 Likes
A point we all agree on - @CodeMage and I (and many others) have made that same point on plenty of occasions. At base level, this issue may be the underlying cause of most of the game’s problems. Balancing the different needs of all game modes is near impossible - though as I’ve noted before, I wouldn’t support any game mode being cancelled now that the game has been sold as having that option. Where Funcom has got it right, IMO, is putting as many settings as possible into the hands of players/admins - because that allows the maximum different rules for each game mode (and thus the best chance to suit each game mode better).
I don’t believe concrete rules would help the situation (in PVP or PVE), for the reasons we’ve quite thoroughly laid out. I don’t believe for a moment that the differences in the game modes change the reality of whether an incredibly complex set of detailed rules (complexity necessary to cover all likely situations - and still won’t be able to cover everything) would work any better for PVP than for PVE. As pointed out to you, every example you have suggested, would be made worse by concrete rules rather than better.
But if you want to argue for rules that should be exclusive to PVP (and make absolutely clear at each stage that they should only be for PVP - because we all know Funcom can get over-zealous on these things), that’s at least a lot more reasonable than many. Most people advocating for these sorts of changes are not willing to say they should apply only to PVP (probably because they know Funcom would be unlikely to add new systems just for one game mode), and it needs to be made clear every time, because otherwise it can (and will) be read as a call for changes to all game modes (because almost every call for change ends with changes that impact everyone). PVP’s ‘your’ game mode, so I won’t fight you on that one - though I will say that I don’t believe concrete rules would provide the solution you want there either. It’s not about which game mode they are applied to, it’s about how people will twist and take advantage of them.
Yep - being able to more easily destroy cheap spam seems like a good step. Wouldn’t solve much for PVE obviously, but would improve the PVP situation.
The reason this argument is disingenuous is because we all understand the spirit of what is intended - people claiming that blocking a single branch (literally has been claimed) would merit a ban know full well that is not what would happen.
But the reason the argument doesn’t work is inherently built into it. Let’s take the Brimstone example - what if Funcom sets a concrete rule ‘no clan may block more than 5 brimstone nodes’? So long as only one clan blocks them, that’s fine. But that means each clan can block 5 - so now there’s no access to any brimstone on the map, but no one can be banned for blocking it because they’ve all stayed within the letter of the concrete rule. And that’s just one simple example.
Whereas, I’d argue that it’s as well thought out as it can be, because it has attempted to take account of the complexity of the situation by using human judgement. Explanations on the other hand could be better.
I guarantee that no matter how thorough and detailed the rules are, we can still come up with hypothetical situations that aren’t covered. No rule set ever covers every possible situation. That’s why we have trials in the legal system - because the rules (laws) are not able to cover every situation that could possibly arise - they have to be interpreted by human judgement to determine how they should apply in a given situation. If everything could be quantified and fixed the way you advocate, then there would be no need for a trial - there might still be need to prove the person did what they are accused of, but there would be no debate ever over what the crime was.
No it doesn’t, That’s the whole point. If Funcom sets a concrete rule, then they have to say exactly what can or can’t be blocked, and exactly how much of each thing can or can’t be blocked (and I’ve already covered multiple times why that is a bad thing - whatever the game mode). Leaving the grey area of saying ‘resources can be blocked with in reason, but will be judged on a case-by-case basis’ is precisely what makes it possible to work.
I’ve got a challenge for you, if you’re willing (understandable if you’re not, it would probably take a fair bit of time) - try to come up with a set of rules, just for one area of what’s being discussed - say ‘resource blocking’ - and see if you can come up with concrete rules that would actually work and that we can’t rules-lawyer our way past. I think it would be an interesting experiment, though I do not believe you could do it.
4 Likes
Rule 1: No building allowed.
6 Likes
This would be a great solution, as it would not affect pve. The only issue is for new players that can’t power grind day 1 to T3. At worst they have nothing of value they lose. And outside of a toxic clan or 2 l, would probably be minimally done. It would also be a way to catch those alt account bodies that use the t1 as an initial log off until body dissapears.
2 Likes
I’ve been a server admin for three years on multiple servers. In that whole time, I’ve never had to ban anyone. I’ve also done this on servers with FAR more strict rules than Officials have.
I’ve never had players not understand the rules.
But here you are claiming to not know the difference between a branch and a rare spawn. So you are either lying, or have an issue that requires someone with training and a certain professional and educational background to explain this to you.
I personally do not believe it is the latter.
1 Like
Actually this is a great reason for how the rule can be changed. Just have the rule say “dont block in game content”, and if people report for building and blocking resources, its done on a case by case basis like you saod. That also eliminates the whataboutisms, the grey area and and kind of other excuses.
Codemage actually came up with an alternative likely without even realizing it.
Change the rules to say “dont block in game content” and have issues be dealt with on a case by case basis since like Ive said “technically” blocking rocks and trees falls under broken rules. Just like “technically” blocking off the brimstone lake does too.
Make the rule dont block off content and thats a pretty safe, clear and concrete rule in my mind. Can you think of any issues people may come up with to get around that?
Lol, yes, whats a rare spawn in Conan as far as resources go, referring to Exiled Lands since Siptah is more evenly distributed and easier to farm on.
Brimstone, the most likely to be blocked? Multiple caves, chests, thralls and underwater areas to farm.
Demon blood? Nope
Trees, rocks, iron etc? Nope
Gold and silver? Nope - heres something people likely dont use - gold and silver rocknose. Build a farm.
So what do you call a rare resourse?
So your rule set is exactly like official Funcom servers, all settings are exactly the same, there are no mods, and youve never had to even go so far as to delete spam, unblock areas or anything like that?
If the answer is no, did you ever think that maybe its because…wait for it…your an ACTIVE ADMIN? Something Funcom lacks? Could you imagine how much less rule breaking there would be with that? (Im aware thats a topic for another discussion) People are less inclined to break rules if they know someone is actually watching them.
And I guess I can end it with this - Ive been told as have many others that if we dont like the way Funcom runs their servers we can go solo, private or get our own server. Which is indeed 100% true. But here we are on a topic about Funcoms officiating of official servers, and we have a private server owner and admin chiming in…
Maybe everyone should take the “go play on a private server and leave the officials and their business alone” advice.
How did people ever survive in Early Access? Add round the clock raiding too!
1 Like
I agree, and fix the dbd to make pvp raid server true. 1 hour after last clan member logs off, offline protection. Make it about survival. If I log 8n to farm, then I should be weary of getting raided. Current system of 19 hours free raid time, then hide behind spammed webbing is what killed the raid mechanics of the game.
Most have. And I honestly believe the game would be better off if everyone did ditch this ‘official server’ nonsense. We have seen changes and patches and drama from only 1/8th of the entire playerbase.
It doesn’t take much to see this. Look at the general forums, look at the threads making complaints. 9 times out of 10, its an official player. They are by orders of magnitude more likely to have some sort of issue, bug, balance, server performance, bullying, or infraction than their representation in the whole community.
Did Funcom screw up? Yes they did. Big time started in 2017. Here’s where they went wrong:
- Offered official servers past Beta (kinda makes sense to offer a few in beta for people to test).
- Made them with G-portal.
- Made more officials after launch.
- Made officials on console.
- Made more officials for Siptah
If they didn’t do those five things, we wouldn’t see even 10% of the complaints as we usually do on a daily basis. We’d see pretty much just people sharing character builds, buildings, and other cosmetic style stuff mostly.
But no, official servers keep us from having nice things because they are wallowing pit of despair where players sit in misery playing a broken experience.
Nearly every thread I see in this forum when a problem or issue is brought up is happening because the player is on an official server. Where they wouldn’t have said problem on a private server. Or if they would, it would be heavily mitigated.
So, kinda like this?
But without the “such as” part?
I mean, it’s not like I’m opposed to removing a non-exhaustive list of examples, but that’s the literal opposite of:
or:
There’s nothing wrong with changing your mind, but I wanted to make sure I didn’t misunderstand you.
2 Likes
Yes, official forums for official servers. Makes sense to me. It should be a place for people to talk, discuss, debate and so on about the official game.
Again, private and or modded games have the ability to change the game as they see fit, and jumping into threads on official topics really doesnt offer much.
Remove the “resources” part of the current rules does make it alot more clear. In fact, rewrite that rule to merely say “Dont block in game content”
Solid rule, less grey areas alot easier to police.
1 Like
Seems like they’re policing it well enough as it is now.
1 Like
That’s a pretty elitist attitude to have. “You don’t play my way so your opinion doesn’t matter.” Sorry Nemisis, but you could learn a lot from people who play a different style than you simply because they have different experiences and points of view. Furthermore the developers encouraged the community to create mods since the game was in early access to to assume that people who play using mods have a “lesser opinion” than you is utter nonsense. The forums were never created for “official server users only” or any other dribble like that. Sorry but you are talking out of your arse here and I think even you know that you are.
3 Likes