Yes, too many threads on the subject, too many taken off topic by the subject. But I think most will agree; on either side of the topic, the official servers need a hard, well defined, enforced TOS. And I donât mean just against cheaters on PVP servers.
Funcom can end all these arguments about what is and isnât a TOS violation on an official server. You have people hiding behind and abusing the system because of it vagueness.
Official server building restrictions
Please remember that there are other players sharing the server with you. Restricting othersâ access to content is not allowed beyond of course grabbing a spot for your base. If you wish to reign supreme on the map and hog all the resources and enemies, please consider single player or setting up your own server, or - in the case of PvP servers - play fair.
Iâd love to think that is well understood by all, but it seems I am quite wrong about that. Iâm not at all sure how that can be misunderstood but if it wasnât we wouldnât have the present building restrictions
Some specific cases where we will act when made aware:
Blocking of content in the game, such as dungeons, obelisks, resources, and other areas of the game."
That is pretty damn vague and open to a lot of interpretation. I mean we can probably agree on the dungeons and obelisk bit, but if I build and block 3 aloe plants is that actionable? Just which resources? Is it a density thing? And I think the last of the sentence defines vague.
For me that means clear paths and short cuts. But then if that is the case would me building entries that arenât blocked, to make hidden shortcuts easy to find, be actionable?
Abuse of the claim system where blocks are placed for no other purpose than to prevent other playersâ access to resources and building spots. Please check out our documentation about Land Claim Abuse on Official Servers 1.1k for more information.*
Really donât think that can be any more clear. But then I read, reread, edit and reedit in hopes of being clear, but a few people still misunderstand me. So for this one I need help pointing out the vagueness.
Massive constructions or over-use of memory-intensive items leading to loss of performance both on client and server-side.*
This is vague by degrees. I mean there are some bases that are the gaudiest pieces of look at me show off/enses that just drags my FPS down to unplayable levels. I wouldnât report them; judge them sure, but never report them. So how would funcom gauge that? Leaving it up to our own judgement just leads to too many or not enough reports.
Now my GPU is old,1060 6gig. My settings are moderate. I do what I can to keep my FPS up in and around my base. But Iâm not going to report some one that wants their base to look like the Vegas strip.
Time will not be spent carefully removing only offending pieces. All constructions belonging to the owner (player or clan) will be destroyed. There will be no refunds of materials or inventories.
Notice no where does that say banned. But that sums up the TOS regrading building. Iâve pointed out what I think really needs a clearer definition. But then, as I pointed out, what seems clear to me many not be so cut and dried for others.
One thing that is overlooked in most of these discussions is âtime to moderateâ = cost. More extensive rules clarifications means a longer, more detailed checklist for a moderator and potential internal discussions again about whether a âclear ruleâ has a loophole. The current rules give a server admin the freedom to make a call and move on without incurring extra cost in moderation that a âreasonable playerâ would not subject them to. Adding cost to officials is most likely going to result in fewer of them, so people should tread carefully if they donât want another round of server merges.
Ahhh shieeeee here we go again - thread N99 about TOS =)
Yes, we all agreed we need strict and clear rules (so no more shady bans\base erase) on officials.
But for some reason we have not received (and probably will not receive) thoseâŠ
For ex. after almost a year i still didnât know was my base erased because of TOS violation (so why no warning\bans?), or because of some server\stability\decay glitch\desync.
1 If we didnât allowed to build inside caves and canyons (passes) - so why this areas are green (claimable?)
2 How we suppose connect our base parts (for ex. main castle and separate gates) without walls\roads? (to prevent decay)?
If youre asking the forum, you will get ârare resourcesâ as a reply. Thing is, what do you consider rare, and are they really that rare with the 4x harvest on? And finally, are you referring to PVE or PVP, because that should matter too. Trust me on this one, did long discussions with people on it.
Yes, bannable. Bridges over water/canyons are another thing. They provide a faster, easier way around/over things, but that is worthy of 30 days bans. You are allowe to build your square block base, and nothing more.
We do need some official reply on this too. Becuase weve heard it lots from a particular forum member that he can lag a game to its knees with 5 building pieces, and others can build 20,000 piece bases that dont cause any issue. Sadly, that person fails to explain how so I cant verify the truth behind it.
Problem with asking the forums is we get players opinions, and not Funcoms answers.
They probably could but it seems they donât really care that they permanently ban their playerbase for building. Good luck with this thread⊠they typically all end the same with no clarification.
This is my personal favorite
Blocking of content in the game, such as dungeons, obelisks, resources, and other areas of the game.
As someone who has played by, enforced, and written rules and policies for servers in the past (for several games, including Conan Exiles) I can say that you do need clarity in your rules, but you also need a level of ambiguity.
For example, Iâve never seen a complaint about the following rule:
Offensive and defamatory chat and user-created content of racial, sexual, hateful, illicit, or of other nature. This extends to character names, guild names, in-game signs, and so on.
Thereâs no list of derogatory terms. Everyone reads that and goes, âyeah that looks about right, donât be a dick to people.â But I could point out about a dozen or so comments used on a daily basis just in these forums alone that fit that description. Of course to be fair, when such terms are used they are normally used in a non-malevolent way and usually ignorantly. We DO have a very diverse community and there are phrases and terms that arenât universally offensive, so these light infractions get a pass.
However, that does make the rule vague and ambiguous. And it should be. If someone used one of those light infractions in a malevolent way they should be punished.
So letâs talk about one of the rules brought up in the OP.
This one is pretty ambiguous. It doesnât list the amount that causes loss of performance and it doesnât really define what is actually massive. But I will say this. Speaking on this rule and this rule alone. You have to go out of your way to create buildings with an excessive amount of negative space or filled in space that provides literally zero benefit to oneself. This isnât something that can accidently be breached. And I would say that there isnât many cases of someone getting dinged on this rule. If they do, then they likely deserved it.
The rule that gets the most people strung up on is this one:
On one of my last builds I did a medieval town done in Nemedian. Along the pathways I had pillars with wall braziers. It looked like a nice little lampost getup. I used them mainly around other buildings, but I also used them in areas outside of the little area leading up to it. Normal people would think such a thing would look neat, artistic, and inviting. But doing those pillars outside of my area on an official server would violate the quoted rule. Pillars exert landclaim and thus my landclaim would exist outside of my main area.
In addition the little town would likely be in violation if the buildings were too spread out. Keeping them small and within 1-2 foundations would likely be fine. But when people build towns, they normally donât build their buildings that close.
The idea behind this landclaim rule is to literally have the players build in a small as a space as they can to allow more space on the server for the hundreds of players they share their server with. The reason we do not get physical dimensions limits in hard terms is this changes based on location. An area that can reliably fit three different players/clansâ bases should be able to fit those. A slightly smaller area may only fit two, but those two can take a little more space than the first example. There is far too many instances on the map where people can build to list them all. Which is why they donât. Even then such listings would be subjective anyway.
Hereâs another one where I donât actually believe people get hit up as much as the Landclaim. But it is often contested by players as you can see directly by the OP:
Sorry to say, this statement is outright disingenuous. They are wrapped up around the term âResourcesâ. Hereâs the thing, if the word resources was omitted. Then we would have players blocking world boss spawns, rare material spawns, and even despawn every bit of brimstone on the map (this was quite common a few years ago). And then when they get hemmed up for it and actioned, theyâll claim it wasnât in the rules.
But letâs be honest here, players are always going to be disingenuous about this rule. I mean three aloe? Really, you have to ask? The fact that people even bring up aloe, stone, wood, and various other common materials that litter the ground over 60-90% of the map just goes to show they arenât being serious.
We typically issue a 14-days temporary suspension as a way to warn and deter against repeating infractions. Any infractions beyond that will result in a longer suspension up to a permanent, non-appealable BAN from official servers.
There is definitely different ways FC can handle this situation. They could put a block limit. That has its pros and cons. Not every 5,000 block building affects things in the same way. The downside of a block limit is players will gravitate towards filling in their limit knowing (or believing) everyone else is. The whole keeping up with the joneses problem. I know this from experience, when players have limits, they fill them. When everyone fills them, you need to keep them low.
For example, an official server has probably 100-300 players on it (potentially more since most are 5 years old). If we separate that into clans its probably about 75-200 entities. You give them all a limit of 5,000 pieces, they will all start hitting that limit. Whereas yeah some may have 10,000 but many probably have far less than 5,000. Its not a good situation.
Its also why when you see private servers with limits its something crazy like 350 pieces per person (clan of 4 gets 1400 in that case). Thatâs an incredibly small limit. You all donât want that.
But again⊠its not needed. As I said, massive builds arenât really a problem with people getting banned. Whenever I see the âI got banned, FC Badâ post, its about landclaim. You can net yourself a suspension based on that factor with only 5-10 building pieces used. Ironically its probably around 10 pieces errantly placed that got them into trouble, assuming they werenât actually being dicks about it, which in most cases they are. Trying to play Julius Caesar around Vercingetorix is gonna get you in trouble (if thatâs your style of play, stick to scenario based private servers).
They could try to be more specific in their rules, but as @darthphysicist pointed out, that adds time to moderation. Already the customer service guys have a pretty heinous job. When they open up a report, they have to hope the report includes:
Character name or Clan
Offending name or Clan
Offense reported
Server number
General map location
Screenshots
If any of those first five things are missing. You have an issue. Theyâll try to solve it without kicking it back to the reporter for more information if its possible. For example, if there is no screenshot but they get a map location. They can kinda float around till they find it.
A grid square in Exiled Lands is about 500mx500m. To thoroughly check an area with just a clan name given can take about 20 minutes. Screenshots will cut it down drastically, especially if there is a map dot shown in one of them at the location.
But if for example, landclaim is say a specific number of foundations. Guess what? Now the investigator has to go in, fly up to the offending structure and start counting. Have you all ever tried to count foundations on large builds? I mean if its a stupid low number like 10x10 they could do it in about a minute or two. But you all are going to be very angry if you only get a 10x10. Even a 20x20 is kinda on the small side (for a clan, alright for a solo). But if you get a 20x20, is it only 20 on a side or is it going to be 400squared? Thus 10x40, 28x14, and 25x16 and everything inbetween. Hopefully NOT 1x400 for Godâs sake. Which some of you would do if you were allotted a 400sqaured foundation limit. And then cry when banned for it.
When there is 400+ servers, and a handful of people moderating them. Some concessions have to be made for time and convenience. This is the compromises even servers with multiple full time admins even have to contend with. Do you want moderation response times in 24-72 hours, or 2-3 weeks? The faster the response, the less of a check list they need. But the more vague the rules will be.
Its very easy in some cases to make a set of rules and think youâve covered all the bases. Then come to find out that enforcing said rules is an absolute nightmare. Iâve been lucky in the past that when it comes to enforcement Iâve usually been able to make an on the spot adjustment. FC doesnât have that luxury. Not when you have several thousand players across a few hundred servers.
But one thing the players need to do is stop being disingenuous, like this:
Heâs being facetious with this, but doesnât seem to give a damn about the repercussions and consequences of said bridge. Letâs assume in this example that the bridge is NOT connected to a base. Its a building entirely meant for convenience. Oh how nice of them to build something for public use right? What if someone wanted to build in one of the spots the bridge goes over? I mean river side land area is pretty nice, you can put down fish traps and have water without needing a well, and it just looks nice. Well the bridge says no. Not only to you, but another person who wishes to build on the other side.
In this example someone just blocked two decently sized areas for theyâre own ego that prevents potentially two clans from having bases in the general area. Thatâs why that comes with hefty suspension. And it should. Thankfully the one in this example got nailed hard enough that theyâll now be on their toes in the future. Thus the rule is working as intended.
Most people actually know how to behave themselves, they just choose not to. But they get in line when they get booped on the snoot. But ego tends to make them a tad salty for it.
@Taemien wtf
Before I read that I want to point out that your post is a building violation in itself, definitely using too many blocks
Now to read it - will edit for any comments
Just make more restricted areas - it will not remove 100% of issue, but at least no more human\controversy factor, you just cant physically build there⊠period.
people get used to it and whoalla - no more blocking.
Wrong. I was being quite literal. I got a ban for a bridge.
It wasnt connected, and it was for convenience. As I was told by many people who used it.
Please tell me you are joking. Please. Youre going to sit there, and try to tell me that the one foundation wide bridge that went over claimed so much land on that river system that stretches for many tiles, was so bad there was literally no where else someone could drink from or put down fish traps? You realize they could go about 6 foundations on either side of the bridge and place them right?
If this is the case, every single base in Conan is against the TOS. Theres no way to back out of your argument.
Well, Umborls already said that land claim bans are only two weeks, so one month is going over and above the usual to set a precedent. Is this the hill Funcom is gonna die on? A bridge is worthy of 30 day suspension? Its beyond laughable. Ive talked to well over 20 people who played Conan with me over the last 5 years. Every single one laughed at this. No, land claim issues should ever come with a suspension, unless it is done with malicious intent - example being spider web spam around bases. NOT bridges. Would community map rooms fall under a 30 day ban too?
Nope, wont change anything. Gonna go back and wipe every single sandstone base I see on the map. Screw other players wanting to build and play the game. Weve been a passive clan for years, only attacking those that attacked us. We let people play and build and have fun. It ends. It ends because some entitled little wuss couldnt make some bombs and blow up a bridge. Had to use the weaponized reporting system.
No salt. Remember when I said about a year ago Id laugh if I got banned? Well, we did. The salt is from the whiners who report bridges on servers with less then 4 players on it. Wait, maybe you could explain why someone would want to build so close to another player when there is only 4 people on a server?
Thus the true colors come forward. Going to screw over people who had nothing to do with the initial report or actions taken in a tantrum.
And weâre supposed to have pity and empathy for the ones âwrongfully bannedâ. Nope. When you eventually get your perma ban, you will simply be forgotten. As it should be.
Sure, but this one is different and will succeed where others have failed
Who are these people supposed to be? Are we talking about people who knowingly submit spurious reports? Because thatâs the only possible abuse of the reporting system, and the only consequence that can be laid at those playersâ feet is the gumming up of the process due to increased volume, leading to auto-closed tickets.
Any other negative consequence of the reporting system is Funcomâs fault and no one elseâs. Got suspended and you donât know what rules you broke and how to avoid breaking them in the future? Funcomâs fault for not communicating clearly. Got suspended even though you didnât break any rules? Funcomâs fault for not investigating it properly.
Deja moo. Look, there are certainly gray areas and edge cases in the rules that we might need clarified, but this thing with â3 aloe plantsâ or âsome rocks and treesâ is not one of those. Anyone, and I mean anyone who needs to be explained the difference between 3 aloe plants and a world boss is asking that question in bad faith. No amount of clarification will help there.
And itâs pretty much guaranteed that any thread that starts with a question like that will end up no different than all the others that came before, i.e. full of people making bad faith arguments about how the âweaponized reporting is the new metaâ, and asking for non-solutions like building limits that would only make things worse for legit builders without solving any actual problems.
But hey, we havenât had one of those in quite a while, thanks to the outrage over monetization, and the cries for nerf over the lightning storm. Might as well have one while we wait to be outraged by the upcoming dev stream
What do you mean bad faith? If you block my strand of grass Iâll report you!
Itâs actually the other way around Rules regarding conduct in these types of setting NEED to be vague, because otherwise you DO get the people who try to abuse them and turn internet-lawyer.
The moment you draw a clear line in the sand you will see people rudely pushing right up against it trying to maximize their gain from it and even when they manage to find something that is indeed disruptive, but not specifically mentioned in the âclearâ rules, youâll immediately get the âIâm not breaking any rules!â defenseâŠ
So in this case⊠âless is actually moreâ. Thatâs why sometimes a lot of communities can function really well just with simple subjective rules like âdonât be a d!ck to othersâ and they donât need 20 pages explaining any possible scenario to avoid where one could cause others harm.
Itâs not the rules that need to be more clear in this case, the rules are completely fine imo. (the only part Iâd really change is the âwarningâ for false reporting⊠that should also have serious consequences when they can pinpoint it as such). The rules are fine⊠itâs the feedback AFTER applying the rules that is lackingâŠ
The âWe banned you cuz you had 4 foundations further from your base and their land claim was blocking a rare spawn in a cave belowâ part, so that next time you know not to forget pieces all over the place.
The 39 other players they share an official server with, at most.
On to the main topic, perhaps they could clarify what the âmemory intensiveâ items are. Perhaps put a tag on them in the craft menu so everyone knows what objects must be used sparingly. But then people will deliberately spam them
Perhaps, but then they will all deserve the bans they get with less question.
Regardless, some visible indicator of what an areaâs load intensity is would remove the accidental aspect.
Likewise blocking resources is obnoxious.
Does a tuft of grass or clump of rock count?
By leaving it undefined it keeps the door open for more whimsical/lazy enforcement. Which is as likely a feature as a bug.
But thatâs tangent to the actual issue.
Which is a lack of trust. If the player base trusted the administration of the officials, there wouldnât be the constant demand for more stringent and defined rules. There would still be the off case of some trollish posterior birth throwing a tantrum because they got their just desserts. But the saturation would be down.
As matters stand, this one is firmly in the Administration of servers on Officials is whimsical camp. Sometimes it seems spot on, but just as likely it is spitefully overzealous or non responsive. But the one thing it doesnât seem to be is consistent.
Itâs hard to trust that which is inconsistent. What most of those requesting more defined rules donât seem to have internalized is that the rules never apply to the person who makes them, and only apply to others when those who enforce them chose it. No amount of specific regulation will ever be more than a polite suggestion for those who actually have administrative authority.
More specific rules wonât actually get the result anyone wants. It will only increase their feelings of righteous indignation when they are acted upon in a way that seems contrary to them.
Rules regarding conduct in these types of setting NEED to be vague, because otherwise you DO get the people who try to abuse them and turn internet-lawyer.