How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Ban

, ,

No, it really, really isn’t. Case in point: one of the “public works” I used to maintain on 1823 before I stopped playing there was a bridge over the segment of the river in tiles N6 and N7, connecting the northern jungle and southern jungle areas. It was a small build, not something that you would call memory-intensive or performance-degrading. Here, I kept a screenshot:

Why was it there? So I could drag a thrall that I knocked out on one side of the river to the other side, and from there to my base (or a wheel outpost, back when I had one).

Now, I have no idea if other people used it on a regular basis or not. I built it for me, and I used it for my purposes.

But that’s beside the point, because it doesn’t really matter who you built it for. The problem I have with your claims and ideas is that you want to use the rules to deal with the stuff that you don’t like, as opposed to the stuff that either harasses a specific player or makes things worse for everyone on the server:

None of that has anything to do whatsoever with what’s in the TOS. Quoting the relevant part of the TOS is getting old, but for some reason, people need to be reminded every now and again what the freaking rules actually freaking say:

Again, the rules talk about restricting other players’ access (either by blocking off content or intentionally hogging the terrain without giving it any use) and degrading performance. They don’t say anything about how you should build things for others, how you shouldn’t build far from your base, how you shouldn’t have more than one base, or anything like that.

People who complain about the letter of the rules without acknowledging their spirit go too far in one direction, but you went too far in the opposite direction and invented rules of your own.

I would go further and say that if what you say is what Funcom actually wants, then they should make that explicit. They should say that a PVE(-C) clan should share a base, and all the other stuff you mentioned, that cannot be inferred in any way from what they said.

And while we’re on that topic – and I hope you won’t take this as an attack – I’d say that coming up with your own rules like that is only going to make the situation worse. Things are already way too muddled up, as you can see here:

This is an assumption. I’m not criticizing @Pugilist, nor am I saying this assumption is valid or invalid. I’m just saying that it’s not something that the rules are clear about. It’s impossible to take the text of the rules and this screenshot, put them together, and come up with a clear conclusion.

Funcom needs to give us more information and/or better tools so we can reason about these things.

4 Likes

You can swim with a thrall in tow… So not sure why you had to build a bridge for that.

Was that bridge demolished by an Admin?

Wrong. It’s not about what I like or not. The bit you seem to be disagreeing with is about other player’s experiences. Particularly new players adventuring to places for the first time - or first few times.

Well, then stop doing it. :laughing: You didn’t need to in this case either. No one and certainly not me, claimed to be even reflecting the TOS. Rather, by looking and considering the kinds of builds that are getting wiped these are the conclusions we come to - AND what would seem to be appropriate and common sense in a public MMO RP environment - no matter the game - but especially given Funcom’s apparent concerns!

I don’t think so but I’ll consider that possibility. I’m not claiming these are the rules. I and others are saying if you do these things your base is MUCH less likely to be demolished and you likely won’t get banned. I even stated clearly that these are just things we users are thinking out loud and not actually “rules”.

No, I don’t take it as an attack. Just from the little while I’ve been here I know and respect you more than that! But this would only be relevant if indeed I were claiming they were actual rules. We’re just coming up with what we think are some basic guideline to keep ourselves safe and to make official server better for other players. No more then that really… And “better” meaning as close to possible to the original intent of the map designers - like why he placed wolves here or there, NPCs here or there, placed a lake here or there, named some areas and not others, etc. etc… How s/he they intended us to experience the unfolding so to speak.

Debatable… but that’s what you’re saying anyway, right? It’s debatable and not concrete…

Yes, well, I don’t think anyone disagrees with that! HUGE problem and the @Funcom_Community isn’t even saying they are considering addressing it. Pretty terrible.

It’s at the Great Dam. Blocking nothing, but, on an official server, a build 1/3 the size was reported and resulted in a 14 day ban. This is not hearsay. I was active on that server and helped the clan affected recover from their losses.

Then, about two weeks later, my main base crumbled and I spent several hour giving way thousands of mats and hundreds of thralls.

3 Likes

So it’s a named location. An important place on the map to investigate, find, and ponder in awe of. But you think it’s not disturbing new player’s experiences?

None of the NPC spawns are affected, so, no.

2 Likes

I keep forgetting you haven’t played for as long as I have. You can swim with a thrall, yes, but it wasn’t always like that. Swimming with a thrall, teleporting with a thrall, these things used to be impossible.

No, I stopped playing on 1823 before the “new” rules were announced, so I don’t know if it would have been demolished. I see no reason for it in the rules, though.

It’s definitely not about the rules, which is kinda the topic here :wink:

Otherwise know as pulling ideas out of your a-- um, I mean, speculating :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

On a more serious note, you can extrapolate and speculate all you want – it’s a public forum – but it might be helpful to remember that Funcom doesn’t consider Conan Exiles to be an MMORPG :slight_smile:

EDIT: Sorry, pressed Ctrl+Enter too soon.

Oh, that? Well, if you don’t want to get banned, there’s an even simpler set of rules: build the tiniest thing you can while still being able to play :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

But that’s not very useful advice.

It’s certainly … not optimal :smiley:

3 Likes

Why aren’t you understanding this? Am I really so bad at communicating? Are you trying to understand?

If I as an asset designer built a massive dam, named it, put one of the deepest inland bodies of water around it (and there’s some other important bits to that location but I can’t remember what) thus more than likely intending some player experience from it, do you really think the player experience would not be completely different if the first time they went there they found that player structure?

So that’s my first point. And then of course it’s unknown to me if all that, in that particular location, also causes the server or client app some stress. Likely not IMO but I dunno… Certainly some people’s clients would bog!

I thought the topic was how to stop worrying or at least how one person stopped worrying?

Yes indeed! That is afterall where all ideas come from - no exceptions!

Right, but there are elements of all those things and survival too. So, a horse by any other name is still a horse. :wink:

Its quite big, though I would have to ask, why is it so big? Here’s a castle that two players currently reside in:

It takes up a space smaller than 8x18 blocks. And is under 2000 blocks.

Here’s one of my usual pre-60 builds that has all of the basic stations in the first floor and it is usually around 120 pieces:

This monstrosity was just under 750 pieces and included a crafting area with all Age of Calamitous stations ands base games ones:

This one has under 3k building pieces (probably quite less, going by the server limits for how many players were in the clan, we had four). This was the main building, and there were external buildings with all the crafting stations you need (including AoC ones).

PVP needs a bit more pieces obviously, here’s about a 5000-6000 piece (judging by the material cost, as it was tough in those days to measure) fortress for about 3-4 of us:

I doubt any of those would be banneable or even close, with the exception of maybe the last one. Since I’m not sure if that location has had anything of value added to it since SIptah came out. There was a mini-boss (well used to be considered a mini-boss, rocknose mini-kings aren’t anymore) nearby, but it still spawned with us there.

But I said before those who wish to continue to play on officials, will likely need to learn to build efficiently. Most things I see from officials LOOK like official builds. They always seem to have this look where they’re filling out the spaces they are in. But I mean that’s the nature of it when people are building literally on top of each other. When you cannot build out, you have to build up. But they’re going to have to figure out how to do that without going crazy with it.

For example, a common area with crafting stations only needs to be a 4x5, you could get away with a claustrophobic one that is 4x4. Add another layer on one side (5x5) for a storage area. In both cases the crafting area is 2-3 blocks tall, or 2 walls and a roof. That will contain all of the base game stations. With some compromises, I don’t use the giant firebowl cauldron. I like the speed and efficiency bonus together of the improved one, which is much much smaller.

And then personal areas don’t need to be very big. Pretty big enough for a bed, and a few chests. Maybe 2x3 or 3x3 (or 2x4) at the largest in total area.

I’ve been able to build very efficient and functional structures that look good on servers with 10x10 space limitations, 250 building piece per player limitations, and when you do that, you get really creative with the space you have. Those limits are still quite too low in my opinion so I’m currently playing on a server that used to have 750 per person and now has 1000 per.

Some people still find those a bit stifling, but I’m usually always a few hundred blocks below my limit. Though right now I have a 1500 build for 5 people. We’re using like a third of our limit. But I do have a major building project coming, so it won’t be 1500. It’ll probably go to around 2500 or so.

A rough manual count (easier than it looks or sounds) gives me about 4.5k on that one (guessing 3 floors for the interiors)… Just my OCD… sorry. :laughing:

1 Like

Considering how we’ve not heard a peep from Funcom since they went medieval on some of us without provocation, I wonder if there is something happening behind the scenes that we’re not privy too. Something they don’t want to disclose just yet…

Like one of the Funcom staff brought their kids to work and they started playing with the admin console while Dad went for coffee.

I’m just guessing here. :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

What the heck? The Great Dam is in the north, no place for newbie players and players that do not have proper armor for the cold region. There is nothing on this spot besides the statues and a small npc camp that he is not blocking, you can tell from the picture.

Besides this: every time someone is posting a picture you are critisizing the building spot. What is wrong with you? No matter what someone is posting you are always and I say always find something to critisize if you hear the person got banned or the building got deleted. You even critisizing a small bridge that is doing no harm to anyone. What do you expect people to build that they do not get banned for in your eyes? A small shack in the starter area? A wheel in the north could get you banned for causing serverlag, because the whole north is a hotspot and so is the brimstone lake, the vulcano, the ship, the spider cave, the sinkhole … This is getting rediculous, seriously.

It absolutly doesn´t matter to you what somebody says or try to proof. They get sentenced by you the minute they say they got banned. And to top that it seems to be a new hobby of yours to come up with devised rules which you are claiming could help to not get banned. Total nonesense.

I am telling you, you are missing sense of reality. Reality is, no matter what you do on officials, its just a matter of time before you get banned for no reason other than having a base and playing the game. The minute people start reporting you, no matter the claim, its time to pack up your things and leave or you will get banned in the result. This is reality dude. Face it. You can´t control who is reporting you and what for, you simply can´t. And therefor you can´t fight it or make it right. All you can do is riks the bann on purpose or leave before Funcom is smashing your base.

Once you got banned it is too late to change anything. And nobody will believe you, no matter what you say or how many pictures you post. Zendesk is a dead end and this forum is too. People are punished enough already by this unjustified banns, they do not need a guy like you to drag them further into the mud by taking apart every argument they bring to the table until nothing is left and they leave the game forever because they get practically told they are liars and deserved it even though they do not even know the exact reasons they got banned for.

I don´t know if it is simply incompetence of Funcom or intention to clear out official servers, but they are doing a great job atm to make people leave. But this is definitely nothing that Funcom can be proud off. No matter if maybe good intentions or not. People will refuse to play on officials with the constant banhammer hanging over their heads. And if they do not find a privat server they like or have the money to rent one to play with friends, they will stop playing and simply start playing something else. This is no heros act for Funcom, this is a deep legbiter.

5 Likes

Everyone goes there for a first time. No one has been there before they have been there. I’m beginning to think people aren’t being genuine with these replies… The concept is an extremely simple one!

In every case that I have done so they were wondering why their base was destroyed - or acting dumb about it and probably already knew. So if there’s a pattern there, that’s it. That I see the pattern and you don’t says something - I dunno what, but something.

Now you’re being completely silly and proving to everyone (for sure me) that you haven’t even read what I’ve been writing - and are very likely just here for the sake of argumentation. I don’t mind that so much - it can even be fun sometimes, but you’re not very good at it and it’s not very constructive.

Oh my word, how absurd!

I’ve believed a few people. I’ve also believed a few people until they let slip something they didn’t include in the original post - something that was crucial to the base being demolished.

You can mindlessly rail against the machine or you can try to understand it and maybe, just maybe, if you pay close attention, gain the ability to add a little oil where and when if needed. But nothing will come from just blurting out lies and fake news - other than your reputation suffering.

1 Like

No, not in every case. I’m with @Hel when it comes to the Great Dam base: there’s nothing in that screenshot that can be taken as an obvious reason for ban.

That doesn’t mean that the ban was unjustified, it only means that you are drawing a conclusion that isn’t supported by any evidence presented here.

5 Likes

In the case of the Great Dam, I mostly just asked questions. Nowhere did I say it was in the wrong place. I asked where it was and then asked @Pugilist if he thought it was in the wrong place. I suggested that it might be. I then laid out a scenario where it might possibly be considered that way. I made no judgement call - or at least didn’t mean to. I even said that it was admittedly debatable when you first said there was no clear reason.

The fact is, there absolutely was a reason! We’re just left wondering what that reason was. In the case of the Dam I’m still wondering… So, no… not in the case of the Dam either, am I saying "it was" because of placement.

EDIT: I am also saying that there is some evidence for it being about placement - depending on how you see things and your willingness to see things through that lens. It’s the one single most common theme in these demolitions. What’s it been now about 10 people who have complained here. Not a huge sample size but a very common theme none-the-less, is this bit about messing up a point of interest or disturbing a map mechanic - i.e., placement. We know from the ToS that placement is a consideration when observing whether or not it’s blocking resources, why are points of interest (marked or unmarked) not considered to be a “resource” - from an Admin’s POV?

1 Like

We’re never going to know the full story.

We see what we see in a screenshot. We don’t see a Pippi /heatmap since its not on a modded server. Which would show every little errant building piece around the map.

We don’t see potential pillars and foundations blocking resources. Or blocking other players stuff. We have the word of the person giving us the screenshot.

We don’t see the under the ground stuff possibly from previous base locations that they forgot to pickup. I’d imagine decay should have gotten those. But it takes a while for that to clean them up sometimes, especially if they can’t be seen to demolish.

One of the wonderful tools I have as a server admin is when a player moves and leaves behind stuff they can’t pickup because it went underneath, is I get an actual heatmap of every piece (and I can use the heatmap to ctrl right click to teleport to the location directly). Its a simple thing to console ghost under and pick up those pieces for them.

Funcom unfortunately lacks those tools. Pippi is really a mod that even officials should be using. But Funcom will never tie server updates to a 3rd party like that. Can’t blame them for that. But moderating their servers would be a helluva more precise.

1 Like

All true but I think it’s even simpler than that. The ToS/Rules section that @CodeMage brings up often are preceded by

as some may know. And in conjunction with:

the first bullet point

makes it at least somewhat clear that “content” includes “other areas of the game” besides and in addition to; “dungeons, obelisks, [and] resources”. So even though you’re right and we may never know I still believe for the most part it’s all about common sense and consideration. I dunno, it seems so easy to figure out even without the lawyering - maybe my brain just works differently - but I don’t get why there would be any pushback on those assumptions and discernments. Oh well, I guess it’s not important until it is for me but my guess is that will never happen with the pseudo rules (common sense expansion set 1~9), we’ve outlined above. [How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Ban - #135 by TeleTesselator]

I’m at a loss for any other words at this point. -=shrug=-
c’est autre chose, c’est la guerre, c’est-à-dire c’est la vie…

Sigh.

We have a fundamental disagreement. You appear to feel that any building denies a new player an experience.

My feeling is that if you do not like the building patterns on a server, find another.

If an area should not have player building, there is already a game mechanic in place to control that. Penalizing players for building in areas that allow building is certain a tactic.

I, as a player, am under no obligation to curtail my enjoyment in order for you to experience a pristine world. if you want a pristine world, single player is your option. If you want a community world, public/private servers are your option.

As for lag, I play, primarily, an an old gaming laptop on my porch so I can have a cigar and scotch. My sevenish year old laptop does just fin with my own and other’s builds.

The issue is not that I am not understanding, the issue is that I understand and conclude you are wrong.

This is not an attack, we merely hold different opinions.

I am of the opinion the the updated TOS changed the rules and now penalize what was once celebrated. So, I stopped playing on official servers.

It is my $5 solution and I am unclear why my choice to remove myself from a toxic environment has created such a firestorm.

5 Likes

It’s big because.

Seriously, that is the answer. I play the game to build, so do the folks I play with. We build because we want to.

If others have a different style, wonderful. For the three+ years I was on official servers, none of my buildings or bases where ever an issue with the TOS. When the TOS changed, I realized it was just a matter of time before nearly every server on which I played would result in a ban.

So, I left official servers and now play a game I enjoy in a manner I like.

I am failing to understand why this bothers folks.

2 Likes

And here is the source of our disagreement.

You appear to want a pristine environment for the mythical new player, no matter ho long the server has existed or how many people play on it. By your “example” any building is wrong because the mythical new player’s experience is altered.

This is an unrealistic situation on a public server.

I do not play the game so that you might, one day, enjoy it. I am selfish, I play the game for my own enjoyment and if folks do not like the server I am on, they are welcome to leave and find another server.

7 Likes