The importance of an elected player admin with a single 200 hour banning power per month on official PvE

Conan Exiles General Discussion
1

When people choose to play on official PvE servers, they choose technical convenience, persistence, reliability and legitimacy through others, at the price of accepting the bad with the good.

What they did not choose is loss of control to others. There is a reason why roping KO’d players is not a thing, even in PvP.

“When there are too many strangers in your house, it becomes a prison.”

When griefers:

  1. Spam foundations through the whole map
  2. Connect entire empty cities with roads/decay umbilicals, and claim an incredible amount of real estate.
  3. Build dicks around your base.
  4. Log on to refresh all this, eventhough they don’t play on the official server anymore, out of spite.
  5. When they build over prominent resource nodes.
  6. Proceed to creating a scorched earth policy, and start walling off the noob zone.

It’s easy to say “then play on unofficial servers.”
But it doesn’t make the game that is directly under the jurisdiction of Funcom any less broken, does it?

I know that human behavior is not under the jurisdiction of Funcom. It can’t be. Even though Studio Wildcard (Indie) does this, Funcom (publisher) can’t. But implementing a system for the human element to regulate itself within a system that takes away control, does.

The system I propose would look like this:

Each month, 2 players are voted as admins. 1 is the acting admin, and the other is the watchdog, that watches the watchdog. (and if you think a watchdog needs a watchdog, that watches a watchdog, then your voting the wrong people. If you can’t find anyone who can watch each other, then your server doesn’t deserve an admin. If the majority votes a Trumpian Fotzenschlecker, then that Trumpian Fotzenschlecker has united the server under his ideals. Such a feat alone becomes server culture.)

But even when a player is voted to be an admin, he only has 1 power. Only 1 power; - To ban someone from the server for 200 hours, per month. Only 1 ban in his time of administration. And if he bans the wrong person, the vice-admin can veto the ban. An admin can never ban a vice-admin, or vice versa. Vice-admins can not be in the same tribe as the admin.

This dynamic is far better, in my honest opinion, than to have to wake up to dick structures for the rest of one’s life on an official PvE server, decay system be damned, under a server policy that could only have been created by Crom.

P.s. I also realize that banning a griefer can also be considered “loss of control to others”, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. While Crom might disagree, it wouldn’t make for a good business model. I promise you that.

2 Likes
2

And the voted admin will always be part of whatever alpha clan is on the server because if said alpha clan doesn’t have the people to swing the vote, bullying tactics by that clan will do the job. So you just gave the alpha more power and the rest of the group less.

In addition, a Steam game can be shared so what’s to stop a griefer from making an alt after their ban and returning? Your admin used their one ban so they’re powerless.

Congratulations, you just overcomplicated a thing and have 0 results to show for it.

3 Likes
3

Continuing the discussion from No admins on Officials:

Good business for Funcom and helps fund the server. And besides, 200 hours is hardly a reason to pay another 40 euroes, especially with F76 at the doorstep.

If the griefers want to return, and try and build dicks on a “we prepared for you” landscape, that’s their challenge.

The people at least have the satisfaction, knowing the griefer will have to rebuild once every month with diminishing returns.

Besides… the ritual of demolishing super massive griefing networks is a therapy so satisfying, it could easily be a selling point of CE.

No pain no gain.

4

The only people that should have any admin type powers should be contracted by funcom or employees. Power goes to players heads. maybe not all but not worth it to find out.

3 Likes
5

Also good.

I repeatedly suggested a subscription model, but unofficial servers seem to do that just fine apparantly, nevermind the wipes.

6

You can just create a new profile and play as level 1 in your clan, which will provide you with the resources or even ready to deploy foundations etc. At least on the ps4 - no idea how it works on PC or xbone

And seriously even on PC- if somebody wants to be a dick, then he will find a way, like just playing on a different server in the 200hours ban period and being a dick there. And what do you do when he returns from the 200hour ban? His clan probably produced even more foundations in that time, just so that he can be an even bigger dick when he returns. Your idea is fine, but in the end useless against the hardcore griefers

7

And here I am, watching Fallout 76 videos, thinking to myself:
“Bethesda has solved every single problem Conan Exiles has, in their own game.”

And people are worried about getting shot by a rubber bullet that tickles in F76, when people can build a wall with crenelations around your base and give your backside a good deep clean in Conan Exiles, even in PvE.

throws arms up in the air

Looking grim. Cuz i’m shyte outta ideas now.

8

As i understand having someone keeping an eye on the scum of CE is necessary the implementation and handling is poorly thought.

For example volunteer “admins” that are vetted by funcom and the volunteer admin is only an admin while active if inactive for more than 48 hours without notifying funcom will have the status removed.

the volunteer should be able to tag a building as griefing etc and within 24 hours will be reviewed by an actual moderator for removal.

and many other things could be improved, but this is just an idea, but getting the player base to vote for by majority is not always a good thing, and i believe 100% giving an active player the ability to punish players is a bad move, let alone if giving people the power to enforce rules etc and can only enforce it on one person its counter productive.

what we really need is a better reporting system, and people who are able to respond to complaints and issues within 12 - 48 hours, volunteer admins who earn trust and recognition by their contribution to funcom but they must always prove their actions and failure to do so would be a removal of permissions etc.

1 Like
9

I put a suggestion in the Suggestion Forums for players to be able to flag toxic and abusive people so that they can be reviewed for a ban.

And flagged players should have it displayed on their user name in the players list.

2 Likes
10

I think I need a server number showing me this level of dedication to being an asshat.

On the other hand, dishing out admin power to an online profile is a certain path to server destruction.

1 Like
11

To prevent griefers from exploiting this, if it is found that you constantly flag stuff that isn’t greifing, you in turn become labeled the griefer, and will be dealt with accordingly by Funcom. I like it:)

1 Like
12

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. I like the idea of a chronic flagger being looked into and warned.

I suggested the flagging of griefers who hack or build/block server resources to be investigated. Funcom should not automatically ban players who have been flagged, but by getting enough flags, it should garner attention into a flagged player’s behavior. Funcom doesn’t have the resources to look at ALL the servers, but a flag system would point them in the right direction to investigate.

1 Like
13

Jsut that griefers would go around flagging everything to overload the system so to speak. So yes, chronic flagger should be treated with the same process as a griefer.

Hell, the more correct you are “real” griefs could be saved to your user id, and give Funcom a trusted list that they may prioritize when having to look into griefing.

14

Players acting as admins on the servers they play on should never happen. This is bad for funcom due to the optics and criticisms that would be raised because of it.

Any admin functions on a server should rest with Funcom employee’s and not volunteers. Funcom should never risk its product by using volunteer admins. There are enough examples in the industry of it going bad that Funcom should stay clear of any ideas of player admins on official servers.

This electing players players to admin positions seems like a cheap way to get your own private server on funcom’s dime.

Funcom has given players two paths if you want your own admins then get a private server if you want no admins then go to the officials.

You have choices you can make if you want admin and they are viable.

3 Likes
15

Doesn’t make Funcom’s core game any less broken.

So tell me; If you want to play legit, and yet you have to help people with your admin powers, that’s not gonna make you feel things are real. And that is what this is all about.

And I’ve repeatedly suggested premium subscription servers. Official PvE servers that run a subscription to help fund an admin who has very clear guidelines.

But nope… There’s always godda be that one server host who has to sacrifice both finances AND his personal legitimacy within the game mechanics just to run an unofficial server, which is gonna wipe itself everytime a major update is released.

16

This just seems like a bad idea. Electing isn’t going to ensure anything improves.

And only 1 active ban… So a clanof 4 people decide to be a pain. One gets banned… The other 3 will simply invite new people in to be paid because they know the ban has already been used.

17

It’s a clan ban. Guilt by association.

But I actually agree. Coming to think of it, election and an acting admin might not be a good idea.

But I do like the idea of flagging griefers for review.

2 Likes
18

Players acting as admin on official servers they play on is a terrible idea because of optics and the real possibility of them messing up an official server to favor their friends. Its not what ought to be done ethically.

I backed the game because they are no admins on officials. Its how the game came out you should live with it rather than trying to subvert it.

19

Your right.
Think flagging griefers for review might be a good solution.

Do you have a solution for griefers?

Because I refuse to “live with it”. I do not bend over for anyone or anything and will fight this till my dying breath. It is why I still play CE after 7 months and have seen 70 people come and go.

… and your choice of words is very suspicious. “Subverting” as opposed to “change”. Almost like you were relying on the lack of admins so you could… I donnoh. Do something that admins would normally disapprove of?

2 Likes
20

Then I think this game is not for you, if you will not bend. You should go to a private server or find something that gives you what you want.