Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Player Suspensions and Bans

Decius
You are a Troll
And what about *Settlement Leaders* who hardly play the game any more? Was someone else appointed to attend? Did anyone even ask? What about a leader who appears from obscurity to attend and then disappears again? Aren't the members of that settlement being *held hostage* by the absentee leader? What value does an opinion have of someone who doesn't even play the game? As I understand it, there is basically zero chance/methods of deposing someone who has their e-mail address and account attached to a Settlement as *leader* - I consider this a huge problem that needs to be addressed. It seems to me Settlement Leaders wield way too much power, especially when things were supposedly designed around Companies and not Settlements.
If you feel that you are being "held hostage" because the head of your player organization does not communicate with you, there are plenty of settlements recruiting. Maybe one of them has leadership that does what you want your leader to do.
Bringslite
Things the way that I understand them:

*The meetings are limited in attendees partly to keep the level of chaos low but mostly so that EVERY settlement has opportunity for equal time and opinion, regardless of size.

*They are still not a crowdforging situation though the attendees have been asked for opinion and feed back on issues and what is done with those opinions is unclear, but I have yet to see anything change because of one of these meetings. I personally feel like I have had more impact here in the forums than during any of these that I have attended.

*There is a wide open forum for EVERYONE to express things about the game, make suggestions, debate/argue, and praise/complain where the playing field is also level, but numbers make a big difference. You are reading something in that forum right now.

*One thing is certain(and please do not take this badly) GW can be certain that Outlaw Council meetings are attended by players that are supporting the game(or at least reps for them), have an ear that SHOULD be attuned to a whole section of other game supporting players, and the real game changing things that we have seen are (so far) discussed with ALL INCLUSIVE general live chat sessions- not Outlaw Council meetings.

*They are not recorded because GW wants everyone there to feel like they can say ANTYTHING they feel they need to say. That freedom can feel pinched when you know you are being recorded.

Take stock. A few people really don't like the concept. One has said multiple times that his accounts are no longer subbed. One I am unsure of. One I am positive IS subbed. And you have more that seem to have little or no problems/issues with these meetings, of which there have been only 4 or 5?

Now my personal opinion: So far(with the exception of this last one), I feel like they are a waste of time. That's right. I said that. Things get discussed but nothing (as far as I can tell) has changed from things discussed in those meetings. At least nothing that was not already planned to change.

I also feel that a general post or email should have been sent by now to all, but if I recall correctly, GW wanted time to discuss the issues with the cpl players that were banned. That nothing be done that can't be undone easily before an opportunity to represent themselves be heard.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bringslite
You are a Troll
Decius
Logs were reviewed and two players were banned as a result. One of those players is, as of the latest informs I have, still appealing the ban.

The logs indicate that only a small amount of effect on the game economy happened; the duplicated items were not widely disseminated and it is believed that nobody had conclusive evidence that anything untoward had been happening (several people had come forward with circumstantial evidence that made them suspicious, but there was no reports of anything that was outright impossible).

I thought GW had no ability to track items in game with *logs etc* - has this now changed, and if so, since when? Was this also part of the Outlaw Council discussion?

Good question. Because of these oddities and multiple requests, GW developed some tools to examine player logs easier. This took some 2 or 3 weeks away from other development time but is well worth it, IMHO.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Smitty
My issue is that if GW is passing along information to specific groups of folks and from what I gather that was the only reason for the meetings.

The council thing is for taking temperatures as you guys say, getting input on things , seeing how things are going.. How the game feels at this time.. This instance has nothing to do with temperature, or opinions.. Was I shocked about what I have heard ?sure, but what can you say people do odd things on the internet..

This entire topic didn’t need to be addressed to a specific small group like this , and now 5-7 days still later no word to the general population. That is the problem I have with all this, don’t use the council as a way to pass along information , gather it all you want in these meetings but as to passing along information that could affect the rest of the community, do that through the normal blogs/ emails etc ..
They are in a difficult position. Action had to be taken in an immediate fashion, since any warning could result in infection of other accounts and damage that required a server wipe that makes nobody happy. A real-world business relationship is involved, so they ore obligated to give people time to make a case for not having large amounts of their money lost and their names publicly dragged through the mud. If they suspend and say nothing, In the meantime, even if nothing is said by anybody, the server will notice the absence/silence of normally active players, leading to rumours that may do additional damage.

Whether or not using the council to disseminate this in a semi-controlled fashion was the best answer, it was one way to start the information spreading with a group of people who generally have the game's best interests in mind, and a not-unreasonable choice for dealing with a bad situation. It's easy for us to second guess them, but it's their business and their livelihoods on the line.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Hobson Fiffledown
*As one of the players that wouldn't volunteer to fill a seat, I'll second that the Outlaw Council feels like a nice slap in the face to the general population for a number of reasons (that I've complained about in private forums). I've felt that way since the announcement of the council. And meetings like this (not about crowd forging, not about settlement feature design and function) fall pretty far from the explanation of what this council was for. Sounds like a neat little club, have fun with that.

Before our group could pass out the details to us, on the day following the meeting, I received whispers from people in NO LESS THAN four other power blocs with (and interesting range of) details, information about what happened, misinformation about what happened, questions about what happened, and poaching/recruitment offers.

That is not, in any way, a professional dissemination of information to clients and customers.

But hey, at least being an outlaw is an official option in the River Kingdoms. As a rogue, I was getting worried. smile
This space for rent.
arty155jln
Smitty
Follow up because it also needs to be said.. I am always behind a level playing field for all groups… Having an council is fine, but like I said above the longer this takes the further we get from that field..
From what I understand about this scenario , perhaps at one time one of these players that was banned may have been involved in said council meeting as that player had many accounts and also controlled at least one settlement..

If some group was waiting in the winds so to speak, and was interested in coming into the game, or an established group wanted to relocate.. the sudden departure of holdings and outpost surrounding some of the places in question may prove to be tempting targets..

Letting some folks know about that departure and then waiting for an extended period of time before publically announcing what happened lets people that already have the information prepare and sort things out before it is public knowledge..

That screams favoritism to an outsider observer, and that is something GW needs to avoid..
I never thought of it that way. This is a great point, and while I don't think a council in general is a bad idea, in this case a full public declaration would have made sense.

I know of at least 3 separate takeover actions that took place over the weekend relating to this incident. I doubt that these actions will hurt "newbie" companies (because overall population is still too low), but it should not be the precedent that existing settlements get the first notice of any changes to existing settlements.

So if anything, I would suggest that GW/NewCorp make public declarations first, so everyone is on fair footing when it comes to the strategy part of the game. Then take the current settlement leaders aside and explain the details (as was done) so they can disseminate as they saw fit.
Decius
I was under the impression that the player who was given a chance to explain himself and a final decision be made before making the announcement.
Bringslite
arty155jln
Smitty
Follow up because it also needs to be said.. I am always behind a level playing field for all groups… Having an council is fine, but like I said above the longer this takes the further we get from that field..
From what I understand about this scenario , perhaps at one time one of these players that was banned may have been involved in said council meeting as that player had many accounts and also controlled at least one settlement..

If some group was waiting in the winds so to speak, and was interested in coming into the game, or an established group wanted to relocate.. the sudden departure of holdings and outpost surrounding some of the places in question may prove to be tempting targets..

Letting some folks know about that departure and then waiting for an extended period of time before publically announcing what happened lets people that already have the information prepare and sort things out before it is public knowledge..

That screams favoritism to an outsider observer, and that is something GW needs to avoid..
I never thought of it that way. This is a great point, and while I don't think a council in general is a bad idea, in this case a full public declaration would have made sense.

I know of at least 3 separate takeover actions that took place over the weekend relating to this incident. I doubt that these actions will hurt "newbie" companies (because overall population is still too low), but it should not be the precedent that existing settlements get the first notice of any changes to existing settlements.

So if anything, I would suggest that GW/NewCorp make public declarations first, so everyone is on fair footing when it comes to the strategy part of the game. Then take the current settlement leaders aside and explain the details (as was done) so they can disseminate as they saw fit.

I am not sure if these actions are any different from regular actions anywhere on the server. Any company can perpetrate similar actions but it is unclear if unaffiliated Companies can perpetrate(feud) non-penalty aggression. All settlements were asked to attend the meeting so technically no priviledged info was unavailable to anyone and none was withheld from anyone that could use it.

Having said that, Ante Omnia Armari (a company of Ozem's Vigil) did aggress(feud) and capture 2 holdings with further goals in mind. We are only interested in an equal playing field for all. If there is some unfair advantage taken here, we will comply with GW's ruling. We will however, expect a chance to speak on it if there is a problem.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Smitty
@ Bringslite..

I originally posted that with some of that in mind. But please don’t read what I wrote and think I feel OV has taken advantage of this specific situation. You guys shouldn’t be able to do what you are doing in fact I feel you guys are doing exactly what you should be doing. I just wanted to point out to GW to be leery in spreading information in the manner in which they did.

The knowledge you needed to feud is the only advantage. And even then I don’t think it is much of one because of the size of the population at this point…
Yet we can always be hopeful of a few silent watchers are waiting for the right time to make an impact/splash in the game. And this situation could have been just that. So I don’t think it should just be brushed off as well this time it did no harm and next time it won’t do any harm either..
Smitty

@ everyone else
Pretty much have said my piece.. it boils down to
Please GW don’t use the outlaw council to pass along trickle down information to the player base in regards to something like this. Use them for brainstorming, or taking opinions of game play. Issues with ___.

If you do feel it is necessary to use the council please make an official statement shortly afterward ( i.e 1 day following or immediately following the meeting etc). That way folks that want the news and not the rumors they know they can find it easy enough in your official communications.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post