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

Bringslite
Bob
Bringslite
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.

I'm open to any arguments anyone wants to make on this front, but my current thinking is that placing holdings is the easy part. Keeping them over the weekend is the hard part if anyone wants to stop you.

Don't make me open the basement doors. Those monsters haven't eaten in months! smile

Edit: dogs to monsters so more ppl will get the joke.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bob
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.

I have made extensive efforts to contact settlement leaders and get them to appoint alternates when they can't attend.

It is true that there is currently no easy way to transition power inside a settlement if the leader becomes inactive, but putting some rules in place for that is something we've been discussing for some time. That said, if the leader is truly inactive, the member companies could choose to attempt a hostile takeover. The downside is that effectively creates a totally new settlement, meaning the loss of all previous structure kits and the rights to the ones yet to be delivered, unless the previous owner agrees to voluntarily transfer the settlement. Not ideal, but you do wind up with a settlement of your own.
Bob
Again, sorry for the delay sending out our official statement. I just sent out the email version, and I've also posted it to the forums here. I'll see if there are any other quick questions to answer in this topic, but most conversation regarding this issue should move to the new topic.
Bob
Midnight
I hate the concept of the Outlaw Council and I hope that eliminating it is the FIRST thing that NewCorp does.

We paid good money to crowdforge this game, and having 99% of us left out of the discussions is basically another breach of what we were promised in the marketing.

We use the Outlaw Council meetings as just one of many ways to interact with all of you, and we've had far more Keepside Chats than Outlaw Council meetings. We fully understand the limits of filtered feedback, but find the Outlaw Council very useful for some issues, particularly those related to the politics between settlements and gameplay mechanics that only settlement leaders have access to. For every method of interaction (forums, polls, playing together online, emails, open meetings, closed meetings, or whatever other crazy form of communication comes next), there are strengths and weaknesses that bias the information in various directions. We always keep that in mind when evaluating what to do with the information.
Midnight
Decius
Midnight
It is very simple.

I would no sooner allow another player to crowdforge for me than I'd allow them to play my character for me.

If you're content with letting others crowdforge for you, then enjoy.

I've made it clear that I don't desire a layer of "representation" between me and the company taking my money.
Great. If you don't want to get information disseminated through social structures, you don't want to. Most of the actual crowdforging has taken place in the forums by amateur and semipro designers interacting with the developers on discussions of how the design could be better. One very concrete result of that was the "charging" versions of cleric orisons, based on the competing desires that clerics should be able to heal in pitched combat but that heals should typically be touch range. On a longer time scale, the concept of friendly fire has developed over time from early input (mostly from tt gamers) that throwing aoe attacks should require considering ally locations, to the current system which is more MMO-standard. Once it is possible to identify friendly targets at a glance, I hope to bring up the idea of indiscriminate aoe attacks again.

I never objected to AOE friendly fire. I complained about 3rd parties purposely griefing our rep by mixing with our legitimate feuded targets, and GW's solution was to turn off friendly fire. Granted, that was EASIER than banning 3rd parties milling around, but as rep has come to be a disdained mechanic by all sides, I'd rather see the rep effect turned off (or at least when an AoE hits at least one feuded target) and AoE friendly fire turned back on with its increased damage returned. But it can wait, there are far more important development priorities, and I give GW credit for a quick and dirty solution in the meantime. It isn't perfect, but it is better than having our rep griefed by 3rd parties just milling around for that purpose.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Midnight
Bob
Midnight
I hate the concept of the Outlaw Council and I hope that eliminating it is the FIRST thing that NewCorp does.

We paid good money to crowdforge this game, and having 99% of us left out of the discussions is basically another breach of what we were promised in the marketing.

We use the Outlaw Council meetings as just one of many ways to interact with all of you, and we've had far more Keepside Chats than Outlaw Council meetings. We fully understand the limits of filtered feedback, but find the Outlaw Council very useful for some issues, particularly those related to the politics between settlements and gameplay mechanics that only settlement leaders have access to. For every method of interaction (forums, polls, playing together online, emails, open meetings, closed meetings, or whatever other crazy form of communication comes next), there are strengths and weaknesses that bias the information in various directions. We always keep that in mind when evaluating what to do with the information.

We've had far more Keepside Chats than Outlaw Council meetings

I just have an egalitarian streak, combined with the fact that crowdforging this game has more often been a more fascinating use of my time and money than actually playing this game. That's not to denigrate this work in progress, but there are subscription-free MMOs I play (like ESO) that often entertain me more than PFO (at this stage of PFO's development). So the crowdforging is actually what gives me something closer to my money's worth (and we all of course hope we're part of an important and eventually successful game).

So I worry about what I'm missing in an unrecorded meeting, and I'm not entirely alone in those concerns from what I've read. Thanks for the explanation, but if this game gets wildly successful, that explanation will have to be made more and more often, to more and more people, and the larger the population, the more extremes you'll likely see in player skepticism and player suspicion and player objections. e.g. look at what people have written about Eve-Online's CSM over the years.

I'm not claiming the council isn't useful to you. I just haven't found it useful to me, and because I never know for sure what I'm missing… I never know for sure what I am missing. smile
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Huran
Midnight
Bob
Midnight
I hate the concept of the Outlaw Council and I hope that eliminating it is the FIRST thing that NewCorp does.

We paid good money to crowdforge this game, and having 99% of us left out of the discussions is basically another breach of what we were promised in the marketing.

We use the Outlaw Council meetings as just one of many ways to interact with all of you, and we've had far more Keepside Chats than Outlaw Council meetings. We fully understand the limits of filtered feedback, but find the Outlaw Council very useful for some issues, particularly those related to the politics between settlements and gameplay mechanics that only settlement leaders have access to. For every method of interaction (forums, polls, playing together online, emails, open meetings, closed meetings, or whatever other crazy form of communication comes next), there are strengths and weaknesses that bias the information in various directions. We always keep that in mind when evaluating what to do with the information.

We've had far more Keepside Chats than Outlaw Council meetings

I just have an egalitarian streak, combined with the fact that crowdforging this game has more often been a more fascinating use of my time and money than actually playing this game. That's not to denigrate this work in progress, but there are subscription-free MMOs I play (like ESO) that often entertain me more than PFO (at this stage of PFO's development). So the crowdforging is actually what gives me something closer to my money's worth (and we all of course hope we're part of an important and eventually successful game).

So I worry about what I'm missing in an unrecorded meeting, and I'm not entirely alone in those concerns from what I've read. Thanks for the explanation, but if this game gets wildly successful, that explanation will have to be made more and more often, to more and more people, and the larger the population, the more extremes you'll likely see in player skepticism and player suspicion and player objections. e.g. look at what people have written about Eve-Online's CSM over the years.

I'm not claiming the council isn't useful to you. I just haven't found it useful to me, and because I never know for sure what I'm missing… I never know for sure what I am missing. smile

Have you ever considered joining a settlement where the leader actually attends the meetings? From what I have seen they are really not that exciting and even less exciting if you are not part of an active settlement. For that reason I have zero desire to ever attend them. I suppose it would be different if I were paying solely for the meetings and providing input, but then if that were the only reason - I would be a settlement leader smile.
"Circles of power, gathered by EARTH, welcomed by GOLD, in strife and in mirth. Focused by CRYSTAL, guided by LIGHT, showing the way, by day and by night. wrought in IRON, strengthened by STEEL, together we stand, in wrack and in weal. Hidden in SHADOW, explored by WOOD, we circle together, for the greater good." –Maxikyd– http://www.kotcguild.com/
Midnight
Huran
Midnight
Bob
Midnight
I hate the concept of the Outlaw Council and I hope that eliminating it is the FIRST thing that NewCorp does.

We paid good money to crowdforge this game, and having 99% of us left out of the discussions is basically another breach of what we were promised in the marketing.

We use the Outlaw Council meetings as just one of many ways to interact with all of you, and we've had far more Keepside Chats than Outlaw Council meetings. We fully understand the limits of filtered feedback, but find the Outlaw Council very useful for some issues, particularly those related to the politics between settlements and gameplay mechanics that only settlement leaders have access to. For every method of interaction (forums, polls, playing together online, emails, open meetings, closed meetings, or whatever other crazy form of communication comes next), there are strengths and weaknesses that bias the information in various directions. We always keep that in mind when evaluating what to do with the information.

We've had far more Keepside Chats than Outlaw Council meetings

I just have an egalitarian streak, combined with the fact that crowdforging this game has more often been a more fascinating use of my time and money than actually playing this game. That's not to denigrate this work in progress, but there are subscription-free MMOs I play (like ESO) that often entertain me more than PFO (at this stage of PFO's development). So the crowdforging is actually what gives me something closer to my money's worth (and we all of course hope we're part of an important and eventually successful game).

So I worry about what I'm missing in an unrecorded meeting, and I'm not entirely alone in those concerns from what I've read. Thanks for the explanation, but if this game gets wildly successful, that explanation will have to be made more and more often, to more and more people, and the larger the population, the more extremes you'll likely see in player skepticism and player suspicion and player objections. e.g. look at what people have written about Eve-Online's CSM over the years.

I'm not claiming the council isn't useful to you. I just haven't found it useful to me, and because I never know for sure what I'm missing… I never know for sure what I am missing. smile

Have you ever considered joining a settlement where the leader actually attends the meetings? From what I have seen they are really not that exciting and even less exciting if you are not part of an active settlement. For that reason I have zero desire to ever attend them. I suppose it would be different if I were paying solely for the meetings and providing input, but then if that were the only reason - I would be a settlement leader smile.

Over the many many decades of my life I have been part of a myriad of real life and virtual organizations and social structures. I've seen them work well, and I've also been hosed by "leaders" who sold out the rank and file to make people of authority happy (most likely for some personal gain). Over time I've developed a preference for non-hierarchical systems. I subscribed to PFO (despite that) because I realize the rest of the world is very used to hierarchy, and a Kingmaker campaign ought to be hierarchical in the nature of playing the game, anyway.

That still doesn't mean I want player hierarchy involved in the way the company that I *DIRECTLY* give my dollars to, disseminates or solicits information to/from me, its customer.

It isn't even a matter of whether my settlement leaders are serving me well in that respect. I simply have no desire to be in the situation where I'd have to rely on other players when it comes to GW disseminating or soliciting information to/from me, its customer. Particularly regarding bans and bannable behavior.

It's a preference. Like most things I prefer in my consumerism and gaming life, I don't always get my way, but I'll happily state my preference for both GW to know, and for all you other future game designers to know (including NewCorp).

People want my money; I happily tell people how to please this consumer to have better odds of getting more of my money. They're obviously going to listen to everyone else, too… as well as make some choices that simply make their lives easier (regardless of what players would prefer). I accept that. But I've spent about $600 on gaming since Thanksgiving, and I think only about $75 of that went to GW. There are multiple reasons for that, but I simply felt like expressing my preference on an issue so that NewCorp would have a better chance at pleasing this possible future customer.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Quijenoth Starkiller
Being a settlement leader and unable to attend these meetings due to time zone differences, I personally would appreciate some form of minutes. Putting Phy as my spokesman in my absence may not be optimal if hes not attending them.
Quijenoth Starkiller Viceroy of Callambea
Company Leader of Beyond the Grave - www.beyond-pfo.com
Crafting Planner
The Eternal Balance
Yeah, that was probably not a wise choice.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post