Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Developer has no objection to allowing high donating players have GM accounts. Not P2W... LOL

1234689

Comments

  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • TartaniusRexTartaniusRex Member UncommonPosts: 1
    I think the biggest misunderstandings come from two things.

    1.) We are assuming we know what was meant by "GM accounts for RP." RP may be the most overlooked part of this quote. The second we see GM we immediately assume that means they have powers to effect players positively or negatively. What if it was only meant to be for RP (role play), no powers that interacted directly with the game in any way, no ability to create or destroy, just mechanics for effecting the Role Play of the game? This was also taken from a larger discussion that was not a Dev journal or any official release from the developer. This was conversation among the community on Discord. Many here have no idea of that and it was presented as though it was game cannon.

    2.) PTW. I see it tossed around a lot and some times for good reason but I don't see how this applies to this game. In a game about stories and their interactions with characters lives how does backing this game equal a win? The king/queen would still have to play through his story. They do not get any special player killing weapons or access to powers (inherently, he could randomly have a talent.) They do not get a leg up on anyone else in combat, and in fact they suffer soul loss 32 times as quickly as a regular player so their lives will be fast and short. They will be responsible for actually ruling the kingdom, this is not something the game will do for you and it has been speculated that that will require more than 10 hours of game play per week just for that. If a player backs at king they are not just bringing their clan or guild to the kingdom, they are managing multiple guilds, clans, organizations, and player groups. Many of whom may not get along in the end. If they are a bad king their kingdom will fall into chaos and ruin rather quickly I believe. If they are a good king and a strong player they may last for longer but will still not be wining the game. With all the responsibility involved I expect that the Kings and Queens will actually miss out on many of the major player events because they will be so busy dealing with taxes, policies, infighting, wars, you name it. The way I see it a guild/clan/group of players who come in with no money down and good players, could easily topple a inexperienced king rather quickly and potentially with the backing of his own subjects if done correctly.

    I personally don't want to be a king, I don't have that kind of time. I did back at Count level because with my current work/life situation I can play for long periods of time but have to be able to stop at a moments notice to deal with real world issues. I can't go delving all the time. I can't be caught out in the open. I can sit in my villa and set policies, work with mayors and barons, manage resources and supply chains, and help my counties citizens succeed at playing the game they want to play. Even if I stayed at Count for the whole 10 years of the game, would I be considered winning?
    Leopold Eravaar Bombastus Tartanius Rex

    Vornair - Zylphania - Ubertaas Come grow strong with us and be merry.
  • mystichazemystichaze Member UncommonPosts: 378
    edited December 2016
    YashaX said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Iselin said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    I might be missing something here, but ultimately someone would be a GM, right? So what's the difference with allowing someone to pay to be a GM and just anointing someone as a GM?
    Oh IDK... the expectation that a GM would be a fair and impartial company employee? It's all I got.

    Honestly? If there is a balance issue in the game, regardless who you allow to make decisions with regards to balance or in-game issues, there will always be someone who take offence to your decision. I have no problem with allowing players to be GMs, and it wouldn't be the first time. It sounds like the expectation is that these GMs would somehow be set loose without any sort of leash. That's sort of what I was trying to figure out, like whether people actually believed that GMs would not be monitored. To be perfectly honest, this seems blown out of proportion to me. 
    In addition as it has been stated several times in this thread by Caspain himself. There is no plan to allow players to acquire GM positions by pledging or otherwise. Talk about tunnel vision folks. It was a comment made in jest!
    What part was made in jest? That he thinks it would be fine for influential players to be GMs or that the game won't implement that?
    Seriously?... You are very skilled I must admit, of twisting words around to suit your cause. Let me try to explain it so you can understand. The topic originated from a comment of  jest in discord, at that point, when questioned about it and knowing the full mechanics of his game Caspain stated he didn't think he would have an issue with it. He is human after all guys and very open to his communities input.. 

    See something I can tell you are completely unaware of is that within the CoE community the team talks to their community and values their input and opinions. At times even making the suggested improvements. This brought about a misunderstanding, I think mainly because the community is growing so quickly and not everyone is completely settled in yet. When questioned about it, the answer still was that he didn't see a problem with it, but that it was defiantly not an intended part of the game.

    If you can't tell the difference between "I don't see what it could harm" as apposed to "We have no plans to allow" then all I can tell you is...

    One is opened for discussion, and the other is a definite. 

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    CrazKanuk said:
    Iselin said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    I might be missing something here, but ultimately someone would be a GM, right? So what's the difference with allowing someone to pay to be a GM and just anointing someone as a GM?
    Oh IDK... the expectation that a GM would be a fair and impartial company employee? It's all I got.

    Honestly? If there is a balance issue in the game, regardless who you allow to make decisions with regards to balance or in-game issues, there will always be someone who take offence to your decision. I have no problem with allowing players to be GMs, and it wouldn't be the first time. It sounds like the expectation is that these GMs would somehow be set loose without any sort of leash. That's sort of what I was trying to figure out, like whether people actually believed that GMs would not be monitored. To be perfectly honest, this seems blown out of proportion to me. 
    In addition as it has been stated several times in this thread by Caspain himself. There is no plan to allow players to acquire GM positions by pledging or otherwise. Talk about tunnel vision folks. It was a comment made in jest!

    Even if there was, let's face the facts, the likelihood that there would be a corrupted GM who would alter the power of the entire game and, somehow, cover up their tracks and never be caught is, quite honestly, unrealistic. I mentioned in another post and I think it applies here, it is probably more likely that someone would hire an army of 100 Chinese players to simply defend his kingdom on a 24/7 basis. Also, this would be completely within the rules of the game. 

    There is a saying that, "Given time, 1 million monkeys on 1 million typewriters, would reproduce the collective works of Shakespeare." It is something that is, technically, true, but if someone were to actually believe it's something that would somehow come to fruition in their lifetime, they might be laughed at. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • mystichazemystichaze Member UncommonPosts: 378
    edited December 2016
    CrazKanuk said:


    Even if there was, let's face the facts, the likelihood that there would be a corrupted GM who would alter the power of the entire game and, somehow, cover up their tracks and never be caught is, quite honestly, unrealistic. I mentioned in another post and I think it applies here, it is probably more likely that someone would hire an army of 100 Chinese players to simply defend his kingdom on a 24/7 basis. Also, this would be completely within the rules of the game. 

    There is a saying that, "Given time, 1 million monkeys on 1 million typewriters, would reproduce the collective works of Shakespeare." It is something that is, technically, true, but if someone were to actually believe it's something that would somehow come to fruition in their lifetime, they might be laughed at. 
    It isn't a question, cause it isn't part of the game! *Shrugs*

    If and when it ever becomes a question I will at that time voice any concerns I might have. I don't like to play the 'what if"' game, but rather I analyze what I know to be fact.  If you can provide something factual that I need to be concerned with then I will gladly listen.

    Till then I hope you have a good day. :)



  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    CrazKanuk said:


    Even if there was, let's face the facts, the likelihood that there would be a corrupted GM who would alter the power of the entire game and, somehow, cover up their tracks and never be caught is, quite honestly, unrealistic. I mentioned in another post and I think it applies here, it is probably more likely that someone would hire an army of 100 Chinese players to simply defend his kingdom on a 24/7 basis. Also, this would be completely within the rules of the game. 

    There is a saying that, "Given time, 1 million monkeys on 1 million typewriters, would reproduce the collective works of Shakespeare." It is something that is, technically, true, but if someone were to actually believe it's something that would somehow come to fruition in their lifetime, they might be laughed at. 
    It isn't a question, cause it isn't part of the game! *Shrugs*

    If and when it ever becomes a question I will at that time voice any concerns I might have. I don't like to play the 'what if"' game, but rather I analyze what I know to be fact.  If you can provide something factual that I need to be concerned with then I will gladly listen.

    Till then I hope you have a good day. :)




    Yeah, totally. I think that I'm pickin' up what you're layin' down. We're on the same page. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,803
    It's getting silly now.
    I mean honestly it's a niche game and barely anyone of the mmorpg.com community will play your game.

    So no one will interrupt your gameplay or mess with your community once the game releases.

    Why are you so bothered with what we discuss here?
    Harbinger of Fools
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    CrazKanuk said:


    Even if there was, let's face the facts, the likelihood that there would be a corrupted GM who would alter the power of the entire game and, somehow, cover up their tracks and never be caught is, quite honestly, unrealistic. I mentioned in another post and I think it applies here, it is probably more likely that someone would hire an army of 100 Chinese players to simply defend his kingdom on a 24/7 basis. Also, this would be completely within the rules of the game. 

    There is a saying that, "Given time, 1 million monkeys on 1 million typewriters, would reproduce the collective works of Shakespeare." It is something that is, technically, true, but if someone were to actually believe it's something that would somehow come to fruition in their lifetime, they might be laughed at. 
    It isn't a question, cause it isn't part of the game! *Shrugs*

    If and when it ever becomes a question I will at that time voice any concerns I might have. Till then I don't like to play the 'what if"' game, but rather I analyze what I know to be fact.  If you can provide something factual that I need to be concerned with then I will gladly listen.

    Till then I hope you have a good day. :)



    Strange attitude for someone who has paid money for something that doesn't exist except as statements made about what they have in mind for the game. Is anything about this game "fact"?

    You're missing the point about why the things that are said by developers while a game is being developed about how things might be are vital... especially if they are crowd funding it.

    Luckily someone there behind the scenes does get it and made him make an "official statement" to clarify.
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • mystichazemystichaze Member UncommonPosts: 378
    Iselin said:
    CrazKanuk said:


    Even if there was, let's face the facts, the likelihood that there would be a corrupted GM who would alter the power of the entire game and, somehow, cover up their tracks and never be caught is, quite honestly, unrealistic. I mentioned in another post and I think it applies here, it is probably more likely that someone would hire an army of 100 Chinese players to simply defend his kingdom on a 24/7 basis. Also, this would be completely within the rules of the game. 

    There is a saying that, "Given time, 1 million monkeys on 1 million typewriters, would reproduce the collective works of Shakespeare." It is something that is, technically, true, but if someone were to actually believe it's something that would somehow come to fruition in their lifetime, they might be laughed at. 
    It isn't a question, cause it isn't part of the game! *Shrugs*

    If and when it ever becomes a question I will at that time voice any concerns I might have. Till then I don't like to play the 'what if"' game, but rather I analyze what I know to be fact.  If you can provide something factual that I need to be concerned with then I will gladly listen.

    Till then I hope you have a good day. :)



    Strange attitude for someone who has paid money for something that doesn't exist except as statements made about what they have in mind for the game. Is anything about this game "fact"?

    You're missing the point about why the things that are said by developers while a game is being developed about how things might be are vital... especially if they are crowd funding it.

    Luckily someone there behind the scenes does get it and made him make an "official statement" to clarify.
    Why is that? I invested in the game because I believe in the vision of CoE and I greatly appreciated the transparency and excitement of the team, especially Caspain. It doesn't mean I have blinders and if something were to be of concern I would most definitely voice my opinion. Up to this point as I had stated earlier, I have no cause for concern and nothing posted in this thread has given me reason to question the integrity of SBS.

      
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 33,098
    CrazKanuk said:
    Iselin said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    I might be missing something here, but ultimately someone would be a GM, right? So what's the difference with allowing someone to pay to be a GM and just anointing someone as a GM?
    Oh IDK... the expectation that a GM would be a fair and impartial company employee? It's all I got.

    Honestly? If there is a balance issue in the game, regardless who you allow to make decisions with regards to balance or in-game issues, there will always be someone who take offence to your decision. I have no problem with allowing players to be GMs, and it wouldn't be the first time. It sounds like the expectation is that these GMs would somehow be set loose without any sort of leash. That's sort of what I was trying to figure out, like whether people actually believed that GMs would not be monitored. To be perfectly honest, this seems blown out of proportion to me. 
    I think "technically" you want someone who is a customer service specialist as a gm.

    Would you really want the face of your company/game to be just some person who gave a lot of money?


    Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb." 

    Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w


    Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547

    Try the "Special Edition." 'Cause it's "Special." https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/64878/?tab=description

    Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo 
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Sovrath said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Iselin said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    I might be missing something here, but ultimately someone would be a GM, right? So what's the difference with allowing someone to pay to be a GM and just anointing someone as a GM?
    Oh IDK... the expectation that a GM would be a fair and impartial company employee? It's all I got.

    Honestly? If there is a balance issue in the game, regardless who you allow to make decisions with regards to balance or in-game issues, there will always be someone who take offence to your decision. I have no problem with allowing players to be GMs, and it wouldn't be the first time. It sounds like the expectation is that these GMs would somehow be set loose without any sort of leash. That's sort of what I was trying to figure out, like whether people actually believed that GMs would not be monitored. To be perfectly honest, this seems blown out of proportion to me. 
    I think "technically" you want someone who is a customer service specialist as a gm.

    Would you really want the face of your company/game to be just some person who gave a lot of money?



    Depends..... Have you ever worked a Technical Support job? So are you asking me whether I would rather have someone who is underpaid and hates everything about the world and people in it, controlling the game? Or would I rather have someone who is passionate and invested controlling the game? I think the main point here is that this wouldn't be a position granted without some consideration, nor would be it one that is completely unmonitored and carries little or no consequence for your actions, is it? The question is, "Would it matter?" And what would be the real concerns surrounding it? 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • holdenfiveholdenfive Member UncommonPosts: 170
    So most reasonable people seem to agree it was a terrible idea for jeromy to make these comments. But the spin is really just as bad, not to mention his response to people on the official forums calling them hypocrites. I mean my god, who in their right minds watches a dev act this way and doesnt hear the alarms going off? This is during what essentially looks like a glorified conceptual phase, one that is largely taking place in the dev echo chamber with very limited public scrutiny because there is no semblance of a product to scrutinize, and this guy already lashes out at people who pile obsequious hero worship on the dev team because they had the audacity to question his dodgy rhetoric.

    This is a dog and pony show, it doesnt resemble game development. 

    And this is just the latest in a long list of comparably ill advised dick moves by this team when dealing with the general mmo community. And not the first time jeromy has came on these forums to be snide towards members here who called out something. Get this 2 cent John Smedley off the forums already if you value your company in any way.
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 33,098
    edited December 2016
    CrazKanuk said:
    Sovrath said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Iselin said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    I might be missing something here, but ultimately someone would be a GM, right? So what's the difference with allowing someone to pay to be a GM and just anointing someone as a GM?
    Oh IDK... the expectation that a GM would be a fair and impartial company employee? It's all I got.

    Honestly? If there is a balance issue in the game, regardless who you allow to make decisions with regards to balance or in-game issues, there will always be someone who take offence to your decision. I have no problem with allowing players to be GMs, and it wouldn't be the first time. It sounds like the expectation is that these GMs would somehow be set loose without any sort of leash. That's sort of what I was trying to figure out, like whether people actually believed that GMs would not be monitored. To be perfectly honest, this seems blown out of proportion to me. 
    I think "technically" you want someone who is a customer service specialist as a gm.

    Would you really want the face of your company/game to be just some person who gave a lot of money?



    Depends..... Have you ever worked a Technical Support job? So are you asking me whether I would rather have someone who is underpaid and hates everything about the world and people in it, controlling the game? Or would I rather have someone who is passionate and invested controlling the game? I think the main point here is that this wouldn't be a position granted without some consideration, nor would be it one that is completely unmonitored and carries little or no consequence for your actions, is it? The question is, "Would it matter?" And what would be the real concerns surrounding it? 
    all I can say is our customer service and scientific support people are not only professionals but amazing. Their Net Promoter Scores (NPS) are always extremely high.

    So would I want someone who paid to be the face of the company who is not trained and not qualified to do the job even though it would be monitored or one of, from my experience, the amazing people I work with?

    Just because someone is very engaged and "very into" the game doesn't mean they have any business doing a job where there are already professionals.

    Unless you are telling me that every person who works technical support is a disgruntled, angry person? In which case that means there's something wrong with the profession and the people they hire/who go into it.
    Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb." 

    Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w


    Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547

    Try the "Special Edition." 'Cause it's "Special." https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/64878/?tab=description

    Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo 
  • genaknoscgenaknosc Member UncommonPosts: 112
    edited December 2016
    simon155 said:
    Personally I'd be very careful about pasting misleading or false information about titles around - it wouldn't be the first time a publisher has sued.
    AHAHAhahahahahahahahhaha

    ... <breath>

    AHHHHHHHhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

    hahahahah

    hah

    -- Where exactly pray-tell will they serve notice? To the throwaway email inbox assigned to this account?
  • DreadToothDreadTooth Member UncommonPosts: 150

    holdenfive said:
    So most reasonable people seem to agree it was a terrible idea for jeromy to make these comments. But the spin is really just as bad, not to mention his response to people on the official forums calling them hypocrites. I mean my god, who in their right minds watches a dev act this way and doesnt hear the alarms going off? This is during what essentially looks like a glorified conceptual phase, one that is largely taking place in the dev echo chamber with very limited public scrutiny because there is no semblance of a product to scrutinize, and this guy already lashes out at people who pile obsequious hero worship on the dev team because they had the audacity to question his dodgy rhetoric.

    This is a dog and pony show, it doesnt resemble game development. 

    And this is just the latest in a long list of comparably ill advised dick moves by this team when dealing with the general mmo community. And not the first time jeromy has came on these forums to be snide towards members here who called out something. Get this 2 cent John Smedley off the forums already if you value your company in any way.

    (angry bird mime) oh my god...




    filmoret said:

    (angry bird mime) Oh My God...




    Nyctelios said:
    I think this thread is disastrous misguided. Paying for logging as a GM has nothing to do with Pay to Win aspect. It is way dire than that: You are paying for the possibility of ruining someone else experience in a game which said person has bought.

    You are not winning anything - it is just everybody else losing (both their time and their hope). Some may argue he/she can make things better to certain players in exchange of favors. Yes, they may do such thing - but hear (read) my reasoning: If an omnipotent entity would exist and appear on Earth, wouldn't the existence of such being capable of do anything and everything for some brake all the concept of "fairness"? There is not Pay to Win anymore, because the entire aspect of said concept relies on a stable scenario allowing you, granting you, making sure you will win because you paid - but once this power is given to an arbitrary force (a person with its own agenda) nothing can be sure. You can only cheat on Monopoly if the amount of money is limited to a certain cap, if the rules are known and set: If the money is infinite there is no cheating anymore, if the rules are bending every or so minute you broke the entire game, there is no game to cheat on anymore.

    He or she may give something up and a day or so later start to mess around braking everything. We don't know. We don't know the extent of the power he or she would have as a GM. That's really dangerous.

    As a Neverwinter Nights (and other sorts of the same genre plus pen and paper RPG) vet player I faced many, many, dubious GM's - and some more brats thinking they can grab the ball and yell at everyone demanding them to do what they want "or else". It is a very dangerous possibility.

    Many games already tried to give players some kind of tool to control community behavior and even it being "some" it was a disaster: Guess what? Most people are jerks. Most RPG groups have that stupid brat that makes his NPC's always invincible or give good stuff (and always good rolls) for his girlfriend/boyfriend (or the gir/boy he/she likes). Even is such small and restricted group things like that may happen - Imagine in a open MMORPG.

    It is wise to give said position to someone stable enough to make the right thing, pull the right calls - which is expected (and most often than not just expected) from a hired GM/Admin of a game which is a product and should be treated as such - as a serious business - and also as the game (competitive clash of skills) it is.

    I said since the opening of the project that the chances of this game come to life are around zero. Every move they make (and every move they made) are simple unrealistic - The numbers, the features, the project plan and steps... Everything screams amateurism. I've seen better Steam Greenlight school projects with better production than this.

    But...

    You are are mixing apples and oranges here. The possibility or purchasing ahead of time (and only on that time window) titles (within the game scenario, not GM meta bullshit) is a healthy thing for a social and RP based game - but only if that title can be taken, can be lost and gone and can't be bought again, which, correct me if I'm wrong, was the plan of action.

    See any "survival" game of these days (which have very similar features) where people spam, do bullshit stuff for a 5 min laugh, ruining the experience of someone (or a group) who spent the entire afternoon building something, and log off. Why does he/she does that? Because he or she has nothing to lose.

    People who bought the packs to grant certain things will fight to keep those things, emulating a lord on this medieval glory, doing anything he can to keep his throne and his fat belly fat. And people who started fresh will have the chance to take that away (again, at least the game was presented as such).

    The key here is the ability of losing it. And with losing I mean taken away and possibly possessed by someone else entirely.

    A better head start gives a grounded community from the start, avoiding the chasm of social based games with no social scheme in place - Where yes, it can be unfair, starting as a farmer when someone is the King of England, this is the game focus since the start of the project - and unlike most other stuff they show it is not an impossible feature. And it is not, by any stretch of imagination, the same thing as buying a better sword and using that sword to kill everybody else because the sword is better than everything and the sword belongs to you and can never be taken away or possessed by someone else.

    But, and this comes from my personal thoughts and not any line of reason, I think the producers are not stable to make the right calls and will most likely turn the titles in P2W aspects when people start complaining someone murdered their character and took their castle and raped his wife.

    (angry bird mime) OH MY GOD!

    Currently Playing:

    Fallout 4 (Xbox One)

    Puzzle Pirates (PC)
    Dreadtooth on Emerald Ocean

    "Dying's the easy way out. You won't catch me dying. They'll have to kill me before I die!"

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Sovrath said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Sovrath said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Iselin said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    I might be missing something here, but ultimately someone would be a GM, right? So what's the difference with allowing someone to pay to be a GM and just anointing someone as a GM?
    Oh IDK... the expectation that a GM would be a fair and impartial company employee? It's all I got.

    Honestly? If there is a balance issue in the game, regardless who you allow to make decisions with regards to balance or in-game issues, there will always be someone who take offence to your decision. I have no problem with allowing players to be GMs, and it wouldn't be the first time. It sounds like the expectation is that these GMs would somehow be set loose without any sort of leash. That's sort of what I was trying to figure out, like whether people actually believed that GMs would not be monitored. To be perfectly honest, this seems blown out of proportion to me. 
    I think "technically" you want someone who is a customer service specialist as a gm.

    Would you really want the face of your company/game to be just some person who gave a lot of money?



    Depends..... Have you ever worked a Technical Support job? So are you asking me whether I would rather have someone who is underpaid and hates everything about the world and people in it, controlling the game? Or would I rather have someone who is passionate and invested controlling the game? I think the main point here is that this wouldn't be a position granted without some consideration, nor would be it one that is completely unmonitored and carries little or no consequence for your actions, is it? The question is, "Would it matter?" And what would be the real concerns surrounding it? 
    all I can say is our customer service and scientific support people are not only professionals but amazing. Their Net Promoter Scores (NPS) are always extremely high.

    So would I want someone who paid to be the face of the company who is not trained and not qualified to do the job even though it would be monitored or one of, from my experience, the amazing people I work with?

    Just because someone is very engaged and "very into" the game doesn't mean they have any business doing a job where there are already professionals.

    Unless you are telling me that every person who works technical support is a disgruntled, angry person? In which case that means there's something wrong with the profession and the people they hire/who go into it.

    No, it was more of a witty, sarcastic response. What I will say, in seriousness, is that you're demonstrating a bias that someone external to the company would somehow be "worse" as a GM, but you're not alone in that here, either. However, historically, the majority of cases you find related to GMs being corrupted are by GMs who actually work for the company. Granted, that's probably because of a distortion bias on my part because we don't have the same sampling of player GMs out there, but it's not untrue either. What we do know is that we don't know how good or bad this might be. That's all I'm getting at here. People are blowing this whole thing out of proportion without knowing whether player-elected GMs would be any better or worse than people who are employed with the company, acting as GMs. On top of that, there's no knowing what the actual plan for GMs even is. On top of that, there are probably 100 things that are worse about this game that people should be concerned with other than GMs. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 33,098
    CrazKanuk said:
    Sovrath said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Sovrath said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Iselin said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    I might be missing something here, but ultimately someone would be a GM, right? So what's the difference with allowing someone to pay to be a GM and just anointing someone as a GM?
    Oh IDK... the expectation that a GM would be a fair and impartial company employee? It's all I got.

    Honestly? If there is a balance issue in the game, regardless who you allow to make decisions with regards to balance or in-game issues, there will always be someone who take offence to your decision. I have no problem with allowing players to be GMs, and it wouldn't be the first time. It sounds like the expectation is that these GMs would somehow be set loose without any sort of leash. That's sort of what I was trying to figure out, like whether people actually believed that GMs would not be monitored. To be perfectly honest, this seems blown out of proportion to me. 
    I think "technically" you want someone who is a customer service specialist as a gm.

    Would you really want the face of your company/game to be just some person who gave a lot of money?



    Depends..... Have you ever worked a Technical Support job? So are you asking me whether I would rather have someone who is underpaid and hates everything about the world and people in it, controlling the game? Or would I rather have someone who is passionate and invested controlling the game? I think the main point here is that this wouldn't be a position granted without some consideration, nor would be it one that is completely unmonitored and carries little or no consequence for your actions, is it? The question is, "Would it matter?" And what would be the real concerns surrounding it? 
    all I can say is our customer service and scientific support people are not only professionals but amazing. Their Net Promoter Scores (NPS) are always extremely high.

    So would I want someone who paid to be the face of the company who is not trained and not qualified to do the job even though it would be monitored or one of, from my experience, the amazing people I work with?

    Just because someone is very engaged and "very into" the game doesn't mean they have any business doing a job where there are already professionals.

    Unless you are telling me that every person who works technical support is a disgruntled, angry person? In which case that means there's something wrong with the profession and the people they hire/who go into it.

    No, it was more of a witty, sarcastic response. What I will say, in seriousness, is that you're demonstrating a bias that someone external to the company would somehow be "worse" as a GM, but you're not alone in that here, either. However, historically, the majority of cases you find related to GMs being corrupted are by GMs who actually work for the company. Granted, that's probably because of a distortion bias on my part because we don't have the same sampling of player GMs out there, but it's not untrue either. What we do know is that we don't know how good or bad this might be. That's all I'm getting at here. People are blowing this whole thing out of proportion without knowing whether player-elected GMs would be any better or worse than people who are employed with the company, acting as GMs. On top of that, there's no knowing what the actual plan for GMs even is. On top of that, there are probably 100 things that are worse about this game that people should be concerned with other than GMs. 
    I don't think that someone external to the company would be "bad" at all. I mean, that's where "new people" come from right?

    My thought is that if a person is "hired" that they should be qualified. And not only qualified but vetted and found to be a good fit for the job.
    Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb." 

    Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w


    Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547

    Try the "Special Edition." 'Cause it's "Special." https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/64878/?tab=description

    Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo 
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Sovrath said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Sovrath said:
    all I can say is our customer service and scientific support people are not only professionals but amazing. Their Net Promoter Scores (NPS) are always extremely high.

    So would I want someone who paid to be the face of the company who is not trained and not qualified to do the job even though it would be monitored or one of, from my experience, the amazing people I work with?

    Just because someone is very engaged and "very into" the game doesn't mean they have any business doing a job where there are already professionals.

    Unless you are telling me that every person who works technical support is a disgruntled, angry person? In which case that means there's something wrong with the profession and the people they hire/who go into it.

    No, it was more of a witty, sarcastic response. What I will say, in seriousness, is that you're demonstrating a bias that someone external to the company would somehow be "worse" as a GM, but you're not alone in that here, either. However, historically, the majority of cases you find related to GMs being corrupted are by GMs who actually work for the company. Granted, that's probably because of a distortion bias on my part because we don't have the same sampling of player GMs out there, but it's not untrue either. What we do know is that we don't know how good or bad this might be. That's all I'm getting at here. People are blowing this whole thing out of proportion without knowing whether player-elected GMs would be any better or worse than people who are employed with the company, acting as GMs. On top of that, there's no knowing what the actual plan for GMs even is. On top of that, there are probably 100 things that are worse about this game that people should be concerned with other than GMs. 
    I don't think that someone external to the company would be "bad" at all. I mean, that's where "new people" come from right?

    My thought is that if a person is "hired" that they should be qualified. And not only qualified but vetted and found to be a good fit for the job.

    Ok, then I agree with you. Maybe where we're diverging is on this so-called vetting process. I'm simply assuming that there would be some sort of vetting process or best practices guide that people are expected to abide by, or be swiftly cut off. Then again, I know the dangers of assuming anything, so......

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • GludipowGludipow Member CommonPosts: 5
    edited December 2016
    This is the problem with people taking things outside of Discord. No one sees in what context things were said in and they jump out of panic, like a herd of skittish deer.

    Well, sorry Bambi but calling this game p2w is just daft and reflective of how little people are paying attention to this game. Pets and mounts both age and die, swords and armor deteriorate over time, etc. There is literally no real benefit to anything "p2w" in this game. It even says in the shop that any benefits you do get from supporting the game development can be LOST OR KILLED!




    So how can something be "p2w" when any kind of benefit someone gets can be taken from them, can disintegrate or die over time, or they could lose upon death? And btw, certain things like nobility can't be recreated by Kickstarters. Just saying. This is not to mention the fact that those who bought nobility titles can be overthrown in an uprising if they don't do their job well. They can also be assassinated before an heir is born, etc. The only thing remotely p2w that I can possibly think of is the phoenix pet that we just got as a stretch goal, which everyone that has helped fund this game so far is going to get one. Not really p2w if everyone has one. 

    Not to mention that the whole "Caspian is okay with players having GM accounts" was something brought up in a hypothetical conversation meant to get a point across to the community. Which is something else, to switch gears for a moment: Caspian is very conversational with the community, checking to see what everyone approves of. What they don't approve of. He brings up ideas for discussion, to find out what people like and what can be changed. But y'all are hella thirsty for some blood over here. Any way you can make a small team of developers look greedy like some real life Simpsons' "Mr. Smithers" trying to screw over it's player base before it's even released.
    In what world would that even make sense?

    Caspian and his team have always been very forthright with the community regarding their system: fair by way of the system's rules, but not equitable. In a game built to be as close to reality as possible, you're not going to get equity.

    If you're attempting to preserve the information in a conversation then you're still viewing it as some kind of discovery or news item. It's not. It's an exploration of ideas and concepts that could be completely thrown out or changed 180*. And that's the problem with taking what has been said in irc, discord, etc and bringing it here. It can easily get taken out of context or thought to be something that's news when it's not.
    And that is the problem with the OP. Caspien said he "currently had no intention on having player GMs" ... his issue is with the word "current" used in conjunction with "intention" or "plans" ... because he thinks this means it's possible later down the line. Players in the community have all said they wouldn't have as much issue with it, if the player to GM process went through a vetting process. So IF (a very big if) something like that were to happen, it would likely go through that vetting process. But Caspien even came here and said "we're not doing that, it's not going to be a thing" ... to which OP basically said "haha, nope" and continued to bash despite getting clarification FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH! I'm just sitting over here with my arms crossed like "wtf more do you want?"

    This item in particular, as has been clarified and reclarified, was merely something brought up in an attempt to explain the difference between fairness and equity. A conversation that ultimately was taken to the forums which I will link again for people:
    https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/14989/equity-vs-fairness?page=1

    Do research on the game instead of talking shit. Read the dev journals, watch community YT videos on the game, etc. So much can be taken out of context, and so much can be lost when you listen to one guy who seems to make it his life mission to bring this game down before it's ever even launched. The game is still in pre-alpha development and he's knit-picking at every piece of vocabulary he possibly can. smh... 
    Post edited by Gludipow on
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 44,247
    Hell hath no fury...

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 8,189
    Brilliant free advertising. 

  • TillerTiller Member LegendaryPosts: 11,513
    What is this Second Life/ Entropia Universe? bleh no thanks


    SWG Bloodfin vet
    Elder Jedi/Elder Bounty Hunter
     
  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,803
    edited December 2016
    Well in a way I envy these guys.

    To us this is just nr.20 on the list of overpromised games where in the end it turns out the announced features sounded better on paper than they are ingame. The "finished" game suffers from bad implementation, there isn't enough money to fix issues, etc etc etc.

    To them it is:
    Omg listen to the head dev, he is going to make exactly the game I want!

    To conclude this with the words of one of my favorite streamers:

    Harbinger of Fools
  • DreadToothDreadTooth Member UncommonPosts: 150

    Do you think the founder, or a close friend or family member, wishes the founder would have started all of this under a fake name with fake personal info supplied everywhere?

    If this thing goes under before launch, heck even after launch, wow... Scary.

    Currently Playing:

    Fallout 4 (Xbox One)

    Puzzle Pirates (PC)
    Dreadtooth on Emerald Ocean

    "Dying's the easy way out. You won't catch me dying. They'll have to kill me before I die!"

  • TalonsinTalonsin Member EpicPosts: 3,619
    How many times have we heard developers say "we have no plans to do that" and then later on, they do that?  For this guy to think it is a good idea, regardless of his "non-intention" to do it, shows poor judgement and is a hint of things that you could see in the future.

    This exact kind of thinking is a part of what killed Mortal Online.  Allowing players to be GM's is ALWAYS a bad idea.
    "Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game."  - SEANMCAD

Sign In or Register to comment.