I'd rather the GMs focus their time & effort on enforcing the EULA / rules and banning RMT, botting etc. And more importantly, I think we all hope GMs will wield their GM powers FAIRLY.
Allowing a GM to have frequent (non ticket-related) interaction with players (or worse, have players volunteer as GM) might lead to the GM forming a bias and favoring his/her "friends" - As it has happened multiple times in some eastern mmorpgs that were run poorly.
I mean, here in Asia we've seen scandals about a game's GM going rogue and roflstomped other guilds/players with his friends
I mean, here in Asia we've seen scandals about a game's GM going rogue and roflstomped other guilds/players with his friends
I am always somewhat suspect of claims like this. While I know it does happen, it is rare among AAA games.
A GM doing something like this isn't putting their game account in jeopardy, they are putting their job - and potential career - in jeopardy.
As a concern, it is about on par with being concerned that a game developer may purposefully introduce a bug that they can exploit in game. Sure they are both possible, but any developer worth a shit would see it happen and fire the person responsible (even in areas with laws tilted towards employees rather than employers, this is something you can be immediately fired for - you are bringing the reputation of the entire company in to question).
I also find the comments about GM's enforcing the games EULA a little amusing - that is the single most inefficient way it can be done. Investigations against botting and such are far more effective using server logs than in person observing. GM's often just do this because it is a bad look if you have many people telling a representative of the company that botting is going on, and instead of looking in to it they hold an event or party or some such.
And at the end of the day, that is what an in game GM is for, being a representative of the company to the players.
I am always somewhat suspect of claims like this. While I know it does happen, it is rare among AAA games.
A GM doing something like this isn't putting their game account in jeopardy, they are putting their job - and potential career - in jeopardy.
This depends on what kind of ppl they hire as GM, which in turn depends on pay i.e. resources invested into this. Some random part-time GMs certainly wouldn't mind putting their job at risk ...
But yes, it's probably rare among AAA games and hopefully will not be an issue in Ashes, hopefully.
I also find the comments about GM's enforcing the games EULA a little amusing - that is the single most inefficient way it can be done. Investigations against botting and such are far more effective using server logs than in person observing. GM's often just do this because it is a bad look if you have many people telling a representative of the company that botting is going on, and instead of looking in to it they hold an event or party or some such.
Well I never said GMs alone are sufficient for enforcing the policies, with the number of players nowadays policy enforcement is likely impossible without backend log / data analysis. But at times you still need a human to investigate, otherwise you end up with cases like the guild-war ban-hammer-exploit in NW.
Flag suspicious activities with algorithms, investigate / handle appeals with GMs.
As long as they don't abuse their power as I've heard GMs can be known to do in the past.
I'd rather have them than not having, but it gives them a lot of power to openly cheat in the game to maintain the balance of the server. If they play the game then I'd like them to have to use a separate account.
Also so they wouldn't be allowed to use that power to benefit their main playing account in anyway.
As long as that is upheld then I have no complaints.
Comments
Yeah, I can see that happening
A GM doing something like this isn't putting their game account in jeopardy, they are putting their job - and potential career - in jeopardy.
As a concern, it is about on par with being concerned that a game developer may purposefully introduce a bug that they can exploit in game. Sure they are both possible, but any developer worth a shit would see it happen and fire the person responsible (even in areas with laws tilted towards employees rather than employers, this is something you can be immediately fired for - you are bringing the reputation of the entire company in to question).
I also find the comments about GM's enforcing the games EULA a little amusing - that is the single most inefficient way it can be done. Investigations against botting and such are far more effective using server logs than in person observing. GM's often just do this because it is a bad look if you have many people telling a representative of the company that botting is going on, and instead of looking in to it they hold an event or party or some such.
And at the end of the day, that is what an in game GM is for, being a representative of the company to the players.
This depends on what kind of ppl they hire as GM, which in turn depends on pay i.e. resources invested into this. Some random part-time GMs certainly wouldn't mind putting their job at risk ...
But yes, it's probably rare among AAA games and hopefully will not be an issue in Ashes, hopefully.
Well I never said GMs alone are sufficient for enforcing the policies, with the number of players nowadays policy enforcement is likely impossible without backend log / data analysis. But at times you still need a human to investigate, otherwise you end up with cases like the guild-war ban-hammer-exploit in NW.
Flag suspicious activities with algorithms, investigate / handle appeals with GMs.
I'd rather have them than not having, but it gives them a lot of power to openly cheat in the game to maintain the balance of the server. If they play the game then I'd like them to have to use a separate account.
Also so they wouldn't be allowed to use that power to benefit their main playing account in anyway.
As long as that is upheld then I have no complaints.
U.S. East