Funcom blunder: GM Gives ARCH a FREE TIER 3 CITY?!?!

Malius · September 2008

Really? Who cares. It's Open Beta!

If it happened in the live game I would be upset but this is still beta. They won't get to keep it anyway

rznkain · September 2008

First off whoever here posted that funcom gms are not paid is full of BS.Funcom GMs are paid and they work at funcom officers the lesser guides in AO and AoC are the volenteers there is a difference between them and actual gms.

Second not surprising funcom has always been dirty like that I would suspect that probly a funcom gm or dev has a character in that guild maybe unknown to most but similar stuff happened in AO years ago with a clan guild named Storm where several funcom ppl had members in that guild and cheated more than once to benifit that guild to the point at Tara raid one night a funcom dev who was a member of storm was actually warping out opposing faction members to ensure Storm managed to kill the raid mob before others did.

Krawnik · September 2008

But I just can't understand why, after you went through this whole ordeal where everyone began blaming Funcom for a guild ceasing to exist, only to find out that those involved were lying through their teeth (and most likely are still omitting information) you would come back here and yet again bash Funcom for trying to address the situation they supposedly botched to begin with?

If you go back to the beginning, I had actually made an effort to defend Funcom initially. Although it's true that they made someone the GL breaking their own policy, ultimately I viewed this as a player error. Then this knee-jerk attempt at rectifying the situation came along, which undermined the efforts of our entire crew. Even beyond Ascendant, I'm sure there are quite a few high end guilds on other servers that recognize this as completely unfair.

Unlike the Guild Leader of ARCH, I have a deep respect for my members and their efforts. Having their hard work undermined in one fell swoop, due to a series of major mistakes on both Funcom's and ARCH's part, was lke a massive punch in the gut. Some may say "it's just a game", but as a Guild Leader I feel I'd be doing a disservice to my members if I didn't acknowledge their perseverance and hard work. If respecting my membership is wrong - than I am evil incarnate.

If Funcom wanted to cover their butts on this, they could've taken the time to research what was lost and reimburse it - no more, no less. If you're driving a Yugo and slam it into a tree, I'm pretty sure your insurance company wouldn't hand you the keys to a Ferrari the next day.

casca707 · September 2008

Originally posted by Rdlaban

Have been reading up on the links provided. Also seen the tread where Famine has posted that he is looking into it.
I fail to see anything else than a GM giving leadership to a person and therefore restoring the guild and guild city. The screenshot provided is by a player whispering that a GM have restored t3 city to make up for it. It is easy to do another one where I whisper a friend telling them a GM gave me godlike powers since assassins are underpowered. It does not make it any more true.

So the story is really about some guild drama and a GM giving leadership to wrong person. Then it all sorted out in the end. No biggie.

GM's have been to the city and confirmed it as a complete T3. They can also craft everything that needs T3 buildings. Items are being sold on the broker now.

I dont have the screenshots because they didnt take but I will get more later if thats what you need to believe it.

Somnulus · September 2008

Originally posted by Krawnik
If you go back to the beginning, I had actually made an effort to defend Funcom initially. Although it's true that they made someone the GL breaking their own policy, ultimately I viewed this as a player error.

I am uncertain where you find that Funcom broke their own policy; isn't there a chat excerpt in the first link you posted where you are having a conversation with GM Mabuhai where Funcom's GL policy was explained in detail?

GM Mabuhai pretty much clearly stated that if a GL had been inactive for 30 days or more or the guild leader has left the guild without promoting anyone to GL, they would promote the next highest ranking officer.

That seemed satisfactory to you at the time.

I guess I don't see how they broke their own policy. Was the previous guild leader not absent for 30 days or more?

Then this knee-jerk attempt at rectifying the situation came along, which undermined the efforts of our entire crew. Even beyond Ascendant, I'm sure there are quite a few high end guilds on other servers that recognize this as completely unfair.

Given the considerable backlash in the community and the untold number of petitions and support emails that were most likely sent to Funcom concerning a situation that turned out to be a complete lie, I'm not sure I fault their reaction to quite the same level as you do.

The perception in the community was that the blame for the loss of an entire guild and its assets was entirely at the feet of Funcom.

At that point, they could either try to redress the situation or take no action at all. Given the atmosphere surrounding the issue, no action would have been interpreted as another CS failure.

Now, when they do take action to attempt to rectify the situation, that is a failure as well?

As I said; it was a no-win situation for them.

Unlike the Guild Leader of ARCH, I have a deep respect for my members and their efforts. Having their hard work undermined in one fell swoop, due to a series of major mistakes on both Funcom's and ARCH's part, was lke a massive punch in the gut. Some may say "it's just a game", but as a Guild Leader I feel I'd be doing a disservice to my members if I didn't acknowledge their perseverance and hard work. If respecting my membership is wrong - than I am evil incarnate.
If Funcom wanted to cover their butts on this, they could've taken the time to research what was lost and reimburse it - no more, no less. If you're driving a Yugo and slam it into a tree, I'm pretty sure your insurance company wouldn't hand you the keys to a Ferrari the next day.

I honestly do not see what the impact on your guild is.

All of you know who, between ARCH and Ascendant, actually earned their assets. Is this not correct?

Your guild is achieving something of merit. It should be a source of great pride, and it is a definite bragging right.

Again, the only major mistake on Funcom's part that I have seen from the presented evidence is their failure to audit ARCH's complete assets and restore only what the guild actually possessed before it was disbanded.

Even then, how would that abrogate the personal pride and investment of time and effort of your guild in its accomplishments?

Between all of the posts from the outset of this whole fiasco, the majority of the blame, again, is placed on Funcom.

Did they leave the guild leaderless? Did they disband the guild and destroy guild assets? Did they concoct a complete fabrication in an attempt to recover what they allowed to be destroyed, while simultaneously blaming someone (everyone) else?

No. They promoted an officer to GL because the existing GL had been absent. Every other condition after that was created entirely by the new GL and the decisions s/he made.

I guess I don't understand the point of attacking Funcom again when they simply attempted to resolve the situation.

Wotan1105 · September 2008

Yeah I'd say ARCH selling crafted gear for prophit in the Dagoth forums is enough proof they got full T3. A world first in the game, got to give them credit. Played Funcom like a violin and the situation still hasn't been rectified, you're not even allowed to talk about it on the official forums.

vheffner · September 2008

1. Krawnik is not the Guild leader of ARCH he is my guild leader of another guild on the server named Ascendant

2. we have spent the last 4 months building our guild city legitly and are almost complete.

3. ARCH was an ally of ours, that is the reason we are so involved in this matter from the start, we knew were they were in city progression, any guild on the server that follows city progression knew that they had a tier 3 keep and a tier 2 city.

4. we are not disputing the decision that the GMs made to give them there city back, we appluad them for it actually. was nice to see the GMs do something other then say working as intended

5. reguardless of where the guild ARCH f'd up at they should have never gotten a full tier 3 city they should have gotten a tier 3 keep and a tier 2 city.

I dont know why some of you insist that it was a good thing for funcom to do that, it wasnt, not one bit, and funcom should have to fix that mistake, that is all we and im sure others in the AoC community that have worked very hard to build our cities would like to see fixed, thats it, we are not asking them to take away there city, just asking them to restore it to what it was.

Elsabolts · September 2008

Looks like to me the OP needs to go do his homework and get ready for bed. Long school day tomorrow.

Howdy, Stranger!

Funcom blunder: GM Gives ARCH a FREE TIER 3 CITY?!?!

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Funcom blunder: GM Gives ARCH a FREE TIER 3 CITY?!?!

Comments