Ahoy all,

In case you are a guildmaster, you will find this post a bit useful. Feel free to participate.

As game developers, we try to keep the game rules as few as possible. During gameplay, some times, players will resort to strategies or options that do not seem acceptable. Not a rule violation or something that we could call a cheat but most something that does not seem legit, even if it is. For example, a player getting out of his guild in order to attack a player being in the guild (inactive or not). Then,once attacks are done, get back to the guild. Now, this does not seem legit but it is not a cheat or a violation of any of the rules.

As administration, we do not want such actions, actions that do not seem legit. Mostly because it leads other players, with less information than us and the aggressor at hand, to believe that a cheat happened. At one hand, it is easy for us to script forbids for such actions. For the example above, we could simply put a time limit (ie 30 days) on joining back same guild. Such however, would create frustration problems in other cases. More scripted solutions could be found, but more side-problems would arise.

So, which is the best course of action? In our perspective, the best solution is to contact the Guildmaster who for us, is the responsible player for the Guild Policies. The guildmaster then, can notify the guild,which is also better for his own authority. Notifying all the guild members is better because they all get to know the administration's perspective on the matter. After all, most will already be aware of the action in discussion.

This solution is based in mutual understanding. We will not resort into penalties or bans as they are unfitting. Till now, fortunately, it has worked all times.

.

MAjesty wrote:.

You must have missed the "Welcome to Avonmora" sign. You are no longer in Kansas Dorothy

Even if I'm not a leader I would like to propose something. There is a restriction in plunder screen to attack guildmates.. Put restriction to attack a player that was your guildmate for 3 days. That would be enough.

There are a few things that are not against the rules but "appear" to be cheating to the uninformed.
If it is not milking or pushing or danger manipulation, it is hardly fair to impose a restriction on said action as it does fall within the rules of gameplay despite appearances.
The low fame protection rule is another example of where it is perceived as cheating when an experienced player uses it to an advantage however this has been allowed for months.
Will be happy to see that one looked after soon.

The guild incident you speak of is something that happens very, very seldom and a guild should be able to recover the investment it puts into a player if that player goes inactive.
The inactive player could be tossed from guild and wide open for all to plunder but very hard for the guild to gather all its investment when doing that.

AS it is considered devious if not outright cheating, we shall follow the wishes of the admin and refrain from doing that nefarious act. There have been other instances where a member had to drop out of guild and then readmit when their task has finished as well. I just cannot remember the reason atm.

I agree, the guildmaster (or guildmasters) should be responsible for the guildmates group-actions such as described above but there obviously needs to be a line where a guildmate acting on his own accord would not damage the guild but instead be banished from the guild.

It is rather common to see inactive guildmates kicked and then plundered by the same guild but this is not what Captain Jack is describing. The re-admittance is the problem. The inactive players are generally identified by being gone for more than 30 days and not likely to return. If Captain Jack was not OK with this practice he would have prevented CDV from amassing his impressive trade fleet.