Sign in to follow this  
elentari

Poll to gauge Player perception of the GM team

What is your confidence in the GM team overall?  

191 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your confidence in the GM team overall?

    • I have good confidence in the GM team to do their job
      85
    • They're doing a good job, but there's room for improvement
      52
    • I have no opinion either way
      12
    • I don't have much faith in them
      25
    • I have absolutely no confidence in the GM team whatsoever
      17


Recommended Posts

Only ever had good experiences with the GM team, I'm grateful for the work and support they provide over the many years I've played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To use the old adage -'you cannot please all of the people all of the time'. I have seen this on one of the WU servers where I help out. We have a great team but every now and then we get criticised by someone who thinks we got something wrong. I can assure you that all we want to do is to make our server experience the best it possibly can be. 

 

Using the above, I would suggest that the Wurm Online GM team do a marvellous job overall. I would find it remarkable if they got everything right all of the time. They are humans and as well all know, humans can and do make mistakes.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My perception of the GM team is very positive. In the rare times I have put in a Support for their help over the years they have impressed me as being very polite, as contrasted to the authority figures out in the RW. Once I had GM's called on me for changing the diagonal edge of a highway (old rules) and I disagreed with their decision but I changed it back and that was the end of it. No resentment held on my part.

 

Mainly I see dissatisfaction and complaints about them from the pvp community because some harsher steps at times need to be taken to keep them under at least reasonable control; therefore, I put little confidence in any negative statements they make in response. I just end up instead feeling sorry for the GM's that have to deal with them. I am not saying *all* pvp players are bad either, so let's not go down that road.

 

=Ayes=

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never had less than a  stellar interactions   with the GM's over close to a decade of playing Wurm. 

 Most of my interactions with other staff have been satisfactory over the years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of wish I could select 3 different options.

 

In regards to the everyday cases, such as items or players being stuck and getting them out, I'd select the first option: Good confidence in GM's. These cases are generally handled really well and pleasantly. The systems in place to support helping players in these situations are rather good and the staff executes their duty in that regard very well.

 

Then you get to the sticky situations: player disputes. These cases are not pure white like the ones listed above, and generally involve two or more players interacting with each other where one side will always lose out, regardless of intervention or not. Since uniques are a hot topic, an example:

 

Player A hosts a dragon slaying. The dragon is off deed. Player B does not participate in the slaying at all, but knows it's happening. Once the unique is slain, player B takes the corpse from the ground. They proceed to butcher the corpse then sell the bone to Player C and the tome to Player D. What happens?

 

Obviously Player B is being a ######. But is that enough to warrant a punishment? Or does it come down to "deed it or lose it?" If they are punished, does Player C need to return the bone and Player D need to return the tome? What if they were already used? Are new items spawned in? Or do the items just stay as-is, Player B gets banned, and Player A gets nothing out of organizing the slaying?

 

There's a significant amount of gray area in these situations. In regards to the outcomes of these situations, I'd select the second option in the poll: They're doing a good job but there's room for improvement. Obviously, decisions are subject of opinion and everyone is entitled to disagree with the outcomes. From my own experience, the actual outcomes of these disputes are generally reasonable.

 

However, there's an aspect of these situations where I would select the fourth option: I have little faith. That aspect is how these situations are communicated and the accountability of the outcomes to previous cases. When disputes are handled, the communication to the people involved is generally atrocious. Sticking to the example above, assume that Player B would result with a permanent ban. They'd try to log in the next day only to see the message that they're banned. If they felt their actions were not against the rules, there's no indication as to why they were banned. What if they were a new player that just recently started playing and didn't understand what a public slaying was? Can they argue against the ban? Shouldn't "deed it or lose it" apply? Not only is there no official way to appeal a case (aside from E-Mailing an address, which to my knowledge is not in any official statement), but the responses received far too often don't actually represent an explanation of why the player was punished.

 

There's far too many cases that exist where the situation is nearly identical, yet the rulings have gone different ways. That should never happen. Players are currently banned permanently from playing where players who have broken the same rule are still playing. If a case was ruled in the past, it should stand as a precedent or a public statement of change of policy should be made to void that case from being used as a comparison.

 

Finally, I take significant issue with how it's impossible to tell how the Game Masters will act until after the fact. For example, answer how a GM will respond to the following hypothetical situations without reading a staff response on how it would play out:

 

Hypothetical One: Player A sets his cart to "all kingdom members" can command and logs off. Player B comes and takes the cart, then parks it inside a locked house where only he has access. Player A comes back online and tracks the cart back to the locked area. Player A cannot retrieve their vehicle, but removes the permissions to command the cart. Player B logs back in and notices he can no longer use the cart, but it's in a bad position with hitched animals so he cannot move it. Player A puts in a support ticket to get his cart back. Player B puts in a ticket to get the cart moved to a different location in the locked area because he cannot move it.

Questions: Does the cart get returned to Player A? Is the cart rightfully claimed by Player B through game mechanics? Would no action be taken and both players be dissatisfied?

 

Hypothetical Two: Player A plays the game for a long time, and obtains a set of dragon scale armour. They place it in a wagon on their deed that only they have access to. They become inactive for a long time, and their deed disbands. When they log back in, Player B has claimed the area and built a fence around their border, completely cutting off access to the wagon that Player A had. Their intention with the deed was to make sure they would obtain the items in the wagon once it decayed. The wagon is close to decaying, which would drop its contents. Player A puts in a support ticket to get his wagon back.

Questions: Is the wagon moved outside of Player B's deed back to Player A? Does Player A lose his dragon scale that is still retained in an object only he has access to?

 

Hypothetical Three: Player A joins deed of Player B. Player A places a house and locks it. Over time, he stores all his items in the house. After some time, a dispute erupts which causes Player B to kick Player A out of the deed and put them on KoS. Player B then builds a fence around Player A's house to prevent him from accessing any of their items. Player A puts in a ticket to get their items back. Player B puts in a support ticket to remove the house he doesn't have access to on his deed.

Questions: Is Player A allowed to get their items back? Is the house now a black mark until it decays on Player B's deed?

 

Hypothetical Four: Player A wants to create a new deed. In order to do so, they cannot be the mayor of their existing one. Instead of using an alt, they instead hand their deed to Player B for safekeeping until they can get their second deed built and an alt transported to hold the writ. Player B gets permanently banned. Player A puts in a support ticket to get their deed contract back from the banned player.

Questions: Should items from a banned player be given to other players ever under any circumstance? If so, what circumstances?

 

To experienced players, many of the questions above could be answered. However, to someone who isn't as familiar with previous outcomes and standard operating of the Game Masters, how is anyone supposed to know what is and is not accepted? Every situation above is just gambling in actions which game mechanics allow. Even after reading the rules, it does not account for some of the gray area situations above. Wurm is an incredibly deep and complex game that has many different scenarios which can occur. It's unreasonable to expect every scenario to be accounted for. However, there doesn't even seem to be any standard procedure available to the public to reference before acting in many situations. This leads to a situation where every action you take and every word you say is subject to interpretation from a council of GM's that determine if you're at fault. Trust in their operation currently resides on a rough list of rules and blind faith.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, GMs are at the forefront of customer relations. Dealing with people is not easy and no one knows that better than the CAs and GMs when it comes to Wurm. However, it is incumbent upon the team as a whole to maintain an image of impartiality and competence when dealing with the public.

 

This image has been shattered time and again in recent times when the GM team has shown bias or lack of due diligence when dealing with high profile cases. Incidents such as the recent Chaos bans and the not so recent sudden ban of community members under arguably unclear circumstances has called into question the aptitude of the team to address issues in an impartial and fair manner. Because of that I decided to rate my vote as not having much faith in them. When playing Wurm, I feel like I have to walk on eggshells, always wary that I may get banned due to a false accusation, misinterpreted rule, or simply because someone does not like me.

 

I am sure many people will look at me and say: "But how many good interactions have we had with the GMs? Don't all the countless favorable tickets resolved count?" My answer is simple: no, they don't. A teller on a bank that spends 4 years with a clean record and suddenly decides to steal doesn't get to claim the clean record in his defense. It takes one single act to damage the trust your members have in you, as they will be forever fearful you may abuse your power again in the future.

 

There are many members of the GM team who are good people. And even those who I am critical of I am sure are good people as well. Sometimes these actions are done out of complacency, trust, or ignorance and are not done with ill intent, but the damage is done and trust has to be rebuilt.

 

As the team makes changes and improvements to their practices, players will get to see how the overall perception of the community improves. I have no doubt that recent changes will make things better, but until such time as this becomes apparent, the bitter taste will remain in the mouth of those of us who were wronged or fell through the cracks.

 

I still have nothing but the best wishes for the team. I have faith that with time we will get to see a turn for the better and a more enjoyable experience for us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angel, I think you are conflating the wider GM team with the lead GMs and Devs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they're trying to be more transparent and i like that and overall i think they try to look at two sides of a issue (important in KvK)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vinius said:

Angel, I think you are conflating the wider GM team with the lead GMs and Devs.

No, I am specifically speaking about the GM team. I have had many good experiences with them, but where it really has truly mattered they have fallen short. When it comes to other staff I have very different perspectives not at all similar to my view of them depending on who are we talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Angelklaine said:

No, I am specifically speaking about the GM team. I have had many good experiences with them, but where it really has truly mattered they have fallen short. When it comes to other staff I have very different perspectives not at all similar to my view of them depending on who are we talking about.

You quoted the chaos bannings. I am pretty sure it was not the 'GM team' who banned everyone in the area.

 

As for the proph ban, I would assume that there was a vote, but the decision to not divulge information around the ban would of again been from higher up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, vinius said:

You quoted the chaos bannings. I am pretty sure it was not the 'GM team' who banned everyone in the area.

 

As for the proph ban, I would assume that there was a vote, but the decision to not divulge information around the ban would of again been from higher up.

So are you saying the GM team, who's main job makes them responsible for addressing violations of the ToS and EULA was not who decided who would be banned? 

 

What am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Angelklaine said:

So are you saying the GM team, who's main job makes them responsible for addressing violations of the ToS and EULA was not who decided who would be banned? 

What am I missing?

 

In the end, CC management decides. That easy. And, frankly, it is right that way. In case legal action arises from ingame conflicts it is the company who bears the risk and has to cover the costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic is misleading. You cant group all individuals together and judge them as one. There are good GMs and bad GMs, not everyone is the same. Would be better if the topic was: Rank the GMs from best to worst. 

 

That would be interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Lordbeerus said:

The topic is misleading. You cant group all individuals together and judge them as one. There are good GMs and bad GMs, not everyone is the same. Would be better if the topic was: Rank the GMs from best to worst. 

 

That would be interesting. 

but that would be stated as "attacking directly staff members" if you have issues with certain GM's you cant accuse them or insult them in public, have to complain to enki or above him. 

 

I have had pretty much only pleasant experiences with the staff along the way, some heated up/cry moment could might of happened when i first started playing and as a noob i dropped to a dropshaft with all my gear... and for not understanding mechanics, i made support ticket for someone to fish me out. He helped me after looong discussion and he said he shouldnt do it, but helped anyways... good guy :) One negative popped into my mind... it was a time i suddenly lost my prieshood and to wait 2 months without a word from staff and it only happened when i asked few times.

 

 

what comes to pvp moderation.. only have had deed problems and those have went smoothly, what comes to exploits, alt using etc... cant say, havent done those i think.. at least i havent got banned. I guess staff will tell me if i use something i shouldn't, how the heck i am supposed to know.

 

All in all, pretty positive feelings, few negatives...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lordbeerus said:

The topic is misleading. You cant group all individuals together and judge them as one. There are good GMs and bad GMs, not everyone is the same. Would be better if the topic was: Rank the GMs from best to worst. 

 

That would be interesting. 

I think that what the op is trying to do is to get a generalized impression on the team as a whole. How satisfied you are with their service. There is always going to be good and bad GMs, and it always reflects on the team as a whole.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Angelklaine said:

I think that what the op is trying to do is to get a generalized impression on the team as a whole. How satisfied you are with their service. There is always going to be good and bad GMs, and it always reflects on the team as a whole.

 

Indeed, I could have made a much more sophisticated poll with a lot of options, it's true.

 

But my intent was to simply gauge a generalised perception of the GM team. Of course there are good and bad GMS, there are good and bad people in every industry or field, that's just a banal truism. My desire however, was to understand just how players perceive the GM team overall (not the dev team) at this point in time. 

 

Honestly I'm quite happy to see how people have responded to this post so far. I was expecting much more "######-flinging" , specially how a friend warned me about that possibility when I made this post. I'm still happy to see how civilized this discussion turned out (probably from here on out it's going to be downhill since I just jinxed it, hehe).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I was not replying to attack you. My point was that since the general feeling would be good towards the team as a whole, some black fish in there would find good opportunity to hide behind this generalisation. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2019 at 2:23 AM, Shrimpiie said:

Fixed, they truly are anonymous even from staff now ;)

 

That's what he wants you to think! ?

 

Seriously though, I've always had very good experiences with the team, although I've only ever dealt with Shrimpiie and Enki, I imagine the rest of GMs are just as pleasant as them.

 

I believe common sense and good faith go a long way, IRL and in Wurm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A special shoutout to GM @Astarte, for being so good to me and a decisive factor for me to stay and learn to love this game when I was a noob. I will never forget everything you did for me!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone with his/her own experiences. 

To me, Wurm Online was by far the best game when it come to GM interactions, support, etc. I can name here GM Astarte, GM Enki but not only. 

I am pretty sure that nobody could change that opinion. Big thanks to all Wurm staff. 

 

Edited by Zalxis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2019 at 8:29 AM, As_I_Decay said:

[snip]

There went my shovel, with no event message indicating where it went.

Thank Fo!

I'd really be perturbed if I saw all the event messages for all the stupid things I do!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2019 at 12:14 AM, elentari said:

 

[snip] Of course there are good and bad GMS, [snip]

 

Sorry elentari, got to totally disagree with that blanket statement.

 

There are people who are doing the GM job who "make a decision":

They are neither good or bad GM's because of their decisions.

     We need to stop using the "good" and "bad" labels here!

 

The person they help (or not) makes "a decision" to label them "good" or "bad" but the truth is you either like or dislike the outcome.

 

A GM either:

  • can get to your problem right away or not
  • cannot or can help you
  • choose not to or choose to help you
  • choose to do it in the manner in which you'd like it to be done or choose not to.

You may or may not like any one of those outcomes....

BUT

labelling the GM's as "good" or "bad",

     regardless of the outcome,

is A BAD DECISION!!!

 

The alternative is?

You don't get help or it takes a relatively long time to get help (from a busy or unavailable developer).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Petrius said:

 

Sorry elentari, got to totally disagree with that blanket statement.

 

There are people who are doing the GM job who "make a decision":

They are neither good or bad GM's because of their decisions.

     We need to stop using the "good" and "bad" labels here!

 

The person they help (or not) makes "a decision" to label them "good" or "bad" but the truth is you either like or dislike the outcome.

 

A GM either:

  • can get to your problem right away or not
  • cannot or can help you
  • choose not to or choose to help you
  • choose to do it in the manner in which you'd like it to be done or choose not to.

You may or may not like any one of those outcomes....

BUT

labelling the GM's as "good" or "bad",

     regardless of the outcome,

is A BAD DECISION!!!

 

The alternative is?

You don't get help or it takes a relatively long time to get help (from a busy or unavailable developer).

 

Well that depends on what the matter is at hand. For example, someone choosing to not do a proper investigation and just taking statements at face value and making a decision on that is a "bad GM" whereas a GM that rules in favor of one party over another after a full investigation is not. That's why op is rating the team as a whole and not any single individual. Players seldom have the information to make a fair judgement, so they will mostly judge on the outcome, which may be misguided and is unfair to the GM team. It is the nature of the beast.

 

However, when you judge the team as a whole, you don't have to worry about things such as who made the decision or any specific decision on its merit. You judge based on things like how often mistakes are made and/or how severe those mistakes are, and how does the team handle them when they happen. You judge an entity based on public perception and how satisfied the players are instead of a specific person or instance. 

 

To give you an example, I am really pleased with most of the individual GMs I have dealt with during the years. They are kind, polite, understanding, and generally fair. But I still consider the performance of the team as a whole as poor because of a recent instance where the actions of the team undermined my trust of the system so much I am skeptical about playing an integral part of the game. I still have my love for the individual GMs and consider them great people, its just the institution as a whole I lost faith in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this