34 replies to this topic

[zr0rieu]

http://blog.gravityus.com/?p=1189

Corvus I really appreciate it that you went out of your way to clear the ambiguity surrounding account sharing. However I am not 100% sure whether this policy also applies to items that you lend out (without sharing account(s)).

[Pyrasia]

I don't see why Gravity is held responsibility for items you agree to let someone else borrow.
In RL, you not gonna let a stranger borrow a brand new car, even though you already own 3, right ? Then don't do it ingame.

I see this is a nice move for the GM/CM, and hopefully will reduce time they spend on stupid Tickets to work on other stuff of more importance. (BOTTERS~!!!!!!!!!)

Edited by Pyrasia, 02 June 2011 - 08:49 AM.

[Puppet]

about damn time, does that go for if they where hacked too?, cause I remeber you used to provide no support to hacked accounts that hand many people accessing it

[Corvus]

http://blog.gravityus.com/?p=1189

Corvus I really appreciate it that you went out of your way to clear the ambiguity surrounding account sharing. However I am not 100% sure whether this policy also applies to items that you lend out (without sharing account(s)).

I wish there was a lending system in Ragnarok, but at the moment, there is not. Because of this, the only items we will retrieve are god items, because they have the owner's name on it. As for other items, don't give them to someone else unless you are ready to lose the item.

If you wish to lend an item to someone, ask them to give you an item of equal or greater value. For example, if Oda wants to borrow my +4 Ice Pick, I have him give me his GTB to hold on to. If he decides to run off with my Ice Pick, I don't feel sad, because I am the new owner of a brand new GTB. As you can imagine, he returns my Ice Pick every time.

Note: Oda does not have a GTB, but he would really like one if anyone has a spare.

about damn time, does that go for if they where hacked too?, cause I remeber you used to provide no support to hacked accounts that hand many people accessing it

We try giving those people as much support as possible, but it usually rather limited, since the account is shared, and 99.9% of the time, the sharing is what caused the "hack."

[GuardianTK]

Corvus, could you provide somewhat of a statistic on the amount of tickets that have to do with "Hacked accounts/Shared Item/Shared Account" problems in proportion compared to the other ticket categories? A rough estimate % would be nice. I've always wondered what category takes up most of the CS team's time on tickets.

[TrueMaster]

This is a good thing if it gets us quicker ticket responses. I don't think it is technically a hacked account if you give someone the password to that account, yet people will claim its hacked.

I imagine it is a very high % of tickets with these problems if they decided to do a policy change.

Unless you know the person in RL you should not be lending your high priced things without collateral.

[Corvus]

I can't give a percent value, but I can tell you that they do take up a lot more time than other tickets. We can respond to numerous technical support or email/password issues in the same time it takes us to resolve an issue where someone claims they are hacked. In an effort to provide better support, we need to make users more aware of the dangers of account sharing, and this is one of the steps in that direction.

Unless you know the person in RL you should not be lending your high priced things without collateral.

I have actually seen issues where real life friends, even family, have had issues with account sharing and item lending. Be really, really careful.

[Alicesaurus]

I sure hope your planning on getting mvp cards attached to a account to take responsibility because that completely breaks guild mvp cards, we cant loan them out for woe even if now you are not supporting shared accounts and item retrieval from malicious stealing. You should let us name important items that we have to lend to guildies in good faith namely mvp cards.

We cant afford to throw those away/lose them or keep them to just for the sole owner, you need a system for guild item sharing of mvp cards namely a named system where someone takes responsibility over it with their name on the item.

I have never had a mvp card stolen by guildies ever, but you have made this a situation where we cant afford to take the risk, we also cant afford to not use them altogether. Mvp cards can cost more than god items and are far more rare, they need a equal level of assurance regarding protection as they are a important guild staple and are treated the same as god items within a guild.

I said all of the above to Heilm on his msn, this was his response:

[Heimdallr] Renewing Renewal says:
yep, so take care of em.

Personally I find this a large problem for guild leaders who have mvp cards as a large part of guild owned items, this change in policy leaves us in between a rock and a hard place with nowhere to go. Discuss!

[Sera]

I thought this has been practical policy for a long time (at least from experiences with tickets I have had), at least it's nice to see it be a bit more official.

[Myzery]

I sure hope your planning on getting mvp cards attached to a account to take responsibility because that completely breaks guild mvp cards, we cant loan them out for woe even if now you are not supporting shared accounts and item retrieval from malicious stealing. You should let us name important items that we have to lend to guildies in good faith namely mvp cards.

We cant afford to throw those away/lose them or keep them to just for the sole owner, you need a system for guild item sharing of mvp cards namely a named system where someone takes responsibility over it with their name on the item.

I have never had a mvp card stolen by guildies ever, but you have made this a situation where we cant afford to take the risk, we also cant afford to not use them altogether. Mvp cards can cost more than god items and are far more rare, they need a equal level of assurance regarding protection as they are a important guild staple and are treated the same as god items within a guild.

I said all of the above to Heilm on his msn, this was his response:

[Heimdallr] Renewing Renewal says:
yep, so take care of em.

Personally I find this a large problem for guild leaders who have mvp cards as a large part of guild owned items, this change in policy leaves us in between a rock and a hard place with nowhere to go. Discuss!

It's really dumb. I had a conversation with Corvus earlier, too.
He told me they usually can't return anything that isn't a God item, because they don't know if you traded them with rmt or w/e else.
That's a really bad policy, the GMs should be able to tell if something was legitly traded away.

[fong]

It's really dumb. I had a conversation with Corvus earlier, too.
He told me they usually can't return anything that isn't a God item, because they don't know if you traded them with rmt or w/e else.
That's a really bad policy, the GMs should be able to tell if something was legitly traded away.

Dont need to trade it, let me buy it..how much?

[CeruleanGamer]

Nice move GMs. Less we need are cry babies whining about how they got their items jacked for doing something stupid.

[Corvus]

It's really dumb. I had a conversation with Corvus earlier, too.
He told me they usually can't return anything that isn't a God item, because they don't know if you traded them with rmt or w/e else.
That's a really bad policy, the GMs should be able to tell if something was legitly traded away.

We are able to tell a lot from our logs, but they do not tell everything, like if a deal was made outside of game with real life friends, or by using a messenger service, or if it was a loan, or if the item was traded away because the original owner wanted to quit. Our log system does not flag or track these things, so we have to put more responsibility in the hands of the community when it comes to keeping their items safe. I would like to see a lending system implemented into Ragnarok, and we have proposed it, but we have to deal with these issues today, and right now, we have to put the responsibility with the owners of the items.

[Dukeares]

Oh boy.....what a Great Policy u guy just made. What about guild supply and item? if somehow one of the person that was intrusted in the guild to hang out Woe supply suddenly betray that trust that was given to them... the whole guild get punish?

[fong]

We are able to tell a lot from our logs, but they do not tell everything, like if a deal was made outside of game with real life friends, or by using a messenger service, or if it was a loan, or if the item was traded away because the original owner wanted to quit. Our log system does not flag or track these things, so we have to put more responsibility in the hands of the community when it comes to keeping their items safe. I would like to see a lending system implemented into Ragnarok, and we have proposed it, but we have to deal with these issues today, and right now, we have to put the responsibility with the owners of the items.

+2

is all God Item really really have name/named on it ?? O.o

answer plz

[Corvus]

+2

is all God Item really really have name/named on it ?? O.o

answer plz

All of them do, with the exception of a small number of very old ones.

[Corvus]

Oh boy.....what a Great Policy u guy just made. What about guild supply and item? if somehow one of the person that was intrusted in the guild to hang out Woe supply suddenly betray that trust that was given to them... the whole guild get punish?

That is the issue at hand. I would encourage you to find another way to distribute such items without using a shared account. If you decide you want to keep using a shared account, be warned that someone may betray your trust one day and take everything.

[fong]

All of them do, with the exception of a small number of very old ones.

ic

can't I named it -.- sob

Thx

[Alicesaurus]

we have to put more responsibility in the hands of the community when it comes to keeping their items safe. I would like to see a lending system implemented into Ragnarok, and we have proposed it, but we have to deal with these issues today, and right now, we have to put the responsibility with the owners of the items.

Letting us name items essentially lets us take sole responsibility of an item, since you claim from now on not to take any responsibility for anything and forward that responsibility to us it would make sense to give us the power to take sole responsibility of such an important item the same way as we do with god items. Hence mvp cards that are in some cases worth more than god items and are in fact traded for whole ownership of god items, it would make sense to allow us to take responsibility of them as opposed to being forced to taking risks.

I fully support the onus of owners responsibility of their own account, this is a good step. But in this case of mvp cards it's not so much about shared accounts it's about the complete lack of control about high end items guild's need to issue out during woe and how this leaves us with no safety nets for their use. If we have to take responsibility of these items and how we use them then please give us the means to do so.

[LordVader]

LoL bad policy is bad. It's going to be open season on stealing from guilds now. Hope all the major guilds are irl live-in brothers/sisters.

Ever tried having a major woe guild with 1 person responsible for doing EVERYTHING in the guild? Haha it's impossible. Btw anyone need someone to help them with their guild potting pm me info /ok.

Totally unrelated note:
S> Ales bulk/herbs/stat food/gears!

[Sera]

Why are people acting surprised / angry.

This has been their effective policy for quite a while.

On one level, it's actually a change for the better.

Scenario:
Person A and Person B have access to account, the account is hacked by Person C who does not know either A or B and has not had previous access to it.

Under the old policy, they'd pretty much just tell you that since you shared your account, it's your own damn fault and they can't do anything about it.

Under the new policy though, Person A and B are both considered practical owners of the account, so they can then take action against person C.

Yes, if Person B betrays person A, then you're SOL, but prior to this... weren't you pretty much just SOL anyway?

[Alicesaurus]

Why are people acting surprised / angry.

This has been their effective policy for quite a while.

On one level, it's actually a change for the better.

Scenario:
Person A and Person B have access to account, the account is hacked by Person C who does not know either A or B and has not had previous access to it.

Under the old policy, they'd pretty much just tell you that since you shared your account, it's your own damn fault and they can't do anything about it.

Under the new policy though, Person A and B are both considered practical owners of the account, so they can then take action against person C.

Yes, if Person B betrays person A, then you're SOL, but prior to this... weren't you pretty much just SOL anyway?

We weren't saying we were against their policy in fact actually support it. You fail to understand it's not about account sharing that we are concerned about, it about having to lend out high end mvp items during seige and having no security to do so. The gm's policy before was that if the mvp card was maliciously stolen that it would be returned, I have had this assured to me several times in the past from gm's. This is a rapid change in policy. Your argument is ill-informed.

[Sera]

Did you really have security to do so before? I know of a few cases where stuff was taken and nothing could be done about it because they suspected RMT.

What I'm trying to say is, this isn't really a policy change so much as them finally telling us about a policy change they made a couple of years ago.

[jax5]

Regarding new shared account policy update:

The Good: GM ticket load potentially reduced, which means they have more time for other issues.

The Bad: Sharing is nerfed, meaning decreased guild benefits, community development, etc.

Personal comments: I regularly loan high value items (i.e Ghostring armors, some MvP card gear). Receiving collateral for loan of some of these items (such as during WoE or guild events), is not practical. Trade window imitations for zeny amount, item amount, and weight capacities of players involved increase the hassle-factor. Additionally, what happens if loanee doesn't have enough collateral? How would accurate currency value be established in the first place? Zeny limits on vend/trade/per-character maximums already result in game economy-system being very much of bartering.

With current change, I feel hoarding is more encouraged, and sharing is discouraged. This is a multiplayer game. I think sharing options should be promoted.


Proposed alternate solution: In-game name-labelling mechanic

How it works: The labelling, ideally, would completely be game-automated and require in-game and/or KP to name. All named items would be un-upgradeable and could not have cards placed in them. An item can only be un-named by the character the item is named after.

Possible effects: Short-term ticket load increased due to establishing item ownership. Long term ticket load decreased, due to less ambiguity of item ownership and possibility of placing named, loaned items on proxy account for multi-user access/use. A smaller amount of tickets persist, regarding multi-user access of named character account. I'd guess it would still be more preferable than the current change (which would only seem to cause a decrease in user population).

Sharing becomes much less hassle for players and there is additional market demand from people who want to protect items from being accidentally broken on upgrade, dropped on ground during equipment transfer, etc.


Proposed paired solution: In-game recall function

How it works: The service is game-automated and requires in-game items and/or KP to use. Recall occurs once per day at set time.

Edited by jax5, 02 June 2011 - 02:09 PM.

[Alicesaurus]

Did you really have security to do so before? I know of a few cases where stuff was taken and nothing could be done about it because they suspected RMT.

What I'm trying to say is, this isn't really a policy change so much as them finally telling us about a policy change they made a couple of years ago.

Can you suspect RMT when the item was only traded for the short duration of a single woe? If they held onto the item for months then that's a completely different story. It is a policy change if they are going back on assurances that were given during the period when that policy was introduced. This is very different from what we had before.