Lineage M users protest 3-day and 30-day bans amid NCSoft investigation

As NCSoft's 'Lineage M' carries out large-scale sanctions against accounts involved in abnormal play and the use of illegal programs, controversy regarding the severity of these measures continues to grow among users.

The backlash stems from the fact that while permanent bans were applied for the use of illegal programs, certain abnormal combat activities resulted in only 3-day and 30-day usage restrictions.

On the 22nd, the Lineage M management team released the 'Results of Abnormal Play Pattern Investigation and Notice of Game Usage Restrictions,' disclosing investigation findings and actions taken regarding suspected abnormal play. Management stated that they applied consistent standards to all accounts and took action after verifying in-game records.

According to the disclosed details, among the accounts classified as 'gameplay interference,' 11 accounts that showed repeated abnormal combat records on the same or related devices were subject to a 30-day usage restriction. Two accounts with abnormal combat records confirmed on related devices were given a 3-day usage restriction.

Separately, 16,459 accounts confirmed to have used illegal programs were hit with permanent usage restrictions. The total number of accounts subject to sanctions disclosed in this notice is 16,472.

The core issue raised by users is the disparity between the temporary 3-day/30-day restrictions and the permanent bans. Given that the Lineage M operating policy mandates heavy sanctions for illegal programs, the fact that some accounts received only temporary restrictions has led to calls within the community for more transparent disclosure of sanctioning criteria.

The controversy is spreading further as reports suggest many users belonging to specific 'lines' (player factions) are included in this round of sanctions. Due to the nature of Lineage M, where competition between lines and large-scale battles are core content, these sanctions can directly impact the power dynamics within the game.

While some users argue that heavy measures are necessary because a large number of sanctioned individuals belong to specific factions, others contend that imposing temporary restrictions when the use of illegal programs has not been clearly confirmed may be excessive.

The controversy involves programs that automatically process actions that users must perform manually in a normal gaming environment. Representative examples include functions that automatically target hostile characters or automatically use magic scrolls based on specific conditions.

Since such programs fall under 'illegal programs' or 'modification/alteration of game programs' according to the operating policy, the accounts receiving 3-day or 30-day restrictions at this stage can be viewed as having used illegal programs.

However, the Lineage M management team applied 'gameplay interference' measures based on 'abnormal combat records' for those subject to temporary restrictions, rather than using the term 'use of illegal programs.' In contrast, they explicitly stated that the 16,459 accounts subject to permanent restrictions were 'accounts that used illegal programs.'

What is even more noteworthy is that management has left the door open to the possibility that this round of sanctions is not the final result.

In the notice, the Lineage M management stated, "The investigation and verification of illegal program usage are ongoing, and if the use of illegal programs is confirmed through follow-up investigations, separate measures equivalent to [Sanction 2] will be carried out." Sanction 2 refers to the permanent usage restriction due to the use of illegal programs.

Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that NCSoft limited itself to temporary sanctions for illegal program users. There remains the possibility of permanent bans if illegal program usage is additionally confirmed during the follow-up investigation process.

From NCSoft's perspective, it is difficult to issue hasty judgments regarding individual accounts while additional investigations are still underway. If users whose illegal program usage has not been finally confirmed are pre-emptively labeled as illegal program users, it could trigger further issues; conversely, if the facts are confirmed later, it could lead to controversy regarding the credibility of the investigation.

Ultimately, the resolution of this controversy will depend on the results of the follow-up investigation.

If permanent usage restrictions are applied to accounts where illegal program usage is confirmed, the current temporary restrictions can be interpreted as preliminary measures taken while verifying illegal program usage. Conversely, if the matter is closed with only temporary restrictions despite evidence of automation, NCSoft may face demands for more detailed explanations regarding the fairness and consistency of its sanctioning standards.

The question of why some accounts received 3-day or 30-day bans while illegal program use typically warrants a permanent ban is a challenge NCSoft must address. However, NCSoft has not declared the investigation closed, explicitly stating that follow-up investigations and additional sanctions will proceed if illegal program usage is confirmed.

Whether the user backlash is viewed as a legitimate critique of "lenient sanctions" or as a necessary period for thorough verification remains to be seen. The industry is waiting for the results of NCSoft's follow-up investigation to judge the outcome.