[NEW MILLETIANS] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Nexon Forums Code of Conduct. You have to register before you can post, so you can log in or create a forum name above to proceed. Thank you for your visit!
Closed

Guild Wars Exploit

Comments

  • TNinjaTNinja
    Mabinogi Rep: 8,630
    Posts: 1,111
    Member
    So the new guild meta is espionages and sabotege?

    Oh boy, the new guild system sounds amazing.
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 845
    Posts: 23
    Member
    edited November 22, 2018
    TNinja wrote: »
    So the new guild meta is espionages and sabotege?

    Oh boy, the new guild system sounds amazing.

    What do you think "War" involves? Handshakes and backpats?
    I would never stoop to those levels. I do not encourage it, either. But, also I am not my hypothetical enemy. Bringing morality to War is naive.
    Gretakapapa
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 13,050
    Posts: 2,728
    Member
    Let's review what the argument can be broken down to:

    Argument
    Anyone in a guild can apply on behalf of the guild for the guild battle. That person then can singlehandedly prevent the guild from entering the contest, should they choose to do so. This is a problem and should be changed by allowing only guild members of higher ranks to do so.
    Lemma to the Argument
    It is believed, by the person making the argument, that a rival guild found their guild's participation in the contest historically an impediment to them ever winning the contest. It is further believed, by the person making the argument, that someone from that rival guild used an alternate character to infiltrate the guild and perform the actions stated above in order to secure victory for their own guild. It is granted, by the person making the argument, that the agent was able to infiltrate the guild because their own vetting process is not stringent.

    Counterargument
    Although what is surmised in the argument is a possibility, it is still not a problem with the game design and the mechanics of entering the contest should be retained as is since the problem is entirely with the complaining guilds vetting process alone and nothing else. That this has not happened on overseas installations of Mabinogi is cited as evidence that is then concluded as securing the absolute proof of the counterargument.
    Lemma to the Counterargument
    It is believed, by the person making the counter argument, that the person making the argument is a poor sport.

    Does that capture it all, in a nut shell?
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 845
    Posts: 23
    Member
    edited November 22, 2018
    Helsa wrote: »
    Let's review what the argument can be broken down to:

    Argument
    Anyone in a guild can apply on behalf of the guild for the guild battle. That person then can singlehandedly prevent the guild from entering the contest, should they choose to do so. This is a problem and should be changed by allowing only guild members of higher ranks to do so.
    Lemma to the Argument
    It is believed, by the person making the argument, that a rival guild found their guild's participation in the contest historically an impediment to them ever winning the contest. It is further believed, by the person making the argument, that someone from that rival guild used an alternate character to infiltrate the guild and perform the actions stated above in order to secure victory for their own guild. It is granted, by the person making the argument, that the agent was able to infiltrate the guild because their own vetting process is not stringent.

    Counterargument
    Although what is surmised in the argument is a possibility, it is still not a problem with the game design and the mechanics of entering the contest should be retained as is since the problem is entirely with the complaining guilds vetting process alone and nothing else. That this has not happened on overseas installations of Mabinogi is cited as evidence that is then concluded as securing the absolute proof of the counterargument.
    Lemma to the Counterargument
    It is believed, by the person making the counter argument, that the person making the argument is a poor sport.

    Does that capture it all, in a nut shell?

    Not in the slightest.
    You mixed up the points from both sides and obviously misrepresented the counterargument.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 13,050
    Posts: 2,728
    Member

    Not in the slightest.
    You mixed up the points from both sides and obviously misrepresented the counterargument.

    Oh okay fair enough, please gives us your brief summary of both sides of the arguement.
  • CyCyCyCy
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,240
    Posts: 63
    Member
    edited November 22, 2018
    I don't know about this claim of Visions not having a good vetting process anyway. We're like the only guild nowadays that still do applications by online process. And then it has to be reviewed to be approved. Check out our applications http://visionshome.guildlaunch.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=738806&gid=103748

    We're saying that despite our above-standard vetting process, unfortunately there are people capable of going past this. If Visions is having this issue given the current vetting process we have, I bet you any guild will have this problem.

    The rival guild spy will find a way. When there's a will there's a way. Even if it might be difficult.

    We also acknowledged that we're pretty sure Visions removed who ever was about to do the sabotage. But because we're still not 100% certain, it helps everyone's peace of mind if this can just be patched.

    There's really no point in arguing here. We want our peace of mind. No one is going to miss GW because of this slight change in game feature when it is processed.
    Vivian
  • CrimsCrims
    Mabinogi Rep: 46,235
    Posts: 7,064
    Member
    I just thought of something. You know how making senior members is kinda pointless and is more of a title within the guild? What if that senior thing could be made into a trust system? If the leader or officer trusts you they can make you a senior who would be able to initiate guild wars. If you screw over the guild you would be demoted and/or removed. It would also give guild members incentive to become seniors. Because right now there really is no incentive. lol.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 13,050
    Posts: 2,728
    Member
    CyCy wrote: »
    No one is going to miss GW because of this slight change in game feature when it is processed.

    But what about the folks arguing passionately against it because they want to keep using that exploit. Will no one think of them?
    Crims
  • CrimsCrims
    Mabinogi Rep: 46,235
    Posts: 7,064
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    CyCy wrote: »
    No one is going to miss GW because of this slight change in game feature when it is processed.

    But what about the folks arguing passionately against it because they want to keep using that exploit. Will no one think of them?

    Oof. Shots fired.
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 845
    Posts: 23
    Member
    edited November 22, 2018
    Helsa wrote: »

    Not in the slightest.
    You mixed up the points from both sides and obviously misrepresented the counterargument.

    Oh okay fair enough, please gives us your brief summary of both sides of the arguement.

    I have no obligation to do so, but fine: Challenge accepted. :)

    --- Argument #1

    Bern's argument is that there is a problem with the Guild War system and it involves the ability to allow any representative of a guild to open a party for the tournament and use their control of said party to inhibit or downright exclude entry into the competition. He proposes that this is an exploit that should be fixed by the developers. He further states that the issue is going to breed "unhealthy competition" and "plague every server."
    He never once acknowledged the possibility of a faulty vetting procedure:

    "The problem being faced right now is not due to blind invitation of every player on the server, its a less competitive group of players looking to find a loophole to win that only breeds insecurity in guilds and makes them close themselves off to letting anyone in." - Bern.

    ((Let me be sure to point out that over the last few weeks that their guild has retained benefits of Tir, party ads for recruitment into their guild have been aired nonstop and everyday encouraging all to come and take advantage of the benefits.))

    --- Argument #2

    Food's argument collaborates with Bern's in that he describes such a change as making things "safer" for guilds by preventing new and junior members from having access to such an ability, but also acknowledges that policing everyone in the guild is impossible. However, he does address their vetting procedure by defending it on basis that narrowing down ease of entry into the guild would promote "elitism."

    "You say that you support helping people and sharing what the benefits are, but at the same time you say that guilds should be some kind of elitist club that excludes new, up and coming players." - Food.

    Food ultimately believes that the ability to open parties should be restricted to certain members of the guild, but wants Nexon to enforce this.
    "Nexon can stop this from happening by very easily upping the requirement to make the guild war party be a Senior, Officer, or Leader." - Food.

    --- Argument #3

    The counterargument proposed never primarily addressed the game mechanics or its potential faults and majorly focused upon internal measures such as vetting entry into a guild, maintaining a code of discipline within the guild, and promoting support and teamwork towards a secure and successful guild. The counterargument did acknowledge that changing the game mechanics could introduce some assistance in preventing sabotage, but still could be "exploited" by definition and understanding of what the two above arguments clarify this as.

    "But, you seem to understand this as well as I do that Nexon doing such a change could improve the chances that this will not happen. What else would improve the chances? Better vetting." - Sophie.


    The counterargument suggests that this is a superficial solution and that there is a deeper issue that must be addressed which by proxy would greatly mitigate chances for defection, sabotage, and bribery: strengthening faulty integral guild structure. Additionally, the counterargument suggests that relying upon someone else to fix the issue is not an efficient method in dealing with this as something needs to be done in the meantime, should Nexon actually decide to do what they suggest should be done. Finally, the counterargument never once suggested the idea that other servers not suffering from the same issue was concrete evidence to support the counterargument, but did place heavy emphasis on acknowledging the distinct difference due to the probability of better vetting being the reason behind this.

    "The reason why other servers in other countries are not having this issue is probably because they know better than to just recruit anybody on basis of no understanding whatsoever of the person's motives." - Sophie.

    (Edited for formatting.)
    (Further edited to include more points from Food.)
  • CyCyCyCy
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,240
    Posts: 63
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    CyCy wrote: »
    No one is going to miss GW because of this slight change in game feature when it is processed.

    But what about the folks arguing passionately against it because they want to keep using that exploit. Will no one think of them?

    Ofcourse we'll think about them. We would encourage those folks to read Nexon's User-abuse policy at http://www.nexon.net/legal/user-abuse/

    We will report their exploit actions as User-Abuse when they do this.
  • PlatinaKokiPlatinaKoki
    Mabinogi Rep: 7,190
    Posts: 850
    Member
    edited November 22, 2018
    -removed for irrelevance-
  • CrimsCrims
    Mabinogi Rep: 46,235
    Posts: 7,064
    Member
    -removed for irrelevance-

    Was that your edit or...?
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 845
    Posts: 23
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    CyCy wrote: »
    No one is going to miss GW because of this slight change in game feature when it is processed.

    But what about the folks arguing passionately against it because they want to keep using that exploit. Will no one think of them?

    And still, you continue to misrepresent.
    I agree with Cyril: There is no point arguing.
    There clearly are people that have no desire to understand the other party's perspective.

    As I said before, good luck to Visions.
  • PlatinaKokiPlatinaKoki
    Mabinogi Rep: 7,190
    Posts: 850
    Member
    edited November 22, 2018
    Gaea wrote: »
    -removed for irrelevance-

    Was that your edit or...?

    Mine, lol

    Back on topic, regardless of the validity of the issue, the original poster was obviously errant in posting this publicly, in the first place, because now others will try it before Korea comes up with a solution (if they even do that much); so, yeah, F.U.D.
    CyCy wrote: »
    Helsa wrote: »
    CyCy wrote: »
    No one is going to miss GW because of this slight change in game feature when it is processed.

    But what about the folks arguing passionately against it because they want to keep using that exploit. Will no one think of them?

    Ofcourse we'll think about them. We would encourage those folks to read Nexon's User-abuse policy at http://www.nexon.net/legal/user-abuse/

    We will report their exploit actions as User-Abuse when they do this.
    Only he without sin may cast the first stone.
    CyCy wrote: »
    Helsa wrote: »
    CyCy wrote: »
    No one is going to miss GW because of this slight change in game feature when it is processed.

    But what about the folks arguing passionately against it because they want to keep using that exploit. Will no one think of them?

    Ofcourse we'll think about them. We would encourage those folks to read Nexon's User-abuse policy at http://www.nexon.net/legal/user-abuse/

    We will report their exploit actions as User-Abuse when they do this.
    Helsa wrote: »

    Not in the slightest.
    You mixed up the points from both sides and obviously misrepresented the counterargument.

    Oh okay fair enough, please gives us your brief summary of both sides of the arguement.

    I have no obligation to do so, but fine: Challenge accepted. :)

    --- Argument #1

    Bern's argument is that there is a problem with the Guild War system and it involves the ability to allow any representative of a guild to open a party for the tournament and use their control of said party to inhibit or downright exclude entry into the competition. He proposes that this is an exploit that should be fixed by the developers. He further states that the issue is going to breed "unhealthy competition" and "plague every server."
    He never once acknowledged the possibility of a faulty vetting procedure:

    "The problem being faced right now is not due to blind invitation of every player on the server, its a less competitive group of players looking to find a loophole to win that only breeds insecurity in guilds and makes them close themselves off to letting anyone in." - Bern.

    ((Let me be sure to point out that over the last few weeks that their guild has retained benefits of Tir, party ads for recruitment into their guild have been aired nonstop and everyday encouraging all to come and take advantage of the benefits.))

    --- Argument #2

    Food's argument collaborates with Bern's in that he describes such a change as making things "safer" for guilds by preventing new and junior members from having access to such an ability, but also acknowledges that policing everyone in the guild is impossible. However, he does address their vetting procedure by defending it on basis that narrowing down ease of entry into the guild would promote "elitism."

    "You say that you support helping people and sharing what the benefits are, but at the same time you say that guilds should be some kind of elitist club that excludes new, up and coming players." - Food.

    Food ultimately believes that the ability to open parties should be restricted to certain members of the guild, but wants Nexon to enforce this.
    "Nexon can stop this from happening by very easily upping the requirement to make the guild war party be a Senior, Officer, or Leader." - Food.

    --- Argument #3

    The counterargument proposed never primarily addressed the game mechanics or its potential faults and majorly focused upon internal measures such as vetting entry into a guild, maintaining a code of discipline within the guild, and promoting support and teamwork towards a secure and successful guild. The counterargument did acknowledge that changing the game mechanics could introduce some assistance in preventing sabotage, but still could be "exploited" by definition and understanding of what the two above arguments clarify this as.

    "But, you seem to understand this as well as I do that Nexon doing such a change could improve the chances that this will not happen. What else would improve the chances? Better vetting." - Sophie.


    The counterargument suggests that this is a superficial solution and that there is a deeper issue that must be addressed which by proxy would greatly mitigate chances for defection, sabotage, and bribery: strengthening faulty integral guild structure. Additionally, the counterargument suggests that relying upon someone else to fix the issue is not an efficient method in dealing with this as something needs to be done in the meantime, should Nexon actually decide to do what they suggest should be done. Finally, the counterargument never once suggested the idea that other servers not suffering from the same issue was concrete evidence to support the counterargument, but did place heavy emphasis on acknowledging the distinct difference due to the probability of better vetting being the reason behind this.

    "The reason why other servers in other countries are not having this issue is probably because they know better than to just recruit anybody on basis of no understanding whatsoever of the person's motives." - Sophie.

    (Edited for formatting.)
    (Further edited to include more points from Food.)
    In relation to the bolded part, yes, they have had control of Tir for a few weeks straight now, so there's no way that what bern said had happened COULD have happened. To them, at least.
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 845
    Posts: 23
    Member
    edited November 22, 2018
    In relation to the bolded part, yes, they have had control of Tir for a few weeks straight now, so there's no way that what bern said had happened COULD have happened. To them, at least.

    I see what you are getting at; I have been reading your posts.
    I will just say this: I have done my own investigations into the Guild War and the guilds involved.
    What I have discovered is why I will remain guild-less for the rest of my time on Mabinogi.

    EDIT: The possibility of just flat-out owning my own guild existed, that is also gone as well.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 13,050
    Posts: 2,728
    Member
    At the end of the day, perhaps because of the original post in this thread, alone or not, it is now known that this can be done. Regardless of whether vetting can mitigate it or not is irrelevant, since limiting the action to the guild leader alone will absolutely address the issue, except in those circumstances where the guild leader is deliberately working against their own guild, which I see as a very rare event indeed. If the guild leader is not present to enter the guild into the contest, then any such guild that can't get their guild leader to show up for an important guild event such as this does not deserve entry into the contest in the first place.
    courtneyy
  • CraftycrabsCraftycrabs
    Mabinogi Rep: 220
    Posts: 4
    Member
    CyCy wrote: »
    Helsa wrote: »
    CyCy wrote: »
    No one is going to miss GW because of this slight change in game feature when it is processed.

    But what about the folks arguing passionately against it because they want to keep using that exploit. Will no one think of them?

    Ofcourse we'll think about them. We would encourage those folks to read Nexon's User-abuse policy at http://www.nexon.net/legal/user-abuse/

    We will report their exploit actions as User-Abuse when they do this.

    If two guilds were strong arming guild wars just to ruin it for someone else would you report that too? Say if the guild that kept winning paid for entry for the other guild and they made sure anyone who tried to contest them wasn't able to. This is still an "exploit" to ruin any competition or fun. You need to think about what you do to even the players who just want to do it for fun, or the leaders of these guilds encouraging griefing other players might be reported for that as well.
    kapapa
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 845
    Posts: 23
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    At the end of the day, perhaps because of the original post in this thread, alone or not, it is now known that this can be done. Regardless of whether vetting can mitigate it or not is irrelevant, since limiting the action to the guild leader alone will absolutely address the issue, except in those circumstances where the guild leader is deliberately working against their own guild, which I see as a very rare event indeed. If the guild leader is not present to enter the guild into the contest, then any such guild that can't get their guild leader to show up for an important guild event such as this does not deserve entry into the contest in the first place.

    "... something needs to be done in the meantime, should Nexon actually decide to do what they suggest should be done." - Sophie
  • HellkaizerHellkaizer
    Mabinogi Rep: 11,065
    Posts: 1,048
    Member
    Back in the glory days of archeage this kinda thing was supported, and was even considered a valid way to play
This discussion has been closed.