[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!
Guild Wars Exploit
Obviously having many people comes with its disadvantages, it is more susceptible to drama if mishandled, but if handled well can be pretty beneficial to the community. 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. That means you can't invite anyone who is friends with an enemy guild or anyone in that guild because they MIGHT decide to sabotage you. Why not take away the ability to let a single player sabotage 249 other ones potentially and in a completely unbalanced way?
I want to know what you mean by this because yes, it would be convenient if our hard work and dedication to the actual aspects of guildwars were not trampled by a cheat, but what do you mean by not everyone else's? Who loses by removing this exploit and why fight something that has no discernible value and is only a negative? Because you sound like you're suggesting its not convenient for my guild, but it is convenient for other guilds.
This seems completely unreasonable. I do not want a silly oversight and loophole in a game to be able to decide how I run a guild. If I want a more open guild that doesn't discriminate against lower level players and am up for giving players who aren't the most popular a second chance, then I should have that right. Defending this is like killing my freedom to run a guild how I see fit following my own social dynamic rather than being forced down the path of exclusionary edicts.
I understand that not everyone who joins "deserves" the benefits(this is subjective). But the benefits are tailored to help vets and new players alike. Training potions can be bought for cheap everyday, combat xp pots and cheap elite baltane/shadow mission passes for leveling. Higher level players can enjoy the combat/magic power pots to give them an edge and ease up on the bone chip farming. Everyone can enjoy the benefits.
More than this its not reasonable to force players to "earn their keep and rewards." There are 20 slots MAX for guild wars, of a potential 250. That means a guild of 250 and a guild of 20 have the same representation in guild wars. So not everyone can participate, and in fact they can help in other ways or simply be on standby in case they are needed.
Sure, many people will join simply BECAUSE of the benefits which may repulse many people. However I've heard time and time again of people who join for the benefits, but decide to stay because of the community. There is a lot more to a guild than what it can offer physically. Many, if not most of the players who originally joined for the benefits soon realized that they enjoyed the community and end up being the most vocal in trying to make it more enjoyable for others. Not everyone is a cutthroat mercenary that will leave the second the guild loses a town, we're a family
You've pointed out a legitimate bug and it is a problem. Whether you are stringent or not in vetting members into your guild is irrelevant to the issue. For the old-style guild wars, didn't the guild leader themself have to do something for things to happen? For this issue, perhaps having the actual guild leader alone be the only one able to enter the guild into the contest is reasonable. After all, does any guild who cant get their guild leader to show up really deserve a shot at it?
You know what people thought was FUD? Was when people thought I was full of it concerning the reforge bots. Now they are trying to combat it. If people are possibly circumventing the system in any way for anything then it needs addressed so it doesn't happen or stops happening.
If someone wants to find a way around a law or rule, they will. They are called "Rulebreakers/criminals" for a reason: they disregard the laws.
"Protect yourself," is my whole point; do a better job at vetting.
I said this:
"This is not Nexon's problem that their (Visions's) guild policy has caused them this issue. The solution is to tighten up their guild security by being more meticulous in learning about who they let in and who has been in there."
Never said that. See above quote.
No, but you are still asking Nexon to fix a problem you can fix on your own.
A pretty based assumption to make, imo. Why would you entrust a responsibility like this to a member not running the guild that you also personally have not appointed, anyway?
Show me a quote of my post that you are referring to and we can discuss this claim further. For now, no comment as I am sure I made no such claim.
I agree. And yet, let us not pretend as if people that are susceptible to such things cannot be recognized. Weak-willed individuals typically express traits that would befall them to bribery -- those traits include a high level of ambition combined with pathological selfishness and is tampered by greed and envy.
I never said to do any of this.
I said to improve vetting procedures.
What did I say in my post that caused you to think that I want new and upcoming players to not be able to have a chance at improvement? The problem is that I disagree with the methodology being used. It does not take a large amount of observation to see that simply allowing new players access to resources they otherwise would not have has a negative impact on motivation and loyalty. What would they do if the guild were to lose the benefits for an extended time? Would they leave? If so, the vetting procedure is suspect.
I never said anything abut winning guilds. When I was referring to people that this benefits as opposed to people that suffered due to this, I was referring to cases where a Senior, an Officer, and a Leader cannot attend the event. Sure, the solution in a large guild full of active members is simply to just appoint more Seniors. Problem solved. But, what about smaller guilds that happen to be able to stand a chance, but have too many time-collisions?
This seems like you agree with me, that not any member should be entrusted to run guild wars for the guild.
Recruiting people that share your goals is not the same as just recruiting people that agree with you.
Example: You and a partner have both have a vision towards making a guild full of strong, loyal, friendly users, yet have disagreements as to how that can be achieved.
Diversity of thought? Diversity of skill? Diversity of ideas? Forgive me, but that would be what the phrase generally means when it used in political contexts, at least. I never said you never used a vetting procedure. I am criticizing the procedure itself.
A player can easily just lie and/or falsify information if a questionnaire is all you use to vet people.
This actually helps me understand how an enemy spy got into your guild and nearly sabotage you.
My point is that the allegedly less competitive group of players you are speaking of took advantage of your vetting procedure.
These two things are linked. I am looking at the conclusion of the issue and I am looking for a way to help solve it. To do this, I have to ask myself a question:
"How could this happen?"
Faulty vetting is exactly how this could happen. Actually, it would be illogical to prevent someone from joining your guild on basis of implied chance, rather than evident certainty.
This is why the vetting procedure is so important and why it needs to be addressed. If you develop a way to increase the chances of recruiting someone you can trust with more ease, this stops happening.
See this response I gave to Food for clarification:
"When I was referring to people that this benefits as opposed to people that suffered due to this, I was referring to cases where a Senior, an Officer, and a Leader cannot attend the event. Sure, the solution in a large guild full of active members is simply to just appoint more Seniors. Problem solved. But, what about smaller guilds that happen to be able to stand a chance, but have too many time-collisions?"
I think you should do what you want to do with your guild, as well. I am here offering criticism on how you could achieve this without leaving yourselves open to sabotage. I am on your side, here.
Very true. The definition of "deserves" is indeed subjective here. I will refrain from going further on that, in that case. My apologies.
I disagree here. I do so with the understanding that a lack of incentive to improve leads one to stagnate and neglect themselves if they put forth no contribution to the overall sustaining of such a benefit. I guess you could say that this is what I was referring to when I said something about who "deserves" what; I used the wrong word.
I find this contradictory. I am making a case for the sake of vetting out players that may wish to do detriment to the guild. This means that players who just want to leech and joined specifically to do so are taking advantage of the resources and offering nothing in return -- the definition of a leech also is classified under "parasite." Whether or not they enjoy the community and later on decide to stay for that sake does not automatically eject the initial point in joining from their motive. Additionally, this is not about them at all. This is about the ones that do decide to take the guild apart and suck more resources. These are the ones I am concerned about, obviously. And, you should be as well, given your recent problem.
(Edited for broken quote patterns)
Now that I had a chance to re-read the post. That is pretty crappy honestly, it is still bad sportmanship but if people are doing that, then yes, something should be done because that's awful. Giving the ability to make parties to Senior members and above sounds like a good idea to me.
That depends on what my personal goals for the guild are and whether or not you wish to assist me in achieving them.
The goals, in my case, would be to raise a guild of determined people that want to achieve victories in Guild War (in this hypothetical) or supporting the others with materials (not for free, of course -- by consensual transaction or some other exchange) or by another means possible as they strive to grow and achieve higher strengths and skills so that they benefit both the guild and themselves by proxy.
How do I vet that out?
-Take them through some tests, such as evaluating their ability to think outside of a set paradigm or idea about a weapon or strategy.
-Encourage them to train up their skills and see how much effort is put into it. (This is usually the determining factor.)
-Encourage them to participate in more runs where they can actually contribute to the efficiency as opposed to leeching and/or putting themselves in harm's way and reducing it and see what they actually do.
-Find out their overall perspective on games like these to see how much they really care to try. Some players think Mabi is only P2W; those are the very people I would turn away, personally, because the have shown a defeatist attitude by doing so.
I have more ways and all of these are tested and tried. And, they worked while I had control over the guilds I managed.
Make it leader/officer (maybe senior) only to kick off, or require the initiator to be in a party of a minimum number of guild members before it converts into the 20 man group.
Or just make it a choice in guild settings what level of member you need to be to have the power to initiate the guild war participation.
This is an exploit. Exploits don't need "vetting" to fix, they need to be patched, especially now that it's come to public attention.
making everyone a senior member would help if "(none) of the seniors, nor the leader nor officer, could log on" for smaller guilds. No one said to make everyone a senior member in big guilds, and especially not promoting a random to senior
Competitive =/= trustworthy
Just because someone wanted to join the guild for the title doesn't mean they're trying to drain resources, take the guild apart, or be the parasite that you're labeling them as. They'll most likely still donate GP, even if not gold.
What about guilds that want to be social? How do you suggest they vet people besides trying to get to know them better before letting them in? I'm not a member of Visions nor have I tried applying but I'm sure it's more than just a simple questionnaire.
I realize this is probably just an example vetting process for the hypothetical guild you made, but anyway, ANY experienced player can pass this but it doesn't show anything about how trustworthy they are. On the other hand, a really trustworthy but casual (note: not inactive, CASUAL) player wouldn't.
Not everyone wants to run a guild like yours.
edited because i couldn't quote/reply to everything from 2 posts at once
I really hate stirring up drama but I feel like this needs to be addressed.
I don’t really understand your vendetta against my guild. It’s been at least a month since we rejected your app; we didn’t mean any hard feelings and tried to let you down lightly. You’ve seem to have taken it to heart, however we maintain our decision to reject your application. Your slam campaign against us is toxic af and our members are undeserving of such blatant accusations and threats. We have every right to accept or decline any application. You have a poor attitude and reputation in the community so we decided to decline your app. We’ve had our share of troublemaking members that we’ve let go in the past and prefer to keep our guild drama free with like minded individuals; which is why all new members are vouched for.
Instead of spreading rumours and being passive aggressive towards us, why don’t you put together a team and actually contest the dunbartons guild war. It’s literally the same 2 guilds because no one else is willing to play.
Repetition does not make an argument stronger. I still am not convinced that more restrictions will solve the problem. This clearly is an inherent issue within guild structure. As Laoss stated earlier, seemingly no one in Korean servers or other servers have had the issue. Something can be done, here and that something -- I think -- is better vetting.
Where did I say it had to be perfect?
I have said multiple times that a better procedure would reduce this problem.
We are not jumping from one extreme to the other: Your vetting procdure as it is, or a perfect one that fixes everything.
If I apply this question you asked about 100% success rate in prevention to your requests that Nexon applies a change to the functionality of it, your proposition also falls flat on that basis because even senior members can betray you and have a change of heart about the guild's integrity. Good idea I never said anything about perfection.
No, because internal corruption and disarray can also occur. But, this is besides the point, Bern:
I never said anything about perfection at all. And it looks like you are using the excuse of imperfection as justification to not improve the vetting procedure itself, which is exactly what I am criticizing: the procedure. Nexon can institute whatever changes they may wish to this design and still, someone can take advantage of you from within. 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. The difference? Even if Nexon tightens the system up to prevent this, you still have an inherent problem: infiltration. Until that gets resolved, there is nothing Nexon can do to fix your dilemma and the changes will be pointless. The answer is not "more rules." The answer is "better integral structure."
What do you suggest they change then? Don't just make a hypothetical guild and hypothetical vetting rules for that guild, that probably won't apply to this one.
It seems like you agree in the rest of your post that the vetting procedure doesn't have to be PERFECT, which means that it WILL have flaws and always saying to "make it better" isn't always going to be a solution, you're going to hit a point that you can't pass eventually.
At least with senior members, people can decide who to promote. Someone so flaky should not be made a senior in the first place. I'm not sure where you're getting at here. Better vetting isn't going to solve the problem with a senior member deciding to sabotage, if they were trustworthy enough to be made senior in the first place. At least if there was a restriction, the chances of a random sabotaging to guild will become zero.
That one was fun.
Ever heard of social engineering? Yeah. So basically we're supposed to remain suspicious of anyone and everyone. That can become pretty toxic and unfun after a while. It's already draining enough to run a guild. It would just simply be easier to give us these options to make it easier for us and the staff. No we don't want them completely policing us, we don't want that, they DEFINITELY do not want that. So something must be done.
I mean we can make these options OPTIONAL. Little check boxes in the manage guild section.
Why are people always against LOGICAL things??? God I hate the forums sometimes.
Nexon can change the restrictions for applying to guild war so that only Senior Members, Officers, and Guild Leaders can make the party, while guilds can tighten up on their vetting process.
I'm not sure how your guild(s) used to work, but the guild I spent most of my time in, had a very elaborate promotion interview. They give hypothetical guild scenarios and you have to tell them how you would go about solving those problems. They factor in your activity (usually had to be in the guild for at least a year), opinions from other members privately to get their thoughts on you, and see how helpful you were in assisting the guild. My point leading up to this is that, who even has the time, patience, and effort to wait like 6 months just to get promoted to Senior Member only to betray a guild, so that another guild gets the Guardian title for one week and ultimately get kicked from that guild that they just betrayed, on top of ruining their reputation on that server?
EDIT ONE: Before I go, let me post this last quote from my very first post on this matter -- for all those people that seem to have some slight reading comprehension issues:
"Would I support it if they did? Neither for or against."
("It" being the change to the system.)
EDIT TWO: Here is another quote with me acknowledging the possible usefulness of the change:
"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."
What is my reputation? Can I join?
Oh wait, nevermind. I'm in Alexina.
I think we keep having same guilds winning too. But I think they are legit since these guilds are active and most of players are try hards a.k.a end gamers.
I'm also impressed how this "exploit" got unnoticed all this time in KR and NA been having this update for some time too now.