The GVG saboteur syndrome
#1
Posted 02 November 2010 - 16:42
I have monitored people coming into my guild over the last few months and many have been kicked for deliberately, it seems, leaving themselves open.
Of course what happens now if they are kicked during a conflict? They are still legit targets! Hence this goes on.
I have absolutely no idea how the devs could fix this, i am just pointing it out so people are aware (if not already).
I make it a point now to monitor very closely new comers and to see what they do but they cannot always be caught in time. Some are very clever and plan their strategy not based on missing armor but on low armor and then letting there durability slide.
As it is right now, we are not recruiting for a while, probably not until next year.
This thread was made to openly point out and make people aware that gvg trojans are a fact of the game right now.
#2
Posted 02 November 2010 - 17:58
#3
fs_marinzeus
Posted 02 November 2010 - 19:53
carefully select those whom you allow in your guild and remember those who screw you in the end so as to not allow them to ever do it again.
+1
But I have to say, those people have exploited a fix for an exploit really geniously.
#4
Posted 02 November 2010 - 20:20
Geniusly?carefully select those whom you allow in your guild and remember those who screw you in the end so as to not allow them to ever do it again.
+1
But I have to say, those people have exploited a fix for an exploit really geniously.
I wouldn't say,they are not capable to win a simple conflict-against a non GvG guild...
Nothing genius about that-It is just sad...
#5
Posted 02 November 2010 - 21:27
Geniusly?carefully select those whom you allow in your guild and remember those who screw you in the end so as to not allow them to ever do it again.
+1
But I have to say, those people have exploited a fix for an exploit really geniously.
I wouldn't say,they are not capable to win a simple conflict-against a non GvG guild...
Nothing genius about that-It is just sad...
Not able to win and ensuring a win are different.
#6
Posted 03 November 2010 - 00:27
yeah I know the first part seems kinda nasty but I'm in that sort of mood at the moment.

|| signature rotates, artists varied ||
Fan my art on Facebook || Deviant Art || Chat on Irc
When in doubt, lean to the side of mercy.
- Cevantes
#7
Posted 03 November 2010 - 02:10
Here's an idea: limit the number of attacks per conflict that can be made on a single player to half (or maybe less) the total in the conflict. That way the attackers have to find two or more targets in the guild, making it more a Guild-v-Guild contest and less about who is the Weakest Link.
Another idea that's sure to cause complaining: add yet another time-out period, that makes it so a player can not participate in GvG (as target or attacker) until 24 hours after they join the guild. Again, this make it more a Guild-v-Guild fight: are you really a guild mate the minute you join ? Heck, make it a week! Guild hoppers, shills and mercs are the antithesis of who GvG should involve. To be fair, some kind of flag should indicate to people scouting the guild that someone is not a valid target. Hey, how about a time-in-guild indicator on the player profile, and a different font for newbie members on the Guild profile page? I'd love that!
Or do both suggestions. Or take these ideas and make them something actually workable.
I like the "not eligible for GvG until they've been in the guild for a (definable) time period" idea - that should help quite a bit with the abuse. If nothing else, it will cause them to waste a week of their time ... Problem is, as soon as one door is closed, the abusers of GvG will find another way to do it. GvG should never have been allowed below, for instance, Level 100 'cos i'm pretty sure that it (along with PvP) has driven away HORDES of new players.
There's so many different ways of fixing the abuses, but, unfortunately, as i said above, more will just be found. Shame that SOME folk do try to find ways to abuse as many facets of the game as possible, but that's just human nature I suppose. Some are in it for the long haul, and play fair - some for the short haul, and don't ..
#8
Posted 03 November 2010 - 11:16
Basically it is this:-
If a target has only been in a guild for less than a month (or two weeks perhaps) then he/she should be allowed to be booted and NOT still be a legible target.
This way, those who are established members of a guild won't get kicked just to be reinstated after a conflict (no point as they would still be legit targets either way).
That's the best solution I could come up with and it would solve the immediate problem.
#9
Posted 03 November 2010 - 11:23
I'm not buying that this is a widespread problem. One or two GvG losses aren't a big deal. Screen your potential members better, and if they are there to 'sabotage' your guild kick them immediately.One solution would be a simple compromise of the solution metioned above.
Basically it is this:-
If a target has only been in a guild for less than a month (or two weeks perhaps) then he/she should be allowed to be booted and NOT still be a legible target.
This way, those who are established members of a guild won't get kicked just to be reinstated after a conflict (no point as they would still be legit targets either way).
That's the best solution I could come up with and it would solve the immediate problem.
[Signature removed]
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM
#10
Posted 03 November 2010 - 12:00
I'm not buying that this is a widespread problem. One or two GvG losses aren't a big deal. Screen your potential members better, and if they are there to 'sabotage' your guild kick them immediately.One solution would be a simple compromise of the solution metioned above.
Basically it is this:-
If a target has only been in a guild for less than a month (or two weeks perhaps) then he/she should be allowed to be booted and NOT still be a legible target.
This way, those who are established members of a guild won't get kicked just to be reinstated after a conflict (no point as they would still be legit targets either way).
That's the best solution I could come up with and it would solve the immediate problem.
It is a widespread problem, it is happening all the time.
I do screen potential recruits but no matter how screened they are they can still slip through and the problem with it is that once a conflict gets started, it's too late to do anything about it, they can be kicked but are still targets and have still achieved what they set out to do.
The solution outlined above would totally alleviate that.
#11
fs_scrogger
Posted 03 November 2010 - 12:17
#12
Posted 03 November 2010 - 12:49
I'd bet there are more buff thieves than players doing this. A player's reputation spreads quickly. Still good luck getting devs to change this to your eventually proposed idea. Players getting kicked to avoid them from being attacked was a much worse problem, nearly the same as hitting inactives. These RP farming guilds are just a joke to make FSP for free. My sympathy falls short for them. What are a few losses? Nothing. Kick and move on.It is a widespread problem, it is happening all the time.
[Signature removed]
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM
#13
Posted 03 November 2010 - 12:58
I'm not buying that this is a widespread problem. One or two GvG losses aren't a big deal. Screen your potential members better, and if they are there to 'sabotage' your guild kick them immediately.One solution would be a simple compromise of the solution metioned above.
Basically it is this:-
If a target has only been in a guild for less than a month (or two weeks perhaps) then he/she should be allowed to be booted and NOT still be a legible target.
This way, those who are established members of a guild won't get kicked just to be reinstated after a conflict (no point as they would still be legit targets either way).
That's the best solution I could come up with and it would solve the immediate problem.
It is a widespread problem, it is happening all the time.
I do screen potential recruits but no matter how screened they are they can still slip through and the problem with it is that once a conflict gets started, it's too late to do anything about it, they can be kicked but are still targets and have still achieved what they set out to do.
The solution outlined above would totally alleviate that.
Lets use Ewoks as an example here
we let in a level 30, he does a gvg on guilds with only lower lvl players in it, we boot him after the his attacks are done, now we sit and wait for the gvg to time out since the other guild has no one to hit they cant fight back, it is an auto win for us.
#14
Posted 03 November 2010 - 13:01
#15
Posted 03 November 2010 - 13:05
they can still be attacked when not in the guild.
read the ops proposed situation where they wouldnt be eligible for attack.
#16
Posted 03 November 2010 - 13:13
You missed what Bry said in your mistaken example. You currently kick a player after a GvG is started and he is still a target.we let in a level 30, he does a gvg on guilds with only lower lvl players in it, we boot him after the his attacks are done, now we sit and wait for the gvg to time out since the other guild has no one to hit they cant fight back, it is an auto win for us.
Then we redo this process with the gvger over and over. See any problem here?
Edit: the OP is worried about a sabotaging player going naked and being an easy target. Not a big widespread problem as I see it.
[Signature removed]
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM
#17
Posted 03 November 2010 - 13:22
we let in a level 30, he does a gvg on guilds with only lower lvl players in it, we boot him after the his attacks are done, now we sit and wait for the gvg to time out since the other guild has no one to hit they cant fight back, it is an auto win for us.
Then we redo this process with the gvger over and over. See any problem here?
You missed what Bry said in your mistaken example. You currently kick a player after a GvG is started and he is still a target.
Edit: the OP is worried about a sabotaging player going naked and being an easy target. Not a big widespread problem as I see it.
I didnt miss it, I may be a little confused here but I dont think I am.
One solution would be a simple compromise of the solution metioned above.
Basically it is this:-
If a target has only been in a guild for less than a month (or two weeks perhaps) then he/she should be allowed to be booted and NOT still be a legible target.
This way, those who are established members of a guild won't get kicked just to be reinstated after a conflict (no point as they would still be legit targets either way).
That's the best solution I could come up with and it would solve the immediate problem.
The bold is why I made that example.
#18
Posted 03 November 2010 - 13:32
[Signature removed]
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM
#19
Posted 03 November 2010 - 13:47
So we need to go back to the old technique of abuse and maybe need to have guild join dates on profiles to know who can possibly be kicked? I don't think going backwards helps to go forward here.
I agree, thats why I showed the example of how much abuse that leads to.
#20
Posted 03 November 2010 - 14:02
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

