Jump to content

Photo

The GVG saboteur syndrome


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 Kayesha

Kayesha

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,030 posts
  • United States of America

Posted 03 November 2010 - 14:40

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.

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.


+1

I am sorry Sustortias, I usually agree with you but, in this case I don't really see it as a wide spread problem. Maybe you do need to speak with your recruits more. Your real scammers are not going to want to spend the time to anser your questions most times. I know we do not really have this as an issue in our guild.

Yes it does happen but you are not going to be able to stop all scammers all of the time. There are people that spend there time figuring out how to beat the system. You just have to work around it. I believe the set up we have now is much better then anything done previously.

#22 Sustortias

Sustortias

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,214 posts

Posted 03 November 2010 - 18:28

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.

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.


+1

I am sorry Sustortias, I usually agree with you but, in this case I don't really see it as a wide spread problem. Maybe you do need to speak with your recruits more. Your real scammers are not going to want to spend the time to anser your questions most times. I know we do not really have this as an issue in our guild.

Yes it does happen but you are not going to be able to stop all scammers all of the time. There are people that spend there time figuring out how to beat the system. You just have to work around it. I believe the set up we have now is much better then anything done previously.


The problem will only excalate as more and more people exploit it.

I would sooner it be exposed now and dealt with than wait for it to corrupt the entire game.

A while back we had a whole bunch of these people come in and i had to actually dump a lot of gear so i could kick them out. We didn't have enough to upgrade our storage at the time (i am not bothered about that, that is not the issue here) but in order to counter it i had to take measures which ultimately cost us as a guild.

And please do not make comments about my dumping of the gear, it was a decision i made at the time and although it was a hard decision it ultimately made us stronger because only the core loyal players were left and we had zero saboteurs in our midst after the shakedown. All that happened quite a while ago anyway.

You can say that I am over reacting, you can say that it isn't happening but ultimately it is happening because people can make something out of it. Anywhere in the game where this is the case, exploitation goes on.

This thread is just to warn people and make them aware of what is happening.

I urge you guild founders and leaders, to check your members, especially new ones.
Check there armor, durability and see for yourselves.

Ignition_Honda_410x200_zps03cc040c.png


#23 fs_theoryman

fs_theoryman
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2010 - 01:29

Buff the saboteur with deflect and erosion :twisted:

Also do the deflect test with new low level recruits, buff them with deflect and if it's block (and they are not a PvPer) they are most likely a saboteur, kick them at once or better yet, do the test before recruiting them.

#24 spidey101

spidey101

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,036 posts

Posted 05 November 2010 - 14:34

Apparently no one would mind a one-week wait before new guild members could hit or be hit in GvG. HC ? :)


I dont see why stupidity should be rewarded, its the guilds job to screen recruits and determine to let in a player. If that player ends up not being what you wanted then you didnt screen well enough. Will there be some that slip through the cracks? Sure, you cant stop all of them but with enough screening you can stop the majority I think.

#25 Sustortias

Sustortias

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,214 posts

Posted 08 November 2010 - 23:44

Still, there isn't much downside IMO to making people wait a week after they join a guild before they can be a target or attacker in GvG. It also helps solve the problem (maybe if it was 2 weeks?) with new players getting beaten up and leaving the game as a result. And it might cut down on multis some too. Plus we get a nifty time-in-guild counter, I want to see that just for fun.

Downside? Harder for GvG mercs to make a living. And of course, extra code the cows need to write.


It would certainly solve the problem of both gvg trojans and screening new recruits.

I am busy enough already without having too monitor the newbies armor (or lack of it) constantly.

I reckon a 1 month time period before they become eligible for gvg.

They should be nicely settled in by then.

Ignition_Honda_410x200_zps03cc040c.png


#26 olescruffy

olescruffy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts

Posted 09 November 2010 - 11:31

this is just another example of how broken the gvg system is.

just another reward for cheats and multi players.

please, please fix it.

#27 fs_mystraven

fs_mystraven
  • Guests

Posted 10 November 2010 - 09:55

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.


While I don't see the topic of discussion as a major problem, I DO like this particular suggestion of LawDog's. It makes sense, as at the moment a so-called "GvG" could be a duel between two individuals - that doesn't embody guilds. Yes, it can be argued that the guilds put forward a champion each to do battle, but somehow that seems rather weak. When assaulting another guild, I think it should involve at least 3 members on each side (my personal opinion.) Ultimately, in terms of "flavour", it should be a higher minimum requirement, to reflect the "war" aspect, but in game terms that would probably just cause problems and cut out too many conflicts, but a 3-member minimum? I think that could be done without adverse effect, and actually make guild conflicts more interesting..

#28 Prezze

Prezze

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 10 November 2010 - 17:32

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.


While I don't see the topic of discussion as a major problem, I DO like this particular suggestion of LawDog's. It makes sense, as at the moment a so-called "GvG" could be a duel between two individuals - that doesn't embody guilds. Yes, it can be argued that the guilds put forward a champion each to do battle, but somehow that seems rather weak. When assaulting another guild, I think it should involve at least 3 members on each side (my personal opinion.) Ultimately, in terms of "flavour", it should be a higher minimum requirement, to reflect the "war" aspect, but in game terms that would probably just cause problems and cut out too many conflicts, but a 3-member minimum? I think that could be done without adverse effect, and actually make guild conflicts more interesting..


I don't see this as a solution.
It would determine that gvg-guilds get a big advantage over guilds who only defend sometimes. Making a defending guild also have to get 3 defenders to hit back means alot of guilds just never bother anymore.

In my personal opinion if you want to make gvg die out more this the solution.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: