Guilds Another Guild Suggestion

NOTE: I KNOW THAT MOE HAS MADE A STATEMENT REGARDING LOOKING INTO GUILDS AND CERTAIN GUILDS BREAKING A CERTAIN RULE. I WISH TO GIVE MY TWO CENTS AND SUGGEST POSSIBILITIES ON HOW TO FIX CERTAIN ISSUES.

1. Rule 18

One of the biggest controversies I've seen regarding guilds is Rule 18. For those who somehow don't know, Rule 18 basically says that people cannot use alternate guilds to own territories. The main problem with this rule that I agree with is that the rule is not well-defined and should probably be tweaked to be more understandable. One thing I do not agree with, however, is removing the rule. Rule 18 is a just rule that should be kept. If anything, more rules should be enforced to prevent guilds from utilizing inherently unfair tactics to gain control over the current guild dynamic.

One of the arguments I've seen against Rule 18 in it's current state is that since it's not enforced, it shouldn't be considered a rule. That is the equivalent of saying that theft is legal if noone is around to stop me doing it. In case you can't see somehow, this viewpoint is heavily flawed. Rule 18 is still a rule, and it should be treated as such, even if the moderators aren't doing that well of a job at enforcing it.

The definition of a subguild in my opinion should be a guild that is made by bigger guilds for something like capturing an area. These types of guilds should be culled en masse if the mods decide to take action against cheating guilds.

2. Moderators and Guilds

I honestly think moderators should be banned from participating in anything guild-related except watching guilds to see if they deserve bans for breaking the rules. If a moderator was in a guild, it could create a sense of bias towards that guild and against other guilds and affect an outcome in banning certain people/guilds. Any moderator that is currently participating in guild activities should requested to leave their guild unless the guild is a group of friends that do not intend to war or be affiliated with larger scale guilds or alliances. If the moderator in question chooses not to leave the guild, they should be looked into and considered for a possible demotion.

One question I've recently asked myself is how exactly should moderators handle guilds that have broken rules? Since only those with a ranking of Captain or higher can start wars, I feel the owner should not be held responsible unless they have former knowledge of Captains or higher owning subguilds or if they have done it themselves. Guilds caught breaking the rules should be disbanded immediately, and people in the guild should be punished properly. Anything below Captain should be ignored, but should be given a prompt either right away if they are in-game when the guild is disbanded or when they log in telling them their guild has been disbanded. Captains and above (this includes Leaders) should be given a warning. If Captains and above have been warned before, they should get a permanent ban from joining guilds and a temporary ban from Wynncraft. If anyone in the guild has been found to be in a subguild before, they should be treated the same way as Captain and above (warn first time, perma-ban from guilds and temp ban from Wynn). There is only one instance where I believe the rules I've said should be replaced with something more "vicious", but I'll get to that later.

3. Dealing with current Guilds and the Guild system

Remember when I said there would be a different way to handle a certain situation? Well, that situation would be now. Guilds like Fox and Hax have abused the system for a long time, and should "be put to death" for their actions. The leaders of these guilds know full well that their captains have used subguilds in an illegal way, and should be banned from guilds entirely. Their Captains and up should be heavily reprimanded, most likely banned from guilds forever and possibly warranting a wynn ban. Players lower than Captain should get the same treatment as usual. Give them the warning unless they were in a subguild, in which they should be considered for a guild ban.



please keep this shit civil in the comments i know for a fact ive said a ton of controversial things here but we dont have to ruthlessly insult each other

 

I will simply copy paste my previous response to this exact topic because to date nobody has made an attempt to rebut me.

Subguilds are a fair way to make use of your numbers advantage. A guild that has an active community with dozens of people SHOULD be allowed to use that advantage. As of right now, it's ridiculous that a guild with only 3 people online can keep pace with a guild that has like 15 people on. An inherent flaw in the war timer capping out at 3 warrers is that it's literally useless to war with more than 3.
The more people you have, the more of an advantage you should have. It's that simple.

As someone who has warred against guilds using feeders and subguilds on dozens of occasions, it is entirely possible to counter them.

If you have to whine to the mods to fix something another guild is doing that you personally see as unfair, you don't deserve to beat them in the first place.

Rule 18 needs to be completely removed, not enforced or changed.

Another problem with this entire situation is that it’s an unenforceable rule.
Subguilds are not a concrete thing. Who decides what is and isn’t a subguild? There have been and still are tons of guilds that are called subs but whose owners will swear that they aren’t a subguild and just an ally.
There is no definitive answer to the question “What is a subguild?”
The only part that could be enforceable is members of a bigger guild leaving and temporarily making a smaller guild, but even that is completely subjective. Who’s to say they didn’t legitimately plan to stay in that guild? What if they joined a pre existing guild that was just inactive?
Unless someone suggests some legitimate, non-flawed ways to classify guilds as “subguilds”, this rule is completely impractical to enforce, especially considering hundreds or often thousands of wars happen every single day.

Also the reason nobody is breaking this rule is because jp literally confirmed that this rule was no longer a rule and was not enforceable. Now, he isn’t an admin anymore, but his statement still stands until it is stated otherwise by another admin or the mod team. You can’t just suddenly flip it back to being a rule and retroactively delete every guild that has been doing something confirmed by an admin to not be against the rules.

 

Yeah, this is contraversal.
I agree with 1, however, 2.

At worst, it should be made so that mods not affliciated with guilds would tackle guild issues to avoid bias.
Becides, I have not heard of any such scenarios where a moderator has been overlooking rule-breaking since they are in the guild. There's no precedent for it - you are just making up a scenario that will likely never happen.

Furthermore, "Any moderator that is currently participating in guild activities should requested to leave their guild unless the guild is a group of friends that do not intend to war or be affiliated with larger scale guilds or alliances. If the moderator in question chooses not to leave the guild, they should be looked into and considered for a possible demotion. "

Have you even read this? This essentially states "Moderators are not allowed to expirience guilds, and must leave their guilds with threat of demotion." I mean,

1. If you are a moderator, you are no longer allowed to expirience a large part of the game with its many factions, alliances, politics and other things.
2. If you refuse that request, you may be demoted.

It's not having someone else do the guild-related things, it's not simply leaving it be and having faith in the moderators. It's straight up concidering demotion. You don't swat a fly by throwing a road roller at it.

And 3.
You might think that it's just the that leaders that will be purged, but if all the leaders and captains go, there isn't much of a guild anymore. The entire guild would collapse. I think you meant for 3 to actually mean "Major guilds should be destroyed!" Sure, there is a chance that they deserve it, but then there's other stuff: A lot of people in them probably don't care about the issue or don't like it, and destroying those major guilds would indirectly harm those too. Would you punish a criminal and an innocent or set both free?
And then there's the issue of entirely banning from guilds. They did wrong once, what says they will again? It's too harsh.

The subguilds certanly deserve to be removed, but I don't see any proof you put here of there being any.
You did not give any proof of such subguilds, you just stated that they exist. I'd probably belive you a bit more if you at least did your research and linked the subguilds there or gave information on them in other ways.

Overall, all that this suggestion says to me is "Major guilds bad, remove major guilds and also hurt the people that weren't involved. Also moderators should be subjected to threats of being demoted if they do not agree."

(Also I do not agree with the person above me. It might lead to something like the old Legion or Hax again - as in, 1-4 guilds complitely dominate everything and nothing else has a chance. Everything should have a chance, and that is what I see rule 18 is for.)

 

I asked Maximi about this rule, this was the response.

 

You say you disagree with me, but give me legitimate reasons for why. Refute my points.
And why do you think no guilds have a chance? I’ve written an essay on this topic too. If anything, the game is weighted against the top guilds and towards the smaller ones not in the reigning mega alliance. https://forums.wynncraft.com/thread...nt-monopoly-on-territory.252647/#post-3086994
The only reason Hax was able to dominate the map was because guilds were so unbelievably broken and dead that nobody cared enough to give a determined effort to take them down. When the entire community is dead, it’s not easy to find allies to take down Hax with you. But the community is extremely active at the moment, so that’s completely inapplicable.

 

i agree with a majority of what said, pretty epic

however i just wanna say something to the "1-4 guilds completely dominant" with the way the guild scene is now, its almost impossible to have that few guilds having complete control, theres just too much competition and active people in the community (im not trying to say thats bad, i think its good). the only reason Hax had complete control was because almost everyone in the guild community had stopped warring cause the state of guilds before was absolutely wack, it was glitchy, buggy, unreliable and was just hell. i highly doubt we will ever see 1-5 guilds control the entire map, for long periods of time in a very long time


also removing mods from guilds is completely unfair to the mods. if an issue with a guild comes up, and the mod is blantently biased for their guild, they shouldnt be removed from said guild, they should be removed from the mod team

 

^
As much as I like to rant about my general dislike of the mod team, I will admit that in my years of the guild community I could count on one hand the amount of times I’ve seen moderators be biased towards their guild on moderator issues, and let’s just say none of them are mods anymore.

 

why        

 

You make this easy to respond to, thank you. I'll simply break apart your arguments.
1. Rule 18, whatever it was in the past has been redone as Maximi has said and it now only applies to alt accounts not alt or sub guilds. 2 guilds with 3 people each shouldn't be able to out pace one guild with 10 and most people agree with that, so the rule was updated.
2. Why should mods be banned from guilds? It's a large part of the game and to me it's the only fun part left post game, to say they should be banned will cause more harm than good and your reasoning of "well because they MIGHT be biased" is a poor argument. I wouldn't want to be mod if it limited my freedom in terms of gameplay and if they're mods they really can't be biased otherwise they aren't doing their job. I like the updated rule, it makes far more sense.
3. Hang on,
Remember when I said there would be a different way to handle a certain situation? Well, that situation would be now. Guilds like Fox and Hax have abused the system for a long time, and should "be put to death" for their actions. The leaders of these guilds know full well that their captains have used subguilds in an illegal way, and should be banned from guilds entirely. Their Captains and up should be heavily reprimanded, most likely banned from guilds forever and possibly warranting a wynn ban. Players lower than Captain should get the same treatment as usual. Give them the warning unless they were in a subguild, in which they should be considered for a guild ban.
^This is perhaps the weakest argument I've ever seen on a Wynn thread ever because you're just a person that wants guilds to not be a thing anymore and literally no rules were broken. Even if they were broken banning the leaders from Wynn and banning the captains from guilds is much too severe of a punishment. I'm not sure why you hate the guild community so much, but these irrelevant arguments against the whole guild system do absolutely nothing productive.

 

e

In case we can see, the viewpoint is flawless. Jpresent himself said that the rule 18 you see on the forums is outdated. You can't accuse anyone for breaking a rule which in reality is outdated. And, surprise surprise, an outdated rule can't be enforced neither. You and many other people who have tried to attack subguild usage completely ignored this and assumed we still play by the old rules. Be more serious, for real.

Really the only flawed thing here is the current war system which is explained extremely well by Drew why.

One argument I saw in a previous "meaningful" thread regarding jpresent's new rule 18 was that since he is not here anymore, we don't have to follow it and we can go back to the old rule 18. That is the equivalent of saying "Rome should have disappeared because it's founders died" which makes zero to no sense.

Your definition of subguilds does not have really any impact on the argument, but it's nice to know I guess; you can sue a mega guild for using subs but not a smaller one for doing the same thing.

One question I've recently asked myself is if you just say everyone is biased if they want to defend the usage of subguilds, despite the rule that forbid it in the past was changed, and even if they have clear proof that you're wrong, you just ignore them because you don't feel like admitting reality. Good question, honestly.

A moderator being neutral doesn't mean he'll agree with you because "we are who we are and big bad guilds must be punish", completely ignoring our arguments in the process. Being neutral means that they will take both sides' viewpoints in consideration when making a judgement. Perhaps if a moderator says you're wrong, that might be because the other side had better arguments and proof that not even yourself could fend off.

"Hi I want to punish these guilds for breaking an outdated rule. Have a nice day!"

Please, for the future generation, if you wish to make a suggestion thread like this, bring up actual arguments.

 

The only reason why having more players is currently not advantageous is because the war timer caps at 3 people. This can be easily resolved by changing the cap to dynamically account for more warrers.

As far as I know, the only viable way to counter subs is to use other subs. If you know a different way, please do tell.

Does that mean if I complain to the ref about the other team cheating in a tennis game, I don't deserve to beat the cheating team? It's not about what I see as unfair, its about what is defined as unfair in the rules. Either way, I haven't been in a guild for a while, so this is entirely inapplicable in the first place. If it is of your opinion that because I have not participated in guilds, my opinion is uninformed, I would like to counter that the reason I made this post to begin with was because I saw a discrepancy in the rules and would like to share how I, as just a generic member of the wynn community, feels it should be addressed.

As mentioned here, the main reason the rule remains unenforced is the lack of a definition of a subguild. If the mods took time out of their days to actually define a subguild, the rule would be come completely

As mentioned above, the unenforceability derives entirely from the inability to concretely define a sub-guild. Should a definition arise, finding a way to enforce it will be much easier, as the mods would know what they're looking for.

 

I would agree to this. Subguilds would be obsolete if guilds were able to attack faster with more than 3 or, even better, start multiple wars at once. A change like this needs to occur.

At first, yes, but after a while it resolves itself. All you need is a few people in subguilds going around and insta capping the territories enemy subguilds take and don't defend. After a while it becomes clear that they are doing more harm to themselves than good, and will go to defending with a higher amount of mobs or just not attacking at all, basically making no effective difference in the territories of the main guild.

Again, that's the thing. Subguilds are impossible to define. It's not a one size fits all type of thing and no single definition could accurately sort the guilds that war. It's something that has to be decided on an individual case by case basis, which is just insane and would be far too much work for the mod team alone to do.

That's not where unenforceability comes from. It's a bit more complex than that. At the end of the day subguilds have 0 effective difference on the game considering both sides can use them and both sides do. If they were banned it would not be a significant enough change to change the current balance of the game overnight. Jp's full explanation for why this is not enforced is here: https://forums.wynncraft.com/thread...tion-mods-read-plz.226798/page-8#post-2765531
"I figured I should drop a response in here to close this discussion once and for all.
There are a few things you need to know before reading further.
- In my spare time, I've been working on reworking guilds with the current guild system in mind and how to improve it.
- I've done a large amount of community polls to figure out what's hot and what's not within the guild system.
- I've been actively monitoring the amount of guild wars, the different defences and the guilds taking part.
- The proposed changes to the rules would clash with what I'm currently developing.
These are the main reasons the rules regarding wars will not change.

There is, however, one very important rule for wars: Do not purposefully keep a territory under attack between two guilds for the purpose of making sure other guilds can't take it.

In regards to the 'feeding' issue.
Keeping track of who is 'feeding' who, why and when would be an immense task for the moderation team, which they would simply not be able to handle.
The 'feeding' doesn't negatively impact other guilds as much as it looks. I've noticed a significant increase in the variety of guilds taking part in wars and also in the different strategies used to take the territories.
Future updates will discourage feeding and alliances somewhat. I do, however, not see the need to ban that from the game.

In regards to the alliances.
Alliances in Wynn are a very fragile thing. Over the past month I've seen several large alliances collapse.
In the end it turns out that peace is found boring in a game called Wars and thus their members eventually always turn on each other ;)

I hope this clarifies things a bit!"

 

This deserves farther consideration by people more knowledgeable than me

 

if the devs wanted multiple wars at once they would have allowed multiple attacks at once therefore we should enforce rule 18
also only one specific guild seems to be defending subguilds...