Guilds Guilds Getting Disbanded [155+ Supporters, 99% Approval]

Hello fellow andventurers,

Today one of the biggest guilds on Wynncraft got disbanded on an accident. Some might not realize how big of a hassle is it to level even a single percent on your guild at the 60's of levels. For comparison, my guild, that is "only" level 57 needs 4 billion for a level. Imagine the 10s of billions of xp needed for a level up for a guild that is the same level as the guild we are talking about. The Disband was on an accident that actually happened to me when I accidentally disbanded a smaller guild like this, it wasn't big, we didn't waste a LOT, but still you get my point. In the next points, I'll tell you how does it work, what is the problem and a possible fix that could solve this problem once and for all. Enjoy :D

It's commion knowledge that the /gu[ild] leave command is glitched: you don't see the sign where you have to confirm. But you get notified of the consequences, at least when you are a "normal" member, not the owner. The owner transfer works like this: when the owner leaves the guild the longest standing chief gets the ownership. This looks good on paper, but there is a major with that: the chief intended to become owner is often not the oldest chief. If that is the case, the owner first has to demote the other chiefs so only 1 remains, the 1 who gets the guild.

Again, this seems easy on paper, but we are humans, we make mistakes, and this can be mistaken easily. But, and here's the big BUT, the owner hardly gets any notifciations, that the guild gets disbanded. For instance, the owner of our sub-guild can't even recall of getting any message of the guild getting disbanded.

I think this is a rather big problem, but on the same note, it's pretty easy to fix. What I'm proposing doesn't change the current system, but does a few things, that elimates accidental guild-disbandings.

If an owner is quitting the guild it notifies the owner, that the guild is going to go to the given chief. It also says prominently that the guild is getting disbanded. (This could also be displayed on the sign, but not only on that, because that often breaks and goes invisible). Then, in either cases, the owner should confirm their leaving TWICE instead of the current single confirmation. During this process, they should also be encouraged to double-check if the chief-situation is actually like how they want it to be.

In my opinion, this way cannot hurt anyone, only "stealing" a few seconds of the owners life, but let's be fair, after all those weeks, months, maybe even years of work, this cannot be too big of a hassle.

Dear CT, please consider my proposal, rethink or rework it, but I'm begging you, help the guild community out so other thousands of wars, thousands of hours, millions of emeralds, billions of xp and tons of good memories don't just get lost in forgetting a single command; /gu rank 'x' chief!

Warm regards,
~ BTK

[Also, please fix the /gu leave command, the sign doesn't appear :(]

 

hi harka

 

R.I.P. BCr.

 

I'm btk's son.

 

It would cause a lot less drama, I just can't support it. You should rework your idea in a way like this: instead of typing /guild leave twice, you shouldn't even need to type it in once! The game will just randomly disbands your guild.

 

At least a warning that there isn't a Chief that could replace the Owner would be nice.

 

Yes, but I do think a notfication would be better either way, because then you can make sure that you are giving the guild to the person who you actually want and it's making things simple.

 

In my opinion, there shouldn't even be the option to disband a guild via '/gu leave'.
There should be a new command like '/gu disband'.
And the '/gu rank' command should also work for the Owner role.

 

Yea, that would make the system even more secure. The only downside is that it would complicate things, I think my method, while less effective, is more simple and in the realm of the close future's possiblity.

 

That's true, I would prefer both possibilities over the current system.

 

It's a most unfortunate situation :/

________________________________

I'm more inclined to your idea than what BTK is suggesting. While making us have to write /gu leave twice instead of once will provide some sense of security, this helps just a little bit more.
Following through with your suggestion, I actually really like the idea of being able to promote someone to guild leader without the current leader having to leave the guild.

 

Nice idea.

 

Dear God please do this. Moving stop moments are good. More protection is good. Remember that kids

 

I can completely agree with you, but I think my idea can also give a quick and easier end to the problem. I don't think I ask for too much in the thread, this would be even greater though. If it's doable for the Wynn team, it would give an even bigger sense of security.

 

yeah, i definitely feel like not having enough confirmation for disbanding guilds is an issue since the amount of time, dedication, and hard work put towards bettering the guild would be totally wasted

 

Of course. I won't disagree with you there :)

 

You know how guilds can purchase mobs to defend a territory? They should make the player select the checkmark once, then twice, then make the person who wants to disband the guild to type in "CONFIRM". Feels like it would be better... Also, it feels like it's time for the CT team to actually update the guild menu options and add in some new stuff... Maybe somebody could create a new thread for that? Feels like the guild menu hasn't been changed in a while...

But yeah, back onto the topic, I think they really need to fix the 'invisible' sign for when you type in "CONFIRM". It actually ticks me off so much, even when renaming your pets. The 'invisible' sign is a joke right now for me, no offence.

 

Yeah Ive seen more layer of security on another server with scrapping an item you added modifiers to, and that says something about how fragile some of wynn's ssafeguard measures are. Pls fix this, thanks.

 

Nothing wrong to add more security its not like we're asking for something totally insane so +1

 

bumpie bump