Ladder Manipulation Investigation Results - Guild Wars Guru archive powered by Guild Wars Legacy

Inde

Site Contributor

Join Date: Dec 2004

01 Sep 2006 at 17:42 - 1

News from Guildwars.com:

Quote:

During the recent Fun Season, three guilds were found to have knowingly participated in ladder abuse as defined in the GWFC Events Eligibility rules. The rules state that guilds engaging in such actions may be disqualified from receiving prizes in events during the GWFC, including the Fun Season. Since the rules violation took place only during the Fun Season, these guilds are no longer eligible to receive any of that season's prizes. The winners list will be adjusted to reward the top 16 eligible guilds.

To submit evidence of any ladder abuse/manipulation or other rules violations, please email [email protected].

-----------------------------------------
You can discuss, but there will be no mention of guild names being thrown around. I will delete any reference to any person or guild in this thread.

Zinger314

Debbie Downer

Join Date: May 2006

N/Me

01 Sep 2006 at 17:44 - 2

I think that the reason is unjustitifed. What exactly is "ladder abuse?"

The rumor is that they are attacking guilds who constantly won when the other team resigned.

That's circumstantial, IMO.

Carinae

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jun 2005

Inside

Fifteen Over Fifty [Rare]

01 Sep 2006 at 17:47 - 3

Why can we mention names? If they were actually disqualified, then they were caught and punished -> guilt.

I understand about not mentioning names if someone is merely accused or suspected of something, but Anet caught them red handed in this case.

Just asking, the answer could be "Because I said so Carinae."

Red

Rawr!

Join Date: Mar 2006

Kentucky, USA

Team Love [kiSu]

Mo/

01 Sep 2006 at 17:47 - 4

Totally handled wrong. The mini*ban(tm) was not the way to go here.

Having never done anything about this sort of thing, they sudden slam disqualifications down? That's completely contrary to the image ANet is trying to create of a company in tune with its players.

Appropriate would have been a "oh, by the way... we noticed some of this stuff going on. We will not tolerate it next season, so please stop". Smurfing has been around since I first signed on Guild Wars last year, and this sudden, harsh action is a slap in the face--not just to the guilds hit with the punishment, but to all players who believe(d) in the fairness of ANet.

Tsk, tsk, ANet. Communicate with us more, please. Can you imagine how it looks, to have you come back a week or so after everything is supposedly all said and done, and go "OH BUT WAIT! We're gonna enforce the vaguely written rule by punishing what you've been doing for months upon months now!"

... does the term "grace period" mean nothing to you?

tomcruisejr

Banned

Join Date: Apr 2005

01 Sep 2006 at 17:48 - 5

You wanna publish factual results, have the balls to publish them without withholding the important infos. making guesses is like finding a lost pin inside a dark room.

nataku_05

Academy Page

Join Date: May 2006

Frenzy Heal Sig [FhS]

N/

01 Sep 2006 at 17:55 - 6

we're assuming dervish abuse during the pvp event

Inde

Site Contributor

Join Date: Dec 2004

01 Sep 2006 at 17:56 - 7

Carinae Dragonblood, because their's controversy. Because I know of only 2 confirmed guilds involved and speculation on the 3rd. Because everyone will have an opinion on the guild, on members of the guild, on practices of other guilds. And because guildwars.com did not post the actual guilds so I have to assume there is a reason.

yesitsrob

Elite Guru

Join Date: Sep 2005

Manchester, England

SMS/Victrix

01 Sep 2006 at 17:58 - 8

Quote:

Originally Posted by nataku_05

we're assuming dervish abuse during the pvp event

it's to do with resign spiking.

Roxianna

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: Jan 2006

Metrowest Boston, USA

Section One

Rt/

01 Sep 2006 at 18:01 - 9

I'd like at least know what exactly got Anet off the sidelines about this. There are discussions about ladder manipulation on this forum alone going back to the change in the way Champion Points are awarded. So why now?

Secondly I'd like to know what exacty the ladder abuse was because the rules for eligibility state: "Guilds will be disqualified if they engage in ladder abuse, as determined by Sponsor in its sole discretion." Not exactly descriptive.

Third, okay nice that "something" was done in the top 20, but what is Anet doing to address the whole screwed up top 200 and Champion point farming debaucle?

Zinger314

Debbie Downer

Join Date: May 2006

N/Me

01 Sep 2006 at 18:03 - 10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

And because guildwars.com did not post the actual guilds so I have to assume there is a reason.

Bad publicity, I presume. Any guilds publically mentioned would be harrassed.

Moreso, one of those two confirmed guilds (IIRC) participated in the GWFC. If they publically announced their name, ArenaNet would undermine themselves for giving them only a slap on the wrist.

Rok

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Dec 2005

Guild Wars

01 Sep 2006 at 18:04 - 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redly

Totally handled wrong. The mini*ban(tm) was not the way to go here.

Having never done anything about this sort of thing, they sudden slam disqualifications down? That's completely contrary to the image ANet is trying to create of a company in tune with its players.

Appropriate would have been a "oh, by the way... we noticed some of this stuff going on. We will not tolerate it next season, so please stop". Smurfing has been around since I first signed on Guild Wars last year, and this sudden, harsh action is a slap in the face--not just to the guilds hit with the punishment, but to all players who believe(d) in the fairness of ANet.

Tsk, tsk, ANet. Communicate with us more, please. Can you imagine how it looks, to have you come back a week or so after everything is supposedly all said and done, and go "OH BUT WAIT! We're gonna enforce the vaguely written rule by punishing what you've been doing for months upon months now!"

... does the term "grace period" mean nothing to you?

So they decide to do something about it now. You knew it has been going on, did you ever report it? Cheating is cheating, the fact that the acted later than sooner does not mean those guilds should not be punished for their actions.

LoneDust

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Feb 2005

01 Sep 2006 at 18:14 - 12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rok

So they decide to do something about it now. You knew it has been going on, did you ever report it? Cheating is cheating, the fact that the acted later than sooner does not mean those guilds should not be punished for their actions.

It's a lot easier to punish guilds from a short "fun" season, instead of tracking and trying to recover prize money given out in the past. You could make the demands, but expecting Arenanet to have the resource to keep the ladder completely fair is simply unrealistic. Get used to the sloppy system!

Roxianna

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: Jan 2006

Metrowest Boston, USA

Section One

Rt/

01 Sep 2006 at 18:22 - 13

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneDust

...Get used to the sloppy system!

Hopefully the fact that some official action was taken means you are wrong about this :/

The only reason I play Guild Wars and buy their stuff is for the GvG ladder competition. I am sure I am not the only one there for whom this is true. A ladder without integrity, is a ladder without interest.

Lets Get to Healing

Banned

Join Date: Dec 2005

You want see?

True Gods of War [True]

Mo/W

01 Sep 2006 at 18:47 - 14

If they still had it in the game, I'd assume they did the rated match against other guilds, and the other guild let them win. How are they abusing it now?

makosi

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Mar 2006

"Pre-nerf" is incorrect. It's pre-buff.

Requirement Begins With R [notQ]

Me/

01 Sep 2006 at 19:00 - 15

What did the involved guilds do that constituted 'ladder abuse'? Someone mentioned "resign spiking" but what is that exactly and how is it rule breaking?

My Sweet Revenga

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Nov 2005

R/

01 Sep 2006 at 19:02 - 16

Tour de Cantha anyone?

Juno Onuj

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Feb 2006

Colorado

I Believe You But My Tommy Gun [Dont]

Mo/

01 Sep 2006 at 19:02 - 17

The main thing they're talking about here is the actions taken by three (actually more involved) top guilds manipulating the ladder, especially in the last few hours of the season in which certain teams were asking other top teams to resign spike for them. It's really not hard to figure out who the guilds were, especially if you were watching obs mode for the last hour or two.

Red

Rawr!

Join Date: Mar 2006

Kentucky, USA

Team Love [kiSu]

Mo/

01 Sep 2006 at 19:03 - 18

I do not deny that the smurfing and such should be stopped--I'm glad ANet is taking notice. However...

STORYTIME

Once upon a time, in the state of Kentucky, in the United States... there were a series of motor accidents. Emergency vehicles would pull onto the shoulder, either fully or partially, with their lights flashing. However, motorists travelling on the highway would approach too fast and end up clipping the vehicle, or perhaps even a person standing at the scene.

Kentucky passed a law, legally requiring all motorists to either slow down when approaching flashing lights, or to move into the far lane, away from the stopped emergency vehicles. The state put up signs as warnings of the new law--and, over the first month or so, police would pull violaters over and inform them of the new law, getting the word out, and let them go with a warning that the future would hold fierce punishments for violators.

The state did not -immediately- begin writing tickets, even though it started a small campaign while the law was being written. Instead, they made sure everyone understood what had happened, and what would happen if they continue to violate the new law.

...

Compare this with ANet, who stood silent on this subject (and, according to WoC online radio listeners, even some ANet designers recognized the 'strategy' inherent in /resign spikes and such)... and now suddenly pull out the rewards from guilds who have been acting congruent with the standards of high-end PvP.

I agree that smurfing and the like needs to stop; but ANet didn't need to do it this way. It was harsh, done without any warning or communication. This is NOT the way to inspire confidence within your customer base; but rather, only one more example of how ANet will do whatever it darn well pleases, and we are expected to nod dumbly and support them, buying the next expansion without question.

I guess we're just lucky that the Imperial ANet Edict aligned with
(most of) our opinions this time...

coldplay

Banned

Join Date: Aug 2005

NYC

Daoine Sidhe

01 Sep 2006 at 19:06 - 19

who are those three guilds ? Can we know that and talk about those 3

Juno Onuj

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Feb 2006

Colorado

I Believe You But My Tommy Gun [Dont]

Mo/

01 Sep 2006 at 19:13 - 20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

You can discuss, but there will be no mention of guild names being thrown around. I will delete any reference to any person or guild in this thread.

Ummm.... yeah ^

Duros

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Aug 2006

LF Guild

W/E

01 Sep 2006 at 19:17 - 21

The ladder manipulation they're investigating, for those who dont know, has to do with a team in winning position, but resigning to the other team and letting them have the win. I've witnessed it first hand, and I know for sure one of the guilds, but I wont be mentioning it.

Tekish

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Nov 2005

01 Sep 2006 at 19:21 - 22

I don't know why everyone is so "hush hush" about this. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with GvG already knows who this is about and why...

Inde

Site Contributor

Join Date: Dec 2004

01 Sep 2006 at 19:23 - 23

Hmm, exactly Tekish

Those who need to know, who care about this, all ready know most of the information. So bringing any further publicity to the guilds is not necessary and would only result in complaints, speculations, accusations, and more amongst the people who just want to voice an opinion but have no knowledge of it.

I think this posting on Guildwars.com is to serve more as a warning, a slap on the wrist, to guilds that they are paying attention and will be taking action. A public warning.

kryshnysh

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Jan 2006

Valkyrie Einherjar

Mo/

01 Sep 2006 at 19:37 - 24

Actually, I think Redly may have his analogies mixed up slightly.

ANet has stated that resigning or asking those to resign purely for the rating increase of the team not resigning is wrong (or to prevent a large decrease). This was not entirely clear as they never enforced it and different people within ANet said different things, but the official response has been there before.

I agree with Inde. This seems to me to be a slap on the wrist to try to potentially reduce problems in the future with the threat now there.

Inde

Site Contributor

Join Date: Dec 2004

01 Sep 2006 at 19:43 - 25

From Gaile Gray:

http://www.guild-hall.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42779

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tortoise
So, any idea on who is screwed out of his price?

You mean "Who screwed themselves out of a prize?" Let's just say a blatant disregard for the specific game rules and the general rules of sportsmanship resulted in a few guilds losing that which they might otherwise have earned.

Play the game the way it's meant to be played.
Don't cheat.
Don't take a fall, that is, don't lose so someone else can get points.
Don't ask others to take a fall for you.
Pretty simple, huh? Words to live by, or at least words to play by?

We're all very disappointed in what happened, and hope that this is the last time we have to take such measures. But bet your bottom dollar, we'll take action any time, and against any team, when we have the proof that shows that such action is appropriate, fair, reasonable, and necessary.

If you see instances of ladder abuse of this nature, write [email protected].

makosi

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Mar 2006

"Pre-nerf" is incorrect. It's pre-buff.

Requirement Begins With R [notQ]

Me/

01 Sep 2006 at 19:45 - 26

Can anybody explain in simple terms what the 'violation' is? From what I'm seeing, one guild is allowing another to win. Other than that, its a complete blur to me. Yes, i'm a retard and ignorant.

saneo

Academy Page

Join Date: Dec 2005

01 Sep 2006 at 19:48 - 27

so, are both resigners and winners being punished, or only one team?

Jetdoc

Hell's Protector

Join Date: Jul 2005

The Eyes of Texas [BEVO]

D/A

01 Sep 2006 at 19:53 - 28

Quote:

Originally Posted by makosi

From what I'm seeing, one guild is allowing another to win.

That is the rumor I heard.

Guild matches were scheduled, with the understanding that one guild (i.e. The Biggest Loser) would always resign, giving the other guild the win.

Mordakai

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Aug 2005

Kyhlo

W/

01 Sep 2006 at 20:37 - 29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

That is the rumor I heard.

Guild matches were scheduled, with the understanding that one guild (i.e. The Biggest Loser) would always resign, giving the other guild the win.

If that's the case, then it seems pretty obvious to me (even as a non-pvp guy) that some action must be taken to keep confidence in the ladder system.

As for guesses as to why this activity wasn't stopped before, perhaps Anet did not have "proof?" Only guessing.

Xenrath

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Oct 2005

W/Me

01 Sep 2006 at 20:51 - 30

Quote:

Originally Posted by makosi

Can anybody explain in simple terms what the 'violation' is? From what I'm seeing, one guild is allowing another to win. Other than that, its a complete blur to me. Yes, i'm a retard and ignorant.

Smurfing - it's when members of a guild (or 'friends' of the guild) make some other guilds, maybe using different accounts. Then the two guilds battle it out. The "smurf" guild then resigns and easy win for the ones who set the whole thing up. The other arrangement is the other guild isn't a smurf guild, but they have an "understanding" to lose..

In other words, fixing and/or throwing the match.

Saider maul

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Nov 2005

Baltimore, Maryland

01 Sep 2006 at 21:13 - 31

So this is like WWF? lmao

I am not surprised. I guess some PvPer's will choose a win over morals anyday.

serves them right for getting caught. I think all their accounts should have a perminent ban.

kmwilk903

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: Feb 2006

01 Sep 2006 at 21:16 - 32

Anet stated it was written in the agreement and if they choose not to read it or ignore it doesnt mean it should be a just a slap on the hand for an offense. Would you allow a drunk driver who was caught for the first time driving drunk to go on their way with a warning? How many people could get hurt. Rules are rules!

Swinging Fists

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Mar 2006

W/Mo

01 Sep 2006 at 21:19 - 33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redly

I agree that smurfing and the like needs to stop; but ANet didn't need to do it this way. It was harsh, done without any warning or communication. This is NOT the way to inspire confidence within your customer base; but rather, only one more example of how ANet will do whatever it darn well pleases, and we are expected to nod dumbly and support them, buying the next expansion without question.

I guess we're just lucky that the Imperial ANet Edict aligned with
(most of) our opinions this time...

Your analogy... well, sucks. There is no reason the drivers should have known they were doing anything wrong. Thus, they were warned, and not required to pay out real world fines for doing what they always thought was obeying the law. By comparison, one cannot argue that guilds manipulating the ladder in this way should not have known they were doing something wrong. How would you feel if your guild "earned" its position in the ladder, and you were beaten out for your prize by a guild that never fought, but only benefitted from resignations. No warning needed. These people knew they were manipulating the system, and as such, they simply were prevented from receiving the rewards that they didn't deserve or "earn" anyways.

This IS one way to inspire confidence within their customer base.

Now, I have a few questions:

Why would the resigning guild do this ? Were they offered some sort of compensation ? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I can see the scenario where you have the "affiliated guild" that is set up to resign or lose, but I thought you couldn't pick your opponents in ladder-based guild battles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there another way to do this other than timing the entry of the guild battles and hoping for the best ? And even if they are matched against their affiliated guild, they would have to repeat the process over and over, while their ratings get farther and farther apart. I must be missing something.

Finally, to the busted guilds: gg - you deserve it.

coldplay

Banned

Join Date: Aug 2005

NYC

Daoine Sidhe

01 Sep 2006 at 21:27 - 34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

Those who need to know, who care about this, all ready know most of the information.

So news on GWG is becoming "need to know" basis

Taurus

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2005

Mexico

Go for the eyes [jizz]

W/Mo

01 Sep 2006 at 21:27 - 35

Oh I love the smell of burned cheaters...

Just because its not in the EULA agreement and everybody is doing it that its not wrong. Cheaters that abused that knew that it was wrong, and now should get punished ( wich should be a permanent ban imo ).

Energizer Deth Buni

Banned

Join Date: Jan 2006

Near Atlanta GA

MVoA

N/Me

01 Sep 2006 at 21:28 - 36

This can be equated to a rigged boxing match cause both Boxers work for Don King.... But how do you really prove it?

overclocked

Academy Page

Join Date: Jun 2006

01 Sep 2006 at 21:46 - 37

This is only the tip of the iceberg, if anet did due dilligance in enforcing thier rules there would be ten's of guilds in trouble.

Some of them are "champs", so we know they wont get any action because of anets bias rule enforcement,

KamikazeChicken

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Aug 2005

Mo/

01 Sep 2006 at 21:51 - 38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duros

The ladder manipulation they're investigating, for those who dont know, has to do with a team in winning position, but resigning to the other team and letting them have the win. I've witnessed it first hand, and I know for sure one of the guilds, but I wont be mentioning it.

That's not what they're calling ladder manipulation. Any guild with a "smurf" (be it a real smurf [actual manipulation] or a subordinate guild with an actual second string that regularly guests from the main guild) usually /resign spikes to prevent a high-ranking team from losing rating.

If you were correct in assuming that's what Anet is calling ladder manipulation, most guilds who were part of the GWFC couldn't have won, including WM.

After being told who the 3 guilds are supposed to be, I'm slightly suprised. It's strange Anet is bothering to finally start enforcing rules against ladder manipulation, taking action over last season because it was a "fun" season, and that all that's going to happen is the 3 guilds will lose silver trim. >.>

minor

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Dec 2005

In da islands mon

01 Sep 2006 at 21:55 - 39

Just a little story about the other night we were gvging and GW crashed so my team resigned. I log in we go again and i crash and burn again. We try a 3rd time same thing. You also can just lag out, have a Pc crash, no load, whatever. How do you prove a team resigned just to lose? In order to "fake it" you just have a player pull his internet conection. As long as you can just resign it will always be easy to do something like this a least for a few games and if anet where to say what happened you say "Well with an err7 we couldn't win so we resigned."
It is wrong and unsporting but if people are smart its not proveable beyond a reasonably doubt(not that anet has to but just saying).

Inde

Site Contributor

Join Date: Dec 2004

01 Sep 2006 at 21:59 - 40

Quote:

Originally Posted by coldplay

So news on GWG is becoming "need to know" basis

Oh please coldplay, stop. If you had taken the time to even read this thread you would have seen the reasons why I stated I would not allow the discussion of the guild names:

Quote:

Quote by Inde
Because I know of only 2 confirmed guilds involved and speculation on the 3rd. Because everyone will have an opinion on the guild, on members of the guild, on practices of other guilds. And because guildwars.com did not post the actual guilds so I have to assume there is a reason.

The overwhelming reason being that if ArenaNet saw fit to post the guild names then I would have. Since they did not I am left to assume that they had their reasons and I will follow in their steps.