SE, Please fix this FC exploit

[Jill1808]

Just to be clear... I just checked this in my FC. I can promote people up to the rank under FC master. I cannot demote the master, nor can I promote someone to master. So this DOES NOT fix an instance where the master goes missing but does not actually leave the guild. The only instance I can think of it fixing is if someone physically leaves an FC without first appointing someone. I can't test if leaving is actually possible without first doing that because I'm not the Master.

Why not just make the FC leader promote someone new before leaving?

It's not possible to leave without first appointing someone else as GM. I tried that with an alt char.

[Penguinmayhem]

Bringing attention to this again.

It is absolutely unacceptable if this issue still continues to be unresolved and the GMs are still unable to do anything about it due to "company policies."

[16bitBounty]

In DOFUS you aren't able to promote anyone to a rank above yours or change the rank of anyone above your rank, but in DOFUS you're also allowed to give each player their own set of privileges, it's not handled by rank.



Allowing promotions to ranks above yours is a silly bug. You got scammed and I don't support getting your items back but the bug should be fixed.

[Fated]

How does crap like this even make it past the "quality control?"

[16bitBounty]

How does crap like this even make it past the "quality control?"

We have quality control in this game?

[Archadius]

I'm shocked this still hasn't been fixed... Right now the only safe option for all the FC out there is to have the master be the only one with promote/demote privileges. SE this should be a simple fix to make it so you can't promote people above your own rank. There is no excuse for this, especially as now there is a system in place where after 35 days of inactivity, the FC leadership is passed to the next person in line (so an FC is never truly "lost" if someone randomly quits the game).

[Souljacker]

This still needs to be addressed. My FC just ran into this issue as well. We did a company-wide restructuring because of guild bank abuse and removed access to all ranks below High Council. The members who are tagged High Council are the four leaders under the Guild Master and the Quartermaster(coGM) and two weeks ago one of the High Council members decided to promote a regular member to High Council so that she now can access the guild bank.

It's caused our leader to take promotion access away from everyone, and now the entire burden is on her to assign each rank, where before the leadership team was able to manage membership as needed without her online.

It's a big problem that needs to be dealt with and not just ignored. There is no reason whatsoever a member should be able to promote to peer status or ESPECIALLY above his\her rank in the hierarchy. SE, Please address this. We don't want to seem tyrannical in our free companies but you are making it hard to manage one without leaving ourselves open to exploitation.

[Traek]

SE please figure this stuff out already. You really lose credibility as a company when you let simple things like this go on for so long. This should have been a hotfix from 2.0, not an outstanding issue in 2.35+. Please figure it out. If you really think there is a playerbase that enjoys your current system, then make it an *OPTION* for the FC leader to select. Simple.

This is really embarrassing for a 2014 game.

[Niwashi]

I think the issue is that ranks are customizable rather than ordered. If you have "officer in charge of activity A", "officer in charge of activity B", and "officer in charge of activity C", you can customize their individual titles and privileges, but there isn't any inherit order making one of those more important than the other two. You've got multiple ranks with different names and perhaps different privileges to go along with their individual responsibilities, but they're all on the same level. It seems like the entire ranking system in XIV is an extension of that.

Anyone you give promotion/demotion privileges to is assumed to be responsible for setting other players' ranks, irrespective of where those are, because "where those are" is meaningless. There aren't really ranks that are "above" or "below" any others, just ranks that have different sets of privileges. The real problem is that this fact isn't obvious. The ranks appear to be ordered, but their number is simply where to display them in the list rather than an actual higher-ranking / lower-ranking order.

I do think something needs to be done about this problem. But it would likely require first making the rank level itself more customizable than it currently is. Once you can specify which ranks share the same level as opposed to those that are genuinely higher or lower, then they'd be able to add a rule that you can promote/demote only between ranks lower than or equal to your own.

[Brine_Gildchaff]

I do think something needs to be done about this problem. But it would likely require first making the rank level itself more customizable than it currently is. Once you can specify which ranks share the same level as opposed to those that are genuinely higher or lower, then they'd be able to add a rule that you can promote/demote only between ranks lower than or equal to your own.

How about, as a slightly altered solution, it could be set up that you cannot give someone permissions (whether by promotion or altering a rank's permissions) that you yourself do not possess?