Territorial Wars and Fake Guilds

karmelia

There is a cheap tactic used on the MY-EN server that consist for a guild owning a territory to use a fake guild (basically a guild with only one low-level char), to bid on their own lands to prevent others from bidding on it, or to overbid on their lands with it when another guild is bidding on them.

Do you plan on forbidding the use of such a cheap trick?

I know it would be hard to control, but I assure you that it made a lot of players leave the game back on the malaysian servers.

Forbidding it would ensure that not one guild will be able to take control of all the lands. It would make for much more lively and action packet territorial wars events.

And also put more money into your pockets with the selling of more hieros and such. Having 10 or 20 real TW happening every week will make people use more items than if only one or 2 are happening like currently on the PW-MY servers.

I hope you'll think about it, otherwise it will end up like the other servers : a couple of guilds will control everything, no other guilds will be able to even bid on lands, and players will leave the game disgusted after a time.

mystic

Agreed. This was a major issue employed by cowardly guild such as Memoire as soon as guilds showed up that could stand up to them.

Please come up with some sort of system to counteract this.

kuailiang

Aye, this should be prohibited. On Oracle, it is a commonly used tactic and see where it led the server. WarLord dominates the majority of the map and no one is capable of taking them down...making territorital war kind of pointless.

If the english designers have power to change thing, they should definitly keep an eye on territorial war balance. From what I read, the Tiger and Serpent servers have amazing territorial wars actions. I just wish Oracle was similar.

ark

The devs can't ensure that fake bidding will be ended. Imo, if somebody is willing to spend more than 10m on their own land, then they deserve to keep it.

senovit

Wasn't just memoire that did it. Pretty much every guild does it now. It's even worse in that with the amount of land each guild owns, they can afford to fake bid and still make a profit off the lands they hold. Little guilds which may just be getting into TW can't afford the 10m+ bids, and any that can are isolated in their attack, which ruins the only real strategy little guilds have against large land owning guilds, that of attacking half a dozen or so territories simultaneously. Don't really know how this could be deterred other than manually taking a look at each bid every week to determine if the bid is fake or not.

Edit: I typed too slow, but yeah. Above 10m to hold on to one land is just lol.

ark

I've actually seen people bid 200m to attack and protect O.o. WarLord and Black. It's probably more for glory than trying to defend. Just losing a land and keeping the 200m that would've been used to defend is plenty more profitable. I guess they plan to stay on their server for a long time to make up for their losses... Kinda glad I won't see them here, actually. We don't need too many already-refined players killing the map quickly.

zezix

I also agree, that should be stopped. That is one of the reasons I quit the MY-EN server, also because of the lag. It is also another reason why I am making my own guild on this server, to try and stop that from happening. I hated it that only a few guilds basically ran the whole server, it disgusted me and I'm sure it did the same for everyone else.

It could be a possibility to stop it, but I doubt it's gonna happen, too many greedy people out there. It sucks

ark

I'm fine with the few guilds owning the map. This server might not be as populated, so I expect we'll only need a few guilds.

karmelia

ark wrote: »

Imo, if somebody is willing to spend more than 10m on their own land, then they deserve to keep it.

The point is not to know if they deserve to keep it or not. It's to make an essential part of the game dynamic and alive.

Right now on the MY-EN server, this major feature of the game simply turned into a useless junk. It could has well be turned off and it would change nothing to the server dynamics.

Imagine a server with 20 or 30 territorial wars happening each week.

Imagine the political negociations between guilds, alliances, betrayals, backstabs...

Imagine a map that constantly change every week with the win and losses of territory.

Even keeping a handful of territories would be hard. Only the best guild would be able to that.

It would also ensure a much better distribution of the gold income from owning a territory. We would not see any insanely rich guilds able to buy the whole server like Immortals and Warlords are doing.

zezix

Agreed, I am sure if that is what we all want to happen here then we can make it happen. It seems to me that is pretty much how we are all thinking and one of the reasons why we quit MY-EN.

kuailiang

karmelia wrote: »

Imagine a server with 20 or 30 territorial wars happening each week.

Imagine the political negociations between guilds, alliances, betrayals, backstabs...

Imagine a map that constantly change every week with the win and losses of territory.

*drools*

That would be wicked and make territorial wars interesting again! It would still inject in a LOT of gold but if they manage to balance it out, it would be one of their best asset.

ark

The guild map does change quite a bit... The battles are all between big guilds, however. Noob guilds are too afraid to take on anybody, so they don't bother. There are plenty of people that have warred with just a 500k bid. The problem isn't so much the money... it's the lack of strength within noob guilds.

"Black" guild is a great example of a group that makes war interesting. I've won and lost against them... the battles are quite good.

karmelia

ark wrote: »

The guild map does change quite a bit... T

You did not played the same game I did.....

N00b guild cannot go to TW, they are constantly overbid by fakes.

If 3 real TW happens in a week it's a big week...

ark

Hm. In that case I've faced many big weeks in my warring experience.

seveneyes

ark wrote: »

Hm. In that case I've faced many big weeks in my warring experience.

of course you have, when you started territorial wars you had a lot of territories to conquer...

I cannot speak for your server as I play on delphi, but all that happens on delphi is the 3 big guild sit with the territories divided.

Now actually two of them are taking out the third, so there is real action. But that will leave just two big guilds with half the territories each. Then it will end up as one... It's always the same!

the problem is there is no easy way to program a way around it. The best way is for GMs to monitor bids and when the actual war happens!

blue

I always thought a way around that would be to have monsters invade owned lands at random times when TW starts. For example, once in a month (or two months latest), a sudden surge of monsters attacks every single given land at the exact time. A force that say, no more than 30 or so decent players is needed to defend. Those that can't defend lose their land and it turns white, meaning it's up for grabs (Has to be reconquered).

If such a thing happened, no one guild or two could really own the map. It would come down to many guilds vying. It also adds a great deal of strategy: does a guild with three lands try to conquer an adjacent enemy land? What if a monster surge arrives, will they have enough members to fight all the monsters and the battle? Or will they be safe?

Such a method would free up the map for more guilds, but also wouldn't restrict the guilds with numbers and strength from being limited to a land restriction. Go after as many as you want, if you can: but if you own too many territories, and a monster surge comes, you won't be able to defend all in all likelihood.

Also, monsters should drop enough loot to pay for repair bills and other minor compensations for those that try to defend a land.

Of course, the viability of implementing such features may be too difficult to do. Still, I think we should make it known that, coming from either server in MY-EN, TW is extremely flawed. It needs something altered.

xarfox

karmelia wrote: »

There is a cheap tactic used on the MY-EN server that consist for a guild owning a territory to use a fake guild (basically a guild with only one low-level char), to bid on their own lands to prevent others from bidding on it, or to overbid on their lands with it when another guild is bidding on them.

Do you plan on forbidding the use of such a cheap trick?

I know it would be hard to control, but I assure you that it made a lot of players leave the game back on the malaysian servers.

Forbidding it would ensure that not one guild will be able to take control of all the lands. It would make for much more lively and action packet territorial wars events.

And also put more money into your pockets with the selling of more hieros and such. Having 10 or 20 real TW happening every week will make people use more items than if only one or 2 are happening like currently on the PW-MY servers.

I hope you'll think about it, otherwise it will end up like the other servers : a couple of guilds will control everything, no other guilds will be able to even bid on lands, and players will leave the game disgusted after a time.

We will be watching Territory Wars closely and doing our best to ensure that no one is exploiting our in-game systems. We recognize how important game balance is. We want everyone to be competing on a level playing field.

glider

xarfox wrote: »

We will be watching Territory Wars closely and doing our best to ensure that no one is exploiting our in-game systems. We recognize how important game balance is. We want everyone to be competing on a level playing field.

Wow. That means you have the means, and the will, to stop this specific tactic?

xarfox

glider wrote: »

Wow. That means you have the means, and the will, to stop this specific tactic?

As it's been stated in other threads, we care deeply about the end-user experience. We will do everything we can to ensure that your experience with Perfect World International is the best it can be.

glider

xarfox wrote: »

As it's been stated in other threads, we care deeply about the end-user experience. We will do everything we can to ensure that your experience with Perfect World International is the best it can be.

Sorry about that. Some of us from other versions of PW are so not used to being treated well. It's... a shock.

ark

"of course you have, when you started territorial wars you had a lot of territories to conquer..."

Well, I'm not speaking of the beginning. I started a little late, so when there were white lands I wasn't high enough to participate. Right now there's lotsa great action! Currently, WarLord has broken off slightly, to create a guild called "Black". They've merged with many of the guilds WarLord had defeated in the past, and have taken some of New Era's land, and one of ReBorn's lands. ReBorn stands a chance of defending, but the battles are pretty even. There're wins, and losses, on both ends. WarLord can't kill Black either. Very spicy war...

Without the fake bidding, I expect alliances will play a very important role in war....

june

xarfox wrote: »

We will be watching Territory Wars closely and doing our best to ensure that no one is exploiting our in-game systems. We recognize how important game balance is. We want everyone to be competing on a level playing field.

Thank you so much! I am really glad to hear this!

(On Oracle, ☆Warlord☆ is one guild who used alt-guilds often during the expansion phase and to get non-contiguous territories, but now they are in control of the map, they just use them for fun and have mock Territory War battles. Many people ☆Warlord☆ were nice (especially bb) and spoke mainly Chinese. Yay bb for starting ☆Black☆, even they use the same alt-guild techniques such as bidding 200M on their own territory with their alt guild which seems like insanity :P, and are like a splinter non grata group of ☆Warlord☆. However, many people I knew in other guilds have quit the game permanently due to lack of fun end-game content (i.e.- a fun competitive Territory Wars, inability to enter Godless Valley, etc.) Also during their open beta, there was major problems with gold selling and really annoying farming bots which hopefully won't occur here.)

_________________________________________________________________________
<img src="http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm306/aliaporci/bb.jpg"&gt;

siberian

Just out of interest - most of the posts seem to be about Oracle server and WL

does that mean either (a) a lot of the people who post actively just happen to be from Oracle server or (b) People are sick of oracle and leaving?

I always thought it would have been better to cap the amount of income a guild can get from land, progressing on from when I left Oracle (is there going to be an ex-oracle guild? ) I figure that WL has enough income to just buy anything now (what is it 200-250m / week?). If the income amount was capped then a guild could still demonstrate power by owning the map - but have a harder time overbidding through fake guilds with a more limited income....probably a flaw in that reasoning somewhere

thom

GM's here could just take a hard line with those fake bidders and ban the guild's leaders who do it or make them automatically lose the land,since they seem to be unable to fight for it.

ark

GMs can't make people lose lands, and banning the leaders would be a little harsh... I think there's a better solution somewhere.

Hmm... Muting the entire guild for 3 weeks, and the guild master for like 3 months? As a first warning. The mutes get stacked for each land. And then.. After 3 land's worth, they ban the subguilds. The next week, if they do it again, they FINALLY ban the GM of the cheating guild!

karmelia

It will depends how much leeway the admins are given from the parent company I guess.

thom

ark wrote: »

GMs can't make people lose lands, and banning the leaders would be a little harsh... I think there's a better solution somewhere.

Hmm... Muting the entire guild for 3 weeks, and the guild master for like 3 months? As a first warning. The mutes get stacked for each land. And then.. After 3 land's worth, they ban the subguilds. The next week, if they do it again, they FINALLY ban the GM of the cheating guild!

Cant say for sure can the dev's make them lose those lands,but it would be severe enough penalty to discourage such lame tactics to keep your land.

What penalty a mute is? They still have the land and the money.

What you suggested,doesnt offer any real penalty for using these cheap tactics. People would still use subguilds to bid since they would only get muted,which isnt really a penalty for anything.

Mute is easily avoided by using a second char to speak.

True,muting the entire guild might have some effect, but imo, muting is way too easy penalty.

Banning those subguilds is also pointless,why do that? Banning the real guild that gains the profit from it,thats what is needed. Those subguilds are just one player guilds usually so its no loss if its banned.

Ban the leaders of the guild,not the subguilds.

First temp ban for week or two, after repeated offences make it perma ban.

phoztek

Yup this is a very cheap trick and not good for other guilds that wont be able to re-bid for a higher price.
One thing i think that should be done, is to limit the max number of territorys owned by a guild, like 6 to 8max, this would probably make more guilds more competitive and also incentivate other guilds to do TW's

ercasam

lol, most of the people responding to this are speaking as if they will never be with the top guild

If you restrict the max and decrease the minimum of each land what will happen is people will own the max amount of land and just set themselves up to be unmovable, you will get guilds like Warlord that instead of actually competing chose to employ an intelligent tactic, although most of the people that played had a problem with it, it wasn't all that bad a strategy

No matter how you change the current system the outcomes will be the same with different paths, I hear some people have a problem with it because smaller guild can't compete, but if you look at the natural order of the game you will see that even if the larger guilds didn't control the land they would still be the only ones competing, you would start to see legit 200mil bids that no one could compete with and the monopoly guilds (normally the 1-6 highest guilds) will control the land anyways

It's kind of sad that everyone had such a horrible time on Oracle, but where were you when the few guilds that were strong enough at the time tried stopping them before they got too out of control, that's right all you were doing was sucking up to them and wishing they would let you get a little of what they had and it came back and destroyed you

Only a couple people here I would trust to stomp guilds that try this type of thing without hesitation, let's just hope they don't turn to the dark side themselves >_<

june

ercasam wrote: »

No matter how you change the current system the outcomes will be the same with different paths, I hear some people have a problem with it because smaller guild can't compete, but if you look at the natural order of the game you will see that even if the larger guilds didn't control the land they would still be the only ones competing, you would start to see legit 200mil bids that no one could compete with and the monopoly guilds (normally the 1-6 highest guilds) will control the land anyways

Legit 200M bids are nice. Gold return (the max portion of gold from the percentage of a bid for winning a territory) I think was capped at 180M. This means, an alt guild bidding on themselves, unless they bid over 180M, can get a large portion of their money back. A Chinese saying is equivalent to "Making wool clothing for the sheep after shearing the sheep." It looks like gratuitous bidding/spending, but it's not really, if they can get the gold return.

ercasam wrote: »

It's kind of sad that everyone had such a horrible time on Oracle, but where were you when the few guilds that were strong enough at the time tried stopping them before they got too out of control, that's right all you were doing was sucking up to them and wishing they would let you get a little of what they had and it came back and destroyed you

Only a couple people here I would trust to stomp guilds that try this type of thing without hesitation, let's just hope they don't turn to the dark side themselves >_<

Haha. A lot of the ex-guildies I knew joined ☆Warlord☆ like one month into open beta. I am guilty too. At that point, I would have joined because bb was really nice :P and there were a lot of people around my level to party with in ☆Warlord☆ at the time (before I went inactive in the game).

BTW, your name initially seemed looked like "Sarcasm" but on reflection looks like "Massacre".

__________________________________________________
<img src="http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm306/aliaporci/bb.jpg"&gt;

ercasam

june wrote: »

Legit 200M bids are nice. Gold return (the max portion of gold from the percentage of a bid for winning a territory) I think was capped at 180M. This means, an alt guild bidding on themselves, unless they bid over 180M, can get a large portion of their money back. A Chinese saying is equivalent to "Making wool clothing for the sheep after shearing the sheep." It looks like gratuitous bidding/spending, but it's not really, if they can get the gold return.



Haha. A lot of the ex-guildies I knew joined ☆Warlord☆ like one month into open beta. I am guilty too. At that point, I would have joined because bb was really nice :P and there were a lot of people around my level to party with in ☆Warlord☆ at the time (before I went inactive in the game).

BTW, your name initially seemed looked like "Sarcasm" but on reflection looks like "Massacre".

__________________________________________________
<img src="http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm306/aliaporci/bb.jpg"&gt;

I know legit bids wouldn't be the problem, just people thinking that the newer guilds would have a chance at owning a territory is close to impossible

Also I'm sure you don't remember me June ^_^