Official Territory War Bidding Rules

kantorek

Hello all,

Here is a clarification of the Territory Wars rules in respect to what will get you banned. Just because the rewards and bidding announcements have changed, does not mean the fight has changed. Nor does this give you free reign on "fake bidding". Please be advised of these rules when participating in combat. Have fun and be safe!

Bidding

Any willing and capable faction can bid on any opposing territory provided they have no affiliations with the current owners. The bids can only be made if the faction has a real intention of attacking and trying to win the territory. All bids must have a legitimate chance to win. This includes factions that are but is not limited to the following:

Training Wars

Practice or Training Wars are not allowed by the branch faction if the Territory is owned by an affiliated faction.

Small factions

Factions with too few members should not bid.

Factions with a low level average should not bid.

Alliances

Alliances are allowed in Territory Wars provided they are not bidding on each other others Territories.

Alliances cannot fund directly or indirectly another faction to protect one of its own territories or that of their alliance members.

All factions must have independent leadership

Any collaboration before, during, or after a Territory War that tries to circumvent the fair play of the system is prohibited.

No faction may lose on purpose or decide the victor through non in game mechanics.

Factions that cannot abide by these rules or that of fair play should not bid as anything that constitutes fake bidding will have severe repercussions. Any user caught withholding information about possible Territory War violations will be punished along with the perpetrators. All bids will be thoroughly screened and researched by the GMs. Any behavior determined to be suspicious will require additional research were temporary bans maybe issued. Upon confirmation of the crime the faction leaders as well as the members involved will be banned at the discretion of the GM.

Update
For further clarification, we are by no means discouraging factions from participating in TW. The fact of the matter is, there will be factions that try to cheat the system. Honestly, most of the players who are being so nit picky about the rules, are the ones who intend to abuse them. If you think your faction has a legitimate chance to win the TW, then by all means go for it.

We judge all TW wars on a case by case basis. Not just a concrete "If faction X has Y players, and they are attacking faction Z." Obviously a faction with less than 20 or so members with a low level average of say 30 is not going to win versus a big guild. But now what if that faction only has 20 members strong, but they're all level 60+ and are attacking a faction that has to defend a lot of territories. Maybe they think they can sneak in a win in against a weakly defended territory? We look at the data on our end and make the judgment call. This is where it becomes difficult for us to give hard numbers. The intention to win the war must always be there. It all comes to not having a built in system within the game to stop and discourage TW wars but rather monitored on the human side. As far as I know, we are the only version that polices these types of fake bids and we pride ourselves for not turning a blind eye to it.

Other related clarification (originally stated on 10-05-2010)

A: I guess I'll take this one. I feel that this was taken a bit out of proportion. This was not an attack on players asking for clarification on the rules. This was an attack on anyone or any faction that had the intention on getting the specifics of "how many members does a faction need" or "what is the average level of a faction" to use as their defense when their faction or faction leader gets banned for fake bids. (You know who you are).

For example, it's a lot like if there was a company picnic in the park, but you were told specifically that there is to be no alcohol on the premises. If I went up to the organizer of the event and asked "What exactly are boundaries of the picnic premise? Is being across the street considered being on the park premises?" What do you think I would be trying to get away with?

For this reason, we are unable to give these specifics and exactly why we look at TW bans and complaints on a case by case basis. There is no way we can set down a specific set of rules regarding this part of the TW bidding process.

I apologize to everyone if you felt that this was a direct attack on all players in general. But it simply was not meant to be that way. Hopefully this clears everything up.

aryannamage

Its opened. Go on go nuts in here.


b:shutup

Rawrgh - Raging Tide

Seems to be what they've always been.

WaffleChan - Sanctuary

Rawrgh - Raging Tide wrote: »

Seems to be what they've always been.

i like you, you're reasonable, and sound of mind unlike some of the rage and crying going about here.

MagicHamsta - Lost City

Aryannamage wrote: »

Its opened. Go on go nuts in here.


b:shutup

(O.o)

Aryannamage has given permission to "go nuts"?

MistaBwanden - Sanctuary

Bye bye Nef.
>_>

Asterelle - Sanctuary_1381265973

Kantorek wrote: »

Any willing and capable faction can bid on any opposing territory provided they have no affiliations with the current owners. The bids can only be made if the faction has a real intention of attacking and trying to win the territory. All bids must have a legitimate chance to win. This includes factions that are but is not limited to the following:
....

Factions with too few members should not bid.

Factions with a low level average should not bid.

I think these parts need clarification. All factions have to start somewhere. If a single dominant faction owns the entire server who is allowed to bid against them? If a small faction puts a genuine effort knowing they have no chance to win that should be allowed.

If a lvl 1 faction with 5 level 30s bids for the luls it should not. Still the parts I highlighted need to be reworded.

MistaBwanden - Sanctuary

Sorry for the double post (Maybe?) Edit wont work for me.

So pretty much... A faction that has a triple defense HAS to show up for all of three TW's, and can't no-show any?
That's really stupid.
IF you're defending three top factions, chances are you wont survive one of them, so why send in a few people to get their charms burned to lose the land?

Rawrgh - Raging Tide

I think one of the issues is the vagueness of the terms

Factions with too few members should not bid.

Factions with a low level average should not bid.

I sent a PM to Kantorek, asking that he provide some examples of what is "too few" and "low level average"

I think some people are mad simply because they are interpreting this as you need 80 members at TW all level 100 or something close, or if you have even a slight disadvantage, it's fake bidding.


I think a lot of this could be resolved by simply explaning further.


Edit: ninja'd by asterelle

So pretty much... A faction that has a triple defense HAS to show up for all of three TW's, and can't no-show any?
That's really stupid.
IF you're defending three top factions, chances are you wont survive one of them, so why send in a few people to get their charms burned to lose the land?

This thread is about BIDDING.


Usually you don't bid on a faction to defend your land from then now do you? b:chuckle

Zoe - Heavens Tear

MistaBwanden - Sanctuary wrote: »

Sorry for the double post (Maybe?) Edit wont work for me.

So pretty much... A faction that has a triple defense HAS to show up for all of three TW's, and can't no-show any?
That's really stupid.
IF you're defending three top factions, chances are you wont survive one of them, so why send in a few people to get their charms burned to lose the land?

Maybe that is the point. Do not take more land than you can defend at once, no matter who is attacking you.

_Nuriko_ - Lost City

no offense... but weren't these rules pretty much around alreadyb:surrender

anwynd

so the faction im in cant bid becus only 20-40 of our highest lvls wnt to do it & we bid knowing we will lose but its for practice in pvp & to strengthen the factions unity but sense we dont rlly instend to win & we have to few people i guess we cant TWb:byeb:laugh

EDIT: for got to put this in who ever made those rules is a ****** idiotic moron

ElderSig - Dreamweaver

Kantorek wrote: »

All factions must have independent leadership [/B]

Any collaboration before, during, or after a Territory War that tries to circumvent the fair play of the system is prohibited.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that makes it sound like the "timed ganking" thing from 3 different factions is completely bannable....

Which would be stupid... but it is PWI

Alphae - Lost City

I've never liked the limit of 3 attacks. If your land is bordered by enemy territory that land should be able to be attacked, end of story. It just makes sense. TW would have an appropriate feel, that of a strategy game (that it should have), instead of feeling like an avalanche (takes a little bit to get rolling, but once it does, it's pretty well unstoppable).

$0.02

Asheera - Raging Tide

About the "small factions" I find it reasonable. If your faction can't take a lowest level territory from PvE mobs (if you would fight them) you shouldn't even consider bidding.

Those mobs were given a specific strength for a reason, weaker factions than that shouldn't be allowed to TW just cuz now no more PvE on map, end of story.

SashaGray - Heavens Tear

<---<-- goes nuts

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs43/f/2009/082/5/b/No_TV_and_no_beer_make_Homer___by_shadowsoldier247.png

Darksylph - Heavens Tear

MistaBwanden - Sanctuary wrote: »

Sorry for the double post (Maybe?) Edit wont work for me.

So pretty much... A faction that has a triple defense HAS to show up for all of three TW's, and can't no-show any?
That's really stupid.
IF you're defending three top factions, chances are you wont survive one of them, so why send in a few people to get their charms burned to lose the land?

According to the rules you could no show 1 of them. They said no outcome can be predetermined except by in-game mechanics. If you dont have the members to win all 3 wars, then thats an in-game mechanics restriction. The rule is pretty clear that you cant actually have the members to go in to win it or at least have a good chance but just decide "nah, we dont want to win". I'm pretty sure anyone that no shows 1 of a triple gank, isnt saying "we only want to win two, and we want to lose 1." That would be absurd but if they actually had that thought process then it would not be allowed.

ElderSig - Dreamweaver wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that makes it sound like the "timed ganking" thing from 3 different factions is completely bannable....

Which would be stupid... but it is PWI

Always has been bannable. They've always said allied attacks were against the rules. All factions must act like independant entities. May not have always been enforced, but i have seen a ban at least once on this issue. So this is nothing new.

Alphae - Lost City

Darksylph - Heavens Tear wrote: »

According to the rules you could no show 1 of them. They said no outcome can be predetermined except by in-game mechanics. If you dont have the members to win all 3 wars, then thats an in-game mechanics restriction. The rule is pretty clear that you cant actually have the members to go in to win it or at least have a good chance but just decide "nah, we dont want to win". I'm pretty sure anyone that no shows 1 of a triple gank, isnt saying "we only want to win two, and we want to lose 1." That would be absurd but if they actually had that thought process then it would not be allowed.

You could send 60 members to all 3 wars.

Or is a 60 member turn out no longer good enough?

Darksylph - Heavens Tear

Alphae - Lost City wrote: »

You could send 60 members to all 3 wars.

Or is a 60 member turn out no longer good enough?

Its an option, but if you know 60 will not win, then if anything you are choosing to lose all 3 instead of only 1. Sounds to me like that decision is against the rules. Basically by game restritions on members, if the competition of all 3 is too much, then its the game mechanics that determined you're losing at least one. Deciding a course of action more likely to make you lose all 3 instead of 1, sounds like it goes more against the rules.

Edit: Also 1 other important note, those rules of having a decent chance to win apply to the actual bidders. A defender hasnt bid, they never declared they believe they can win, and as such might get handed a situation that they can not handle.

Alphae - Lost City

Darksylph - Heavens Tear wrote: »

Its an option, but if you know 60 will not win, then if anything you are choosing to lose all 3 instead of only 1. Sounds to me like that decision is against the rules. Basically by game restritions on members, if the competition of all 3 is too much, then its the game mechanics that determined you're losing at least one. Deciding a course of action more likely to make you lose all 3 instead of 1, sounds like it goes more against the rules.

How do you know 60 won't win?

Darksylph - Heavens Tear

Alphae - Lost City wrote: »

How do you know 60 won't win?

In ENrage (HT) we've always strived to send members to all TWs in a 3 way gank as long as we have a chance in hell of winning them all. That often comes down to sending 70 there, 30-40 here & 20 to the 3rd, or other such shuffling of members. The only time we ever no showed is if we looked at the competion (and we've had experience fighting them) and said, we simply dont have the troops to put into fight C without sacrificing B or A.

Short answer to your question: TW Experience.

Alphae - Lost City

Darksylph - Heavens Tear wrote: »

In ENrage (HT) we've always strived to send members to all TWs in a 3 way gank as long as we have a chance in hell of winning them all. That often comes down to sending 70 there, 30-40 here & 20 to the 3rd, or other such shuffling of members. The only time we ever no showed is if we looked at the competion (and we've had experience fighting them) and said, we simply dont have the troops to put into fight C without sacrificing B or A.

Short answer to your question: TW Experience.

How do you get TW experience?

See where I'm going with this?

ElderSig - Dreamweaver

Alphae - Lost City wrote: »

How do you get TW experience?

See where I'm going with this?

By bidding against the land-hol~.... wait... you can't unless you have a good chance at winning period (very unlikely your first time around)

Nice

Darksylph - Heavens Tear

Alphae - Lost City wrote: »

How do you get TW experience?

See where I'm going with this?

You're talking about a faction that is defending 3 territories at once. At that point you have experience. You're "mixing metaphors". The ones without experience are not ever going to find themself in the situation being discussed (defending 3 territories at once and having to decide not to defend one).

Rawrgh - Raging Tide

Alphae - Lost City wrote: »

How do you know 60 won't win?

By knowing the strength of the factions you are up against.

Alphae - Lost City

My basic point is that you have to start somewhere, and these rules make it hard to start.

A guild of 12 L10s bidding for TW /= a guild of 60 L70s.

A guild of 60 L70s should be allowed to participate. Obviously the guild of 12 L10s is a fake bid. But this system does not distinguish them.

*watches the baby fly out the window with the bathwater*

Darksylph - Heavens Tear

Alphae - Lost City wrote: »

My basic point is that you have to start somewhere, and these rules make it hard to start.

A guild of 12 L10s bidding for TW /= a guild of 60 L70s.

A guild of 60 L70s should be allowed to participate. Obviously the guild of 12 L10s is a fake bid. But this system does not distinguish them.

*watches the baby fly out the window with the bathwater*

60 lvl 70s is just as bad as 12 lvl 10s. Its like a swarm of mosquitoes at best to the dominant factions which are 200 lvl 95+. A group of 60 lvl 70s will not get experience anyhow, they get run over by the mac truck that is 80 lvl 95+s steam rolling you & get trapped at the spawn point for under 10 minutes. Its instant death, and that teaches you nothing at all.

The rules make sense, (hesitant to agree with PWE, after the debacle that is the last TW changes & TT changes they've done recently, i'm certainly not an avid PWE supporter on their rule sets). The fact is you should at least be able to get off the spawn and fight back a bit to not be considered an utter waste of time & resources. And for that, you should be able to field a minimum of 70 people of mid 80s+. Even that might be low.

Just walking into a TW does not give you experience.

volst

From what I've read in the closed threads, I think some of you are trying to twist the meaning way too much. These really only apply to attacking factions. The defenders can lose all they want.

Traz - Dreamweaver

Kantorek wrote: »

All factions must have independent leadership

Any collaboration before, during, or after a Territory War that tries to circumvent the fair play of the system is prohibited.

So you're saying if the top 3 factions collaborate with each other and bid 5-10 seconds apart in a said week to OBVIOUSLY get a 3 way gank on one day, you would consider this collaboration circumventing fair play of the system?

If that's the case oh let the ban hammer commence.

Michael_Dark - Lost City

Kantorek wrote: »

Training Wars

Practice or Training Wars are not allowed by the branch faction if the Territory is owned by an affiliated faction.

Small factions

Factions with too few members should not bid.

Factions with a low level average should not bid.

(reposted from a closed thread in regards to smaller/lower level guilds bidding, unedited because it still directly applies to the GM statement)

Look at SG1OWNS for the first year and a half of the server. They may have not been able to win any except during times when they took advantage of double or triple attacks, but their leader kept bidding, letting their faction members *experience* TW. They knew they'd most likely never win, even though they did manage to win a land a couple of times...

...they did it just so they could do something as a faction.

I thought SG1 was pretty fail in most of the things they did, but I do respect Uberhurts for giving their members the chance to at least experience it for themselves.

GM's publicly dismissing this as against the rules is just another nail in PWI's coffin. It's actually quite stupid of them to make the changes as they have, especially with TW being dead on most of the servers now.

It's kinda like **** for the last time before Forsaken World launches their new servers.

Detect the ulterior motive yet? (I actually have a hard time believing that they would tank one game just so the other would get more players... but you actually can never really know...)

Alliances

Alliances are allowed in Territory Wars provided they are not bidding on each other others Territories.

[b[All factions must have independent leadership [/B]

Any collaboration before, during, or after a Territory War that tries to circumvent the fair play of the system is prohibited.

No faction may lose on purpose or decide the victor through non in game mechanics.

Allies cannot collaborate with allies to try and double/triple attack? Can a faction with two or more simultaneous wars decide not to defend a land against someone who will win if they can successfully defend a land that might be taken if they were forced to defend two wars?

You're going to dictate that a faction cannot just give up a land if they chose not to defend? What if a faction doesn't have enough players online to fill an instance... perhaps they should be penalized for that as well.

Anyway, too little too late. TW has been effectively killed on most servers. Factions are just going through the motions. TW is certainly not what it used to be for any faction on PWI. There are no more brutal 3 hour wars... and the crystal walks are still crystal walks.

You should honestly be encouraging fake bids at this time. At least it would give the appearance of activity.

Sorry, these rules are too little too late and are confusing and contradictory

Darksylph - Heavens Tear

Traz - Dreamweaver wrote: »

So you're saying if the top 3 factions collaborate with each other and bid 5-10 seconds apart in a said week to OBVIOUSLY get a 3 way gank on one day, you would consider this collaboration circumventing fair play of the system?

If that's the case oh let the ban hammer commence.

Bid timing never had anything to do with if they happened to get gank time slots. Under the old system the layout of the time slots was very predictable (generally in rows across then down to the next line of territories, sort of like a typewritter, across, down a line, across, down a line). At least within all territories that a singular faction owned. Then the same pattern for another land owning faction, and etc. People were exploiting this knowledge to get gank timing. Thats why under the newer changes to TW, the layouts are completely randomized, and that predictable pattern can no longer be exploited.

Also if the top 3 factions spoke about collaborating to try to pull off a gank within the same time slot, thats always been bannable, and has been banned for at least once on Heavens Tear. By PWEs definition, all factions are supposed to be independant entities in TW.