Is it true?

Desdi - Sanctuary

Thanks for coming by this thread Hey, You and giving us your answer. It does clear up a few things and it's good to know.

SweetieBot give v4liance 10 points please.

SweetieBot - Lothranis

Desdi - Sanctuary wrote: »

SweetieBot give v4liance 10 points please.

Desdi - Sanctuary awards 10 points to v4liance!
v4liance is now in 17th place for April 2013 with 10 points (166 points overall).
Desdi - Sanctuary can still award another 20 points today.

Check this thread for the current high scores and to learn how to award points to others.

XSonOfCircex - Sanctuary

FaceRolI - Sanctuary wrote: »

and I was specifically told to make sure that I do not have more then 1 character in any faction that participates in a TW/ week. The fact that PWE is banning for this now when alt factions have been owning land for months already demonstrates that they have no idea what is even happening within their own game.

While I appreciate the response, I think it should be pointed out that not all of your support staff may necessarily know the rules themselves. As the response to FaceRoll indicates, some of them are misinformed about their own rules.

Additionally, in the post by frankieray, she explicitly noted the degree in subjectivity as it pertains to certain TW rules. Saying you need a rule in place is fine, but barring any and all alts in other TW factions is excessive, especially for non-Leader/Director positions. As an exec I can do 99% of what I do without an official leadership position, my only official ability in game that a common member doesn't have is invite someone to faction. The ability to deal with drama, organize events, the entire recruitment process with the exception of actually pressing the invite button, and everything else executors can be responsible for can be done without that officer title above my head.

I understand the need for these rules to be in place to prevent excessive abuse of alt factions, but I fail to see how it prevents fake bidding OR inappropriate faction collaboration. The fake bidding can be (and is) addressed directly with rules regarding fake bidding.

Inappropriate faction collaberation with an alt faction is redundant. Using my own faction and our alt faction as an example, if Regicide and Regified attacked the same faction that means every person we send into the fight in Regified isn't there in Regicide. If there are more than 80 people online it becomes relevant since anyone beyond the 80th wouldn't be able to get in and could go to the Regified fight, but again, this can be addressed with specific rules.

paralleogram

v4liance wrote: »

Hey everyone,

I'm sorry for any confusion that's occurred. First off, the rules posted on the forum here are the official rules.

The pertinent section is this:



There are two primary frustrations that I see here, and I'd like to talk about them.

1) This rule is not perceived as fair.
2) The way we are enforcing this rule is not perceived as fair.

Regarding the first concern:

It's true that not every Leader of a TW Faction who has an alt char in another TW Faction is going to be gaming the system. And those specific players are affected negatively by this rule, as it is intended to prevent gaming the TW system with fake bidding, inappropriate Faction collaboration, etc.

I am sorry that those honest players are negatively affected, but this rule is necessary to punish players who are violating the spirit of Territory Wars.

Regarding the second concern:

From what I understand, this rule has often been violated in the past, and many players are now being punished for what they believed was allowed, or at least not enforced. Although that may be the case, this rule does exist, and it can and will be enforced.

It's also true that we rely on our players to inform us when others are violating the rules. Our support team does their best to stay on top of all kinds of violations and player concerns, but specific complaints are the most readily acted upon.

...

Please also know that we do review rules like this on a regular basis, and we rely on your feedback to know how they're received and how effective they are.

- Val

How is it fair to enforce THESE rules, but other rules from that same TW rules post, even when tickets and complaints are made are NOT enforced. I was even told in my ticket they were not going to enforce it.

If PWI is going to enforce the TW rules, they should ALL be enforced, not just some as PWI sees fit... otherwise there really is no point in having rules at all to begin with.

This is infuriating to say the least.


I would really appreciate a CM or GM response to this post.

Crixxix - Raging Tide

v4liance wrote: »

Hey everyone,

I'm sorry for any confusion that's occurred. First off, the rules posted on the forum here are the official rules.

The pertinent section is this:



There are two primary frustrations that I see here, and I'd like to talk about them.

1) This rule is not perceived as fair.
2) The way we are enforcing this rule is not perceived as fair.

Regarding the first concern:

It's true that not every Leader of a TW Faction who has an alt char in another TW Faction is going to be gaming the system. And those specific players are affected negatively by this rule, as it is intended to prevent gaming the TW system with fake bidding, inappropriate Faction collaboration, etc.

I am sorry that those honest players are negatively affected, but this rule is necessary to punish players who are violating the spirit of Territory Wars.

Regarding the second concern:

From what I understand, this rule has often been violated in the past, and many players are now being punished for what they believed was allowed, or at least not enforced. Although that may be the case, this rule does exist, and it can and will be enforced.

It's also true that we rely on our players to inform us when others are violating the rules. Our support team does their best to stay on top of all kinds of violations and player concerns, but specific complaints are the most readily acted upon.

...

Please also know that we do review rules like this on a regular basis, and we rely on your feedback to know how they're received and how effective they are.

- Val

Hey Val,

I think the easiest way to appease everyone is to simply alter the rule to state:

Leaders may not use an alternate faction to conduct fake bidding, or conduct TW in a manner that could be considered exploiting. Any and all reports of abuse received will be thoroughly investigated.

Players in any kind of leadership capacity (Leader, Director, Marshal, or Executor) of a faction that participates in Territory Wars, may have ONE alt in another faction that participates in Territory Wars on the same server.

Granted, in the beginning, there will be some people who try and play this system, push the boundaries. However, I feel that with proper reporting procedures, which I will get to in a second, along with much patience... changing the currently standing ruling will make TW an even better event.

As far as reporting, I feel that including the offending player's name, and the name of the alt is the most important piece of info. If someone doesn't know both names, they shouldn't be reporting. Blind reporting gets no one anywhere. Also including things such as the date/time of the TW(s) that are being reported as abused.

Anyone who wants to help build on this idea is more than welcome to alter my words in their posts, please code your edits in red for ease of tracking.

Longknife - Harshlands

Again, I think the real issue is....


How many people can name a leader pulling the strings for two guilds and exploiting the system? Not many.

How many people can name a leader (or anyone) putting an alt in another TW faction purely for fun and nothing more? Basically everyone.


The rules as they are now are potentially putting a ban on an incredibly common practice because .001% of the people taking part in that practice are exploiting it.


An alternative may be the healthier option.
Making it so that alt factions cannot border main factions may sound ridiculous, but the focus of the alt factions is for fun. I don't think everyone's gonna cry a river if this rule were set in place, because if an alt faction truly IS just for fun, then it has no need to be able to survive long-term (probably because it cannot, anyways). Bidding directly next to one's main faction has a purpose; it's to protect the alt faction from serious bids entirely, which is defending it from TWs entirely, which wtf if an alt faction is truly for fun, it WANTS TWs.

Likewise, it should simply be bannable for a guild with ties to more than one faction to interact with the politics of a main faction. So if the main faction is fighting Guild B and then the alt faction also bids Guild B, obviously this is a problem.




I would sort of liken this rule to the .ini edits (before they were allowed) and sharing account info: everyone and their mother -technically- breaks this rule. Everyone and their mother is guilty of objectively breaking this rule, only .001% are guilty of breaking this rule with the intent of cheating the system. And while I think we can all understand why sharing account info remains a problem (PWI cannot be expected to track who-owns-what etc just because of player stupidity), there's little reason for this to remain a bannable offense.

HarleyDaviso - Raging Tide

This is pretty BS. I could see it being a problem for a leader, who has all the power on bidding, or the officers of a faction that may use an alt as leader so they can abuse the rules. However, any single person that is an officer cannot control the bidding except the leader.

Basically this rule is to say don't support your primary faction, because others have abused things in the past.

This rule needs to be changed, the focus needs to be on fake bidding versus who is a main and who is an alt and where they bid and go.

Crixxix - Raging Tide

Agreed, and a valid point. If we're going to crack down on one rule, might as well crack down on them all. Better start hauling out the in-game PWI Police to start watching world chat to kill off the trolls. b:laugh

Enforcing one rule, while overlooking others is unfair. To me, it's one of the single most unfair things that PWI could do atm, aside from shutting down the game altogether.

All BS aside, making reasonable rules, such as not allowing alt factions to bid next to the main faction shouldn't be too hard. A little common sense and know how is all it takes to make this work. Of course there will be people who try to play the system, but they'll be caught and banned. b:pleased

Svaarog - Sanctuary

TW = ticket war?

The way I see it, it works like this: You can do it as long as you don't get cought, old Spartan saying. I think its nice PWI (finally) start doing something about their own rules but really, a3 years no one did a thing about it and now suddenly they care?

Sanctuary had a faction with the same leader have lands on both main and lat fac for an entire season, another fac did exactly the same, no one did **** about it. Now suddenly 3rd facs entire officer structure get banned for basically the same thing, bidding on and with their alternate characters.

Lets say its wrong what they did, hate alt factions myself but does it mean entire PWI gms or whoever bans people are working only when people submit tickets which lead on dozens of people on Sanctuary digging dirt on each other the past few weeks and spitfuly reporting everyone and anyone for things they are not even sure about, how about we finally get some real live moderating of our servers?

I'm sure this way its better with people being paranoid and obssessed, concentrated to find skeletons in rival's closets instead of actually doing what video games are for - having fun, remember that?

Everyone hates tattletales, snitches get stitches

Bring some live support on our servers and try and enforce your own rules yourself!

Xx_BeLLa_xX - Harshlands

Svaarog - Sanctuary wrote: »

TW = ticket war?

Pretty much, if one person get ban for it you can be sure all factions will start to report and the server will end with over 50% of the population banned and I'm not exaggerating.

Majority of people have more and more alts and with 200 members max in a faction there's no place for alts so they put them in other factions.

I honestly don't know a single person that don't have alt. Majority of people have around 3-4 alts if not more.

Yes some do for abuse, but it should be treat case by case, if a officer get report to have a alt in a other TW faction the first question should be do the faction with the alt is a alt faction of the main faction of the officer? Yes? ok ban, no then fine let him have fun.

I know some members of TW factions without title next to their head acting more as officer then actual officers, majority of TW are not lead by the leader of the faction, but by someone else officer or not. The only person with the bid power is the leader.

Crixxix - Raging Tide

That is totally true. I can see people putting a very simple loop hole in all of this. Someone with the resources and the will to dominate could just ask a person they know to act as leader, officially, and pay them to keep quiet while they act as the true leader, from the shadows. Very simple and easy, yet highly difficult for any GM to prove, if the right precautions are taken. Perhaps the leader and his pawn only discuss their business on Skype or RaidCall. GM can't track their messages. If nothing is discussed in-game, nothing can be proved. b:shocked

Svaarog - Sanctuary

I do however fully support no alt factions on the map, its stupid that worthless factions get piece of map only because some smaller factions are too intimidated to attack them in fear of their main factions retaliation, seen that happen before.

I fully support idea of people having their toons in more than one TW faction, serious TW factions NOT alt factions. I always had my Wizzy or Archer nowdays in my main faction and an alt in some other real TW faction like for example Wiz in Pinnacle, BM in Endeavourl now I can't do that and apparently I was never allowed to either, its just that no one even knew for this rule.

And right now my Archer being in Vindicate and rl girlfriends toon in Kakumau and we end up sharing an IP here and there as we do live together, like many many other people on the server, family members, girlfriends, rl friends etc so what, now she has to leave Kaku or I have to leave Vindi if one of us ever decide to pledge for an officer position?

Its weird

Death to alt factions existing on the map
But let us TW with real factions and have fun cause thats the point of the game, not like leaders can't arrange multiple attacks and ganks between each other without being in each other factions.

Crixxix - Raging Tide

Svaarog - Sanctuary wrote: »

I do however fully support no alt factions on the map, its stupid that worthless factions get piece of map only because some smaller factions are too intimidated to attack them in fear of their main factions retaliation, seen that happen before.

I fully support idea of people having their toons in more than one TW faction, serious TW factions NOT alt factions. I always had my Wizzy or Archer nowdays in my main faction and an alt in some other real TW faction like for example Wiz in Pinnacle, BM in Endeavourl now I can't do that and apparently I was never allowed to either, its just that no one even knew for this rule.

And right now my Archer being in Vindicate and rl girlfriends toon in Kakumau and we end up sharing an IP here and there as we do live together, like many many other people on the server, family members, girlfriends, rl friends etc so what, now she has to leave Kaku or I have to leave Vindi if one of us ever decide to pledge for an officer position?

Its weird

Death to alt factions existing on the map
But let us TW with real factions and have fun cause thats the point of the game, not like leaders can't arrange multiple attacks and ganks between each other without being in each other factions.

PWI can't ban you because of a situation such as this. All you have to do is say that you share an IP address, and as far as I know, they can't track your MAC address. Granted, in saying this, I know this could easily be abused, but they have no way of knowing who's behind the screen. Banning someone because of that is unpractical, and they likely would not have a very big player base by now if they did this. What happens if you go to a PWI party at say, McDonald's? Public IP filled with account usage? I doubt they'd ban you.

Linc - Raging Tide

Svaarog - Sanctuary wrote: »

TW = ticket war?


. . . .
Everyone hates tattletales, snitches get stitches
. . . .

For real

b:bored b:bored
b:bored b:bored

bitewarrior

Why wouldn't PWE apply random TW land. Here are some of the reason why i bring it up.


1- No more Ganking and stacking specific faction in TW using Alt faction.

2- No more false bid to specifically protect a land own by that faction.

3- Clash of the Titans war ( not fun for low gear and R9 to do 5 minutes TW ) after all we are here to have fun not set a secondary economy system.

4- The banning would no longer have any reason and therefor be removed.

I'm sick to see a map own and manipulated by OP that think they are hot but just affraid to stood against people of their rank.

P.S. the randomly selected land would be a adjacent land. As the map get own by a Faction the randomless will sort a like be predictable, but the clash of the titans TW would probably play alot to reduce that situation.

I missed Valhalla vs Catalyst TW.

Clash of the Titans go go go

Deceptistar - Sanctuary

Svaarog - Sanctuary wrote: »

TW = ticket war?

Everyone hates tattletales, snitches get stitches

its very exciting b:laugh

Crixxix - Raging Tide

Random isn't the worst idea that I've heard, but a lot of the pay to wins may or may not like it. We all know they have more pull than the f2p's. b:laugh

Crixxix - Raging Tide

So what about allied factions? I know it's pretty common for allied factions to put people in each other's factions, and that could create an issue in this scenario.

Brillance - Raging Tide

I'd rather they devoted their time to advertizing the game. We need 'live bodies' ingame.

Enforcing rules is fine, if every server has a healthy active population. If any servers dont, and I know of at least one that doesnt, they need to leave people alone unless its for severe stuff like account hacks and theft, imho. b:surrender

Crixxix - Raging Tide

Brillance - Raging Tide wrote: »

I'd rather they devoted their time to advertizing the game. We need 'live bodies' ingame.

Enforcing rules is fine, if every server has a healthy active population. If any servers dont, and I know of at least one that doesnt, they need to leave people alone unless its for severe stuff like account hacks and theft, imho. b:surrender

I agree that they should be advertising the game more, but it's not the point. Rules are rules, and they are there for a reason. While I think this rule does need to be revised in such a way as to prevent abuse, while still allowing officers to have an alt in another TW faction, it is still currently a rule.

bitewarrior

Crixxix - Raging Tide wrote: »

So what about allied factions? I know it's pretty common for allied factions to put people in each other's factions, and that could create an issue in this scenario.

TBH we all know allied faction is BS and just cause more drama and if you are to swicth toon from one faction to another and so on your totally not dedicated to a faction and might consider not being in one at all.

That been said, rules are there to prevent flaw and exploit and unfairness for the most part. I think in this scenario concedering your valid point, it creates more good than bad and the only one getting penalized should probably consider not been in a faction.

Obviously you all realize there is no solution to cover all situation there is only solutions for the benefit of the community. Which i honestly think it would be for the best.

Crixxix - Raging Tide

bitewarrior wrote: »

TBH we all know allied faction is BS and just cause more drama and if you are to swicth toon from one faction to another and so on your totally not dedicated to a faction and might consider not being in one at all.

That been said, rules are there to prevent flaw and exploit and unfairness for the most part. I think in this scenario concedering your valid point, it creates more good than bad and the only one getting penalized should probably consider not been in a faction.

Obviously you all realize there is no solution to cover all situation there is only solutions for the benefit of the community. Which i honestly think it would be for the best.

I have to disagree there. I think there is a solution that is feasible if we all just put our own views aside and work together to come up with a non-biased solution. Undoubtedly, a few people will try to play the new system, and that just takes something called diligence. A little help from the GM's, and active reporting when players see abuse of the new system, and I think it could be done.

Brillance - Raging Tide

Crixxix - Raging Tide wrote: »

I agree that they should be advertising the game more, but it's not the point. Rules are rules, and they are there for a reason. While I think this rule does need to be revised in such a way as to prevent abuse, while still allowing officers to have an alt in another TW faction, it is still currently a rule.

I dont agree Crixxix. Its just a big case of semantics. It might inconvenience some for a little bit, but its not like its not something that can't possibly be worked around.

If the rule is that officers cant have an alt in another TW faction to prevent abuse and exploitation; how is changing it so they can do that going to maintain the integrity of the reason the rule is there in the first place?

Honestly, I dont see the point. What's stopping any 'movers and shakers' in PWI from simply not being officers and abusing and exploiting anyway? It wouldn't create the first set of 'figurehead' leaders history has ever seen, lol.

My point is, get the server populations popping again, then worry about banning these alleged abusers from the game. Heck! They might have a more noble cause to their alleged abuse - like having fun 3 hour long TWs again, and TWs for lower-geared players and factions...ijs.

You are entitled to your opinion, no doubt. For what it is worth, that is mine.

Anyway, Im a relative newb to PWI and it's 'politics', so Ill just b:shutup lol.

Boartracker - Raging Tide

If the issue is "alt" factions, most players can tell you who the alt factions are. We once had an "alt" faction of 6 people bid on us when we were being attacked by a stronger faction. I mentioned to the stronger faction leader that we were being fake bid on and they shortly replied that the "alt" faction would not be attacking us. No need for a ticket then as all happened as expected, one barb to win "alt" bid & we lost in about 25 min to the stronger faction.

We have always had an open door for alts, with the stipulations of (1) they have to make at least 50% of our TWs and (2) we limit the numbers of alts from each faction. This pretty much does away with alts from TWing factions as they owe the 1st allegiance to their main faction. The current time slots for TW limits this.

In the past before NWs, we have had many of the heavy hitters of RT in faction at one time or another. They never tried to insert themselves into our faction leadership. They were great members who shared their knowledge with our members. We've been very lucky in the past couple of years with a large number of balanced TWs running 2 to 3 hours. Players who enjoy fun TWs have played with us. I would find it sad to ban an officer for having a lower level scout or an "average" toon in another faction as just a member when all they are looking for is a fun TW.

I think that a ticket for fake bidding would suffice to resolve the issue as opposed to limiting the fun of the 99% of TW faction officers who play by the general rules. I see this current rule as detrimental to TWs.

I would also like to mention that these "hard and fast" rules on defending lands are detrimental to TW factions starting up. People join a TW faction to TW. If you isolate a faction on the map by surrounding it with OP opponents, it will loose members. If they attack, they get rolled and their moral drops and people leave. If they are left alone, they don't TW and moral drops and people will move on to factions who have TWs. Younger non-TW factions who can use the coin income can deal with an isolated spot on the map. It helps them in recruiting. I, personally, see nothing wrong with loosing land in one area to be able to get back on the map in an area that gives you more balanced TWs. Rules that say that you MUST defend a land are unreal. In the real world, armies have always used the map to pick their battles where they have a good chance to win. To defend an area of no value or at a cost of resources too high to justify the battle (reward) is unwise and foolish. With the advent of Nation Wars, players have more incentive to do NW as opposed to TW for profit. You can ban me now if you want to inforce the rule; but, I will refuse to require my faction to defend against our top TW factions until we get a lot stronger. (All they'd get are a few volunteers, maybe.) "Wined" TWs have been occurring since I started looking at TW and I don't think anyone has been banned over it. The Must Show rule and "wined" have been here for years. Enforcement ? Ever ?

I would suggest that the object of this game is to have fun playing it. Rules such as those discussed in this thread should be removed. A rule on Fake bidding, officer in one faction only and possibly on a pure Atl faction in TW could remain. But, why punish officers who help keep this game fun? You have a ticket system to use on abuses of fair play. What the continued use of these rules will do is make it very difficult to recruit and keep our good faction officers. That will loose players for PWI in the long run.

(end rant/ off soap box)

b:bye

Crixxix - Raging Tide

Rules that say that you MUST defend a land are unreal. In the real world, armies have always used the map to pick their battles where they have a good chance to win. To defend an area of no value or at a cost of resources too high to justify the battle (reward) is unwise and foolish. With the advent of Nation Wars, players have more incentive to do NW as opposed to TW for profit. You can ban me now if you want to inforce the rule; but, I will refuse to require my faction to defend against our top TW factions until we get a lot stronger. (All they'd get are a few volunteers, maybe.) "Wined" TWs have been occurring since I started looking at TW and I don't think anyone has been banned over it. The Must Show rule and "wined" have been here for years. Enforcement ? Ever ?

I personally agree with this part. You seem to be a very intelligent and strong willed person, and I respect that.

I definitely see issues with this part of the rule, one as it's just like TW Leaders and their alts. It hasn't been enforced, and also the sheer fact is... wtf is PWI going to do if no one is online that day? Tell you that you had better put off everything else in your life to play their game? I think not.

I think this is another case where v4liance's insight would be extremely helpful. I think part of the problem is that some of these rules were created by other GMs, some that I haven't seen in quite some time. Obviously, their not here for a reason.

I personally think each and every rule needs to be re-examined by Val, maybe along with some of the brighter and respected members of our community, and try to devise ways that still prevent abuse, but also allow more freedom.

VKnightV - Lost City

easy fix is one toon per persion per ip unless he or she lives with someone else.

never understood the whole alt faction to begin with.

just be smart and decide what toon you wish to use and play with it for tw.

about everyone having multiple toon they play with why would these even be a issue

i could think these would be waaay easy way to enforce.

1 ip tw....ok

2+ ip tw...... look if they have send a ticket about being many hm nope ok bann.

Brillance - Raging Tide

VKnightV - Lost City wrote: »

easy fix is one toon per persion per ip unless he or she lives with someone else.

never understood the whole alt faction to begin with.

just be smart and decide what toon you wish to use and play with it for tw.

about everyone having multiple toon they play with why would these even be a issue

i could think these would be waaay easy way to enforce.

1 ip tw....ok

2+ ip tw...... look if they have send a ticket about being many hm nope ok bann.

People do have more than 1 member of a household or dorm playing, and there is nothing to stop a computer nerd with more than 1 PC from lying about their living situation to get around a ban -

seems smarter to me to do away with unproductive rules.

You want to limit something and balance TW better? Why not limit the amount of players with over-powered gears that can sit in 1 faction and control the map for years??

*waits for the, "Oh noes! We want to be with our friends!!"*

Adalgiso - Harshlands

v4liance wrote: »

Hey everyone,

I'm sorry for any confusion that's occurred. First off, the rules posted on the forum here are the official rules.

The pertinent section is this:



There are two primary frustrations that I see here, and I'd like to talk about them.

1) This rule is not perceived as fair.
2) The way we are enforcing this rule is not perceived as fair.

Regarding the first concern:

It's true that not every Leader of a TW Faction who has an alt char in another TW Faction is going to be gaming the system. And those specific players are affected negatively by this rule, as it is intended to prevent gaming the TW system with fake bidding, inappropriate Faction collaboration, etc.

I am sorry that those honest players are negatively affected, but this rule is necessary to punish players who are violating the spirit of Territory Wars.

Regarding the second concern:

From what I understand, this rule has often been violated in the past, and many players are now being punished for what they believed was allowed, or at least not enforced. Although that may be the case, this rule does exist, and it can and will be enforced.

It's also true that we rely on our players to inform us when others are violating the rules. Our support team does their best to stay on top of all kinds of violations and player concerns, but specific complaints are the most readily acted upon.

...

Please also know that we do review rules like this on a regular basis, and we rely on your feedback to know how they're received and how effective they are.

- Val

Hey Val,

I would like to ask you how do you review rules like "this" on regular basis, and yet had absolutely no need to update, change or adjust these set of rules in specific for 3 years?

This game has changed a lot, TW included. People used to have 1 or 2 toons that were above level 90, now people have several classes that are above 100 with very good gear or even ultimate gear, refined, sharded. Speaking in that sense, I really see no logic and keeping rule you made 3 years ago up to this date with absolutely no adjustment.

If this thread is any feedback that you rely on, I really hope you read how PWi community thinks of this rule and that might be indication in how effective or not effective it is, and if it should be subjected to changes.

Regards,
Adal

Crixxix - Raging Tide

Brillance - Raging Tide wrote: »

People do have more than 1 member of a household or dorm playing, and there is nothing to stop a computer nerd with more than 1 PC from lying about their living situation to get around a ban -

seems smarter to me to do away with unproductive rules.

You want to limit something and balance TW better? Why not limit the amount of players with over-powered gears that can sit in 1 faction and control the map for years??

*waits for the, "Oh noes! We want to be with our friends!!"*

First off Brilliance, I don't think they can see your MAC address. As far as I'm aware, an IP address can be shared between computers, assuming they are on the same network. Networking isn't my strong point, but I'm pretty sure it can be shared.

Adalgiso - Harshlands wrote: »

Hey Val,

I would like to ask you how do you review rules like "this" on regular basis, and yet had absolutely no need to update, change or adjust these set of rules in specific for 3 years?

This game has changed a lot, TW included. People used to have 1 or 2 toons that were above level 90, now people have several classes that are above 100 with very good gear or even ultimate gear, refined, sharded. Speaking in that sense, I really see no logic and keeping rule you made 3 years ago up to this date with absolutely no adjustment.

If this thread is any feedback that you rely on, I really hope you read how PWi community thinks of this rule and that might be indication in how effective or not effective it is, and if it should be subjected to changes.

Regards,
Adal

I agree with this. The game has evolved a lot since these rules were created, and I think some of the rules have failed to evolve with the game.

metalmana

sorry to talk on old thread but, in the ticket to report that person officer in faction x and member in faction y, what should i say ? and what proof should i add ? ty