What is fake bidding?

It's a subjective judgement call made by the GMs to try to work around flaws in the game's design that allows meta-gaming to trump strategy.

I don't envy the PWI GMs, because they can't get at the code in order to fix the TW bidding system, yet it's broken. And I really do like the rest of the game.

lamerboi2003 wrote: »

I like how the rules are all improvisation...nothing listed in the rulebook that relates to "fake bids". I even had a thought telling myself, what if someone from another faction harassed us and put down one of Enrage member's name as their new faction name? Ouch.

Wow that would hurt!

I dont get it...
What's wrong with 'fake bids'?
Isnt that just strategy? It's like divide and conquer...kinda...I think...
I think it's a good money sink. Less coins, less inflation that way.

Also, when 2 faction leaders work in collusion to protect one another's territories
from bids of factions with real intention of attacking.

Bid blocking, the colluding faction can trump any bid knowing their partner in crime
will just repay them the refund so they can bid abnormally high amounts.

Chappy_Happy - Heavens Tear wrote: »

I dont get it...
What's wrong with 'fake bids'?
Isnt that just strategy? It's like divide and conquer...kinda...I think...
I think it's a good money sink. Less coins, less inflation that way.

Strategy is what you use when you fight in a TW to win. Problem is that from any single land, there is 10 million or more income, which means the owning faction can place a bid of up to 9 million and still have profit while preventing anyone from bidding. Seeing as it is doubtful anyone will bid that much on something they might not win, they can keep their lands with no danger.

These fake bids were a big problem on My-En, but we actually have decent GM's here who are willing to make the TW system fair.

Why all this hate towards Enrage?

I also feel that GM has biased hate against larger faction. I really think they are not professional. GM in most games do not have individual name. They have GM0001 or GM0002. That is more professional imho. b:surrender

devil85 wrote: »

I also feel that GM has biased hate against larger faction. I really think they are not professional. GM in most games do not have individual name. They have GM0001 or GM0002. That is more professional imho. b:surrender

Probably free games right? =/

Tieresius - Lost City wrote: »

I don't compete in TW but as far as I see it, Fake Bidding is just another tactic to hold your territory.
I don't understand how it's cheating. Granted it makes it difficult for the lower ranked guilds to climb the latter, it still seems fair to me.

Truuee..... in a way. Maybe EBAY might give you an easier reference. If the seller makes several other accounts to jack up the bid price on the item you are currently bidding, its not illegal (probably) but it sure isnt right. Complaints will probably be made if it continues and actions will most likely be taken by the company side if enough complaints and proof are put in.

I consider fake bidding to be any bid made soley to block another faction from bidding on that land when the faction blocking the bid has no intention to fight.

So if I own a faction like hmmm... lets name it Concept, and I just so happen to like the large faction that we'll name LastStand. So, some faction goes to attack this LS and I don't want them to lose. I make sure to outbid that faction so that LS doesn't get attacked and then no show to the TW cuz i really don't wanna take their land.

So yeah, any bid blocking with no intention of actually doing the TW is a fake bid in my book.

Mothergoose - Sanctuary wrote: »

They should just reset the entire map every 2 month or so. This keeps competition going, things interesting, and impact of fake bidding minimal. If all of game's content, including TW, and pve TW, is open to everyone, instead of just a select few individuals among countless thousands, it'll help the community grow.

Resets are bad. However, I think if they changed so TWs are 24/7 and you get 15 minutes notice would be enough to make the map change alot on a regular basis.

That would mean if you want to control most of the map, you have to be able to defend them as well, on a regular basis, not just weekends for a couple of hours.

lamerboi2003 wrote: »

What is fair? Curious

I suppose fair was a poor choice of words on my part. However, as far as the context I meant it in, fair would be allowing any guild to bid on a territory so long as the bidding guild is not run by an alternate character or account of a person within the defending guild. The bidding guild must also not have received funds to place this bid by the defending guild, nor may there be any agreement between two guilds on the map on defending each other's territories by bidding on each with no intention of taking it. I'm sure I probably left out something, but I am sure you understand what I meant in context.

Tearvalerin - Sanctuary wrote: »

there isnt really any "fair" anymore. now that there is established factions as the dominant ones, there really isnt TW for anyone except those who join these factions. such as the map on sanct, its 2 colors, 22 -18. these 2 factions have all the highest players on the server, even tryin mass rambo attacks on these guys, failure still is the number one result.

i think there should be a little bit of a new system for TW like periodical resets, instead of giving these factions free diamond studded, gold/platinum plated toilets to go potty in; in which they can wipe their butts with hundred dollar bills and not care.

what the F would you do with 240,000,000 coins every week, huh?

There is already a thread in suggestions forums with a poll attached for this. I myself have already suggested an annual reset of the map so every guild that starts after the reset has a chance to take the entire map, after which there will be another reset soon.

Others have also suggested a limit on territories, which I do not agree with unless there is a further expansion of the map to which as many as 16 guilds could hold land with a limit of 5 territories per guild. I know that this is wishful thinking, but I agree that no guild which owns every piece of land needs 520 million/week.

Is it fair to ask that a guild which has existed since the beginning of the server be punished by having to let other guilds have lands? Of course not, I would never agree to that and I'm certain you and many other would not. However, a reset offers a chance for every guild, regardless of how new they are, to get some land at some point in time.

By the way Deceptistar, loved that comparison to EBay. 1UP for you.

Tieresius - Lost City wrote: »

I don't compete in TW but as far as I see it, Fake Bidding is just another tactic to hold your territory.
I don't understand how it's cheating. Granted it makes it difficult for the lower ranked guilds to climb the latter, it still seems fair to me.

The rules as they currently stand reward those who have no intention of fighting.

It' not that they aren't fair, since anybody can use the same tactic, it's that they go directly against the spirit of what TW is supposed to be about. ie. You're supposed to be fighting over territories with victory or defeat being determined on the battlefield.

TW 80-on-80 battles are promoted as one of the big features of Perfect World, yet in reality the TW system is more about manipulating the bidding system so that actual TW does not take place. It's "fair", but it's not what the designers intended, nor what most players actually want to play.

Deceptistar - Sanctuary wrote: »

Truuee..... in a way. Maybe EBAY might give you an easier reference. If the seller makes several other accounts to jack up the bid price on the item you are currently bidding, its not illegal (probably) but it sure isnt right. Complaints will probably be made if it continues and actions will most likely be taken by the company side if enough complaints and proof are put in.

Remember when gas prices were super-high last year? There's speculation that what you describe above is what some oil producers were doing. The bids on oil contracts were anonymous, and speculation is that some sellers were actually bidding on their own contracts to help drive up the price. If they won the contract, no big deal since they already possessed the oil. They just re-listed it on the market. If they didn't win, they successfully drove up the price.

Oil prices came crashing down within weeks of the U.S. passing a law making these sorts of anonymous bids illegal. There's still no concrete proof that this was what was going on. But the timing of it all is incredibly suspicious.

IceJazmin - Heavens Tear wrote: »

Resets are bad. However, I think if they changed so TWs are 24/7 and you get 15 minutes notice would be enough to make the map change alot on a regular basis.

Resets are the way professional sports handles the problem. After a certain amount of time on top (usually with a playoff to determine the "best" team for that cycle), the winners get a trophy and commemorative ring, and their names engraved in the recordbooks. Then everything is reset and everyone starts over with the same standing.

WarrenWolfy - Sanctuary wrote: »

TW 80-on-80 battles are promoted as one of the big features of Perfect World, yet in reality the TW system is more about manipulating the bidding system so that actual TW does not take place. It's "fair", but it's not what the designers intended, nor what most players actually want to play.

I'm curious why TW has to be limited to just two factions. If a half dozen factions want to team up to attack a territory, why can't they? This is probably getting into the design of TW, but IMHO the defender should get bonuses which make it easier to defend. Strategically, the military rule of thumb is that the attacker needs to outnumber the defender 3:1 to have even odds of winning. But the tradeoff for that should be that they can be attacked by multiple factions. Allow the top 3 (or 4, or 5, or 6) bidders to enter the TW against the defenders.

To prevent infighting, set up a two-tiered goal system. First the defenders have to be defeated. Then (if successful), a short break before the winners have to fight each other to determine who gets the territory. I think a system where the territories change hands every week would be much more interesting than the static, slow changes we have right now. And like I said above, the defenders would still be given an advantage for defending.