Official Territory War Bidding Rules

Unsitcked because they wanted room to remind us of the facebook competitions.

Bump, because I still am not seeing this GM response.

Come on GMs.

A simple apology for the damn near atrocious generalisation made by one of your team at least if nothing more. You can't practically insult your player base like that when they tell you to clarify your rules that you didn't word properly and then not apologise.

Well you can.

But it makes you look absolutely terrible and undermines all the work you have to do that isn't your fault. The devs didn't tell Kanto to make that bad, ridiculous, stupid generalised statement. For once, the devs are not at fault.

Spitball - Dreamweaver wrote: »

I really hope they follow these rules this week and ban the faction involed with a cordnated triple gank on our sever. It is very clear that they are doing this and we have screen shots to prove it. Even to the point that they changed leadership so that if they get banned ther real leader is not banned for TW.

They didn't take any action last week when we had as much if not more proof, why would they bother doing their jobs this week?

NightRage - Raging Tide wrote: »

I've always been with the "top dog" across all the servers I've played on, and even as much as I hate how it can be done, I don't see it being bannable. I mean, I don't put it past GMs to blindly ban someone for a dumb reason, as I have been a victim to it many times, but I don't think it should be bannable.

Don't worry Spit. The Calamity I know should be able to defend on a 3-way.

I don't disagree with you Light - but they clearly stated that it's illegal for one guild to actively lead two other guilds into TW for the purpose of ganking, iirc.

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

When 3 guilds are actively gathering to time their bids and intentionally overbidding other guilds to make sure their attacks are at the same time . . . ?

In the end I agree tho - we should be able to take on EQ AND their minions if we want to claim to be the best.

if it me or this F2P is expensive than any other P2P =S

FatherTed - Dreamweaver wrote: »

It's not THAT expensive, unless you want the GMs to ban someone for you - then it only costs 75k to get them to do what you want.

I think 20-25k is enough for temp bans

but yeah 75k gm's probly around your little finger.

Anyone else find it funny people r getting bent outta shape from rules that have been around since PWI started? Pretty much what this thread was was a hey these r the rules so when u break them and we ban u shut up. Fair not fair idk but these r the same rules that have been for 2 years

Idk about that on HT i can think of 5 maybe 6 factions that send more then 40 people. Any less then that and they shouldnt be bidding.

Eoria - Harshlands wrote: »

Zzz... I still want an answer to whether or not they'll make antidotes available at regular apothecaries so we don't have to risk getting banned just to buy them.

Valid quote gives reason for bummppp.

Traz - Dreamweaver wrote: »

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9788/backtobacktoback.jpg

that wasn't planned by all 3 leaders they just so HAPPENED to all be on and bid within seconds of each other. That's a pretty damn good coincidence.

Is that how it slots time-slots now?

Alphae - Lost City wrote: »

How did my name get in that quote o_O

just noticed that i have no idea o.o

Just sad, they preach to us about these rules and try to be hard ***, and I bet no one will get suspended again.

Basically F2P --> P2F after all?

Bumping this, because we still haven't heard back from any GM since the outrageous insult by Kanto.

This has to be answered for. If members will be banned for slander, why does the slander of a GM go unanswered?

Remember, it doesn't have to be answered for. They're mods and can insult us and act superior all they want.

Oooops, I said mod :C