TW Bidding Rules "New" Issue

FaceRolI - Sanctuary · April 2013

Visual Summary, Credit to White_Lie

Hi All, in light of the recent enforcement of TW bidding rules that had never been previously enforced . I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of this other rule (thathasnoteverreallybeenenforcedbutmightbesupriseissuedtounsuspectingfactions), this issue concerns a different rule than the previous TW bidding thread so I have made a separate thread.

http://pwi-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=1397581
excerpted below in quotes.
"No faction may lose on purpose or decide the victor through non in game mechanics."

So on many servers some factions may have been unable to bid due to enforcement of a different TW bidding rule that basically translates to "no alt factions on map". That's fine and all (no it is stupid) but again a separate issue from this thread.

However, what about the aftermath? If a main TW faction and an Alt faction are both on the map what should be done? Clearly bidding with the alt faction would be stupid and would result in action being taken by PWI staff (because they are so good at monitoring and enforcing their rules)

What if that alt faction is bidded on? Well, as shown above, if you no show or lose on purpose you are in violation of PWI's TW rules, and should be executed by forced marshmallow ingestion.

This would imply that to avoid being in violation of PWI's rules the DEFENDING ALT FACTION should show up to the TW and do their best to win, can we agree on that?

JUST KIDDING LOLOLOL!!! that is also going to be in violation of undisclosed rules or perhaps it falls under the whole alt faction thing. either way this will also result in execution by forced marshmallow ingestion.

not joking. hide yo kids hide yo wife! though it wont do anything as you are absolutely screwed if people love you enough to send in tickets.

cant believe i got through this without writing a word that rhymes with man.

The__Sun - Dreamweaver · April 2013

Well you are not allowed to have TW alt factions in the first place as I believe you are aware of because of you stating "Clearly bidding with the alt faction would be stupid and would result in action being taken by PWI staff (because they are so good at monitoring and enforcing their rules)"

Although the quote you should be looking at as to why there can't be TW alt factions is "Players in any kind of leadership capacity (Leader, Director, Marshall, or Executor) of a faction that participates in Territory Wars cannot have alternate factions that participate in Territory Wars on the same server."

As for defending it is a little bit different than attacking. If you are attacking someone that is when you HAVE to have the intention to win, but for defending lets say you get attacked by 2 factions and you know you can't defend both and you no show one of them then you will not be banned for it.

Those rules they posted are so vague they can interpret them at their own pleasure it seems, but the answer I gave you is what I received from making a ticket

FaceRolI - Sanctuary · April 2013

The__Sun - Dreamweaver wrote: »

Well you are not allowed to have TW alt factions in the first place as I believe you are aware of because of you stating "Clearly bidding with the alt faction would be stupid and would result in action being taken by PWI staff (because they are so good at monitoring and enforcing their rules)"

yes aware of that, but the milks already spilt do we A) strip down and rub our bodies on it to generate enough heat to have it all evaporate or

let it sit and hope it spontaneously turns into a delicious but highly poisonous cake that can be fed to the ancestors of people who are already deceased?

p.s. ty for reply this is obviously just ridiculous LF GM response or at least trying to have ppl on the "other side" aware of what they are doing (im such an idealist)

PotatoHeadQR - Dreamweaver · April 2013

FaceRolI - Sanctuary wrote: »

This would imply that to avoid being in violation of PWI's rules the DEFENDING ALT FACTION should show up to the TW and do their best to win, can we agree on that?

no we can't.

doing their best to win doesn't not require for the faction to actually show up; you might have a case if the faction members are casually scrolling in the plume forest during TW but if they are busy with something else you cant really say that they didn't do their best. Otherwise, you might as well enforce it on factions with 79/80 attendance due to an ill member etc.

In any case, those are merely guidelines and no law; and ofc, they may ban (or not) as they please

The__Sun - Dreamweaver · April 2013

Haha yeah I know where you are coming from I ran into errr "issues" with their randomly updated half-*** enforced forum rules that were not in the TOS when I agreed to the terms.

FaceRolI - Sanctuary · April 2013

PotatoHeadQR - Dreamweaver wrote: »

no we can't.

doing their best to win doesn't not require for the faction to actually show up; you might have a case if the faction members are casually scrolling in the plume forest during TW but if they are busy with something else you cant really say that they didn't do their best. Otherwise, you might as well enforce it on factions with 79/80 attendance due to an ill member etc.

In any case, those are merely guidelines and no law; and ofc, they may ban (or not) as they please

I totally agree, but your making logical sense you better stop that. clearly logic does not apply (i mean technically they can just do whatever as it is their game/rights to it as stated in their TOS)

but we took a wrong turn somehwere

This isnt sparta?!

This
Is
Bullflowers!!

The funnier part is that someone somewhere at sometime in some undisclosed dimension may or may not have received a possibly official response that the correct solution to this situation is TO LOSE ON PURPOSE

Boartracker - Raging Tide · April 2013

I see a wee bit of issue with the rule "a Faction must choose to defend at least one Territory." That looks like any wined TW when you only have one TW that week would be a ban.

Also confused at this time is " Any willing and capable faction can bid on any opposing territory provided they have no affiliations with the current owners." What is an "affiliation?" Could that be an old friend ? How about some one I know who knows this guy who knows a gal who's on the other Leader's friend list ?

Or, "Practice or Training Wars are not allowed by the branch faction if the Territory is owned by an affiliated faction. " This seems to imply that Training TWs ARE legal if it's not with your Alt faction ? Are training TWs legal ? If so, then any "weaker" faction should be able to attack any "stronger" faction, excluding ganks... Unless they co-ordinate that which violates the predetermined outcome rule ?

How about "Alliances are allowed in Territory Wars provided they are not bidding on each other others Territories." So, is this the 3 mill per faction PWI Alliance, a SHIVTR web alliance or what ?

If thery're going to start enforcing rules they haven't over the past few rules, then they need to explain them a bit more to allow us to be within the rule and spirit of the rule. It's not for "wiggle room" in the rules, it's for self defense. b:shutup b:surrender

b:bye

DoodsWH - Sanctuary · April 2013

Boartracker - Raging Tide wrote: »

I see a wee bit of issue with the rule "a Faction must choose to defend at least one Territory." That looks like any wined TW when you only have one TW that week would be a ban.

Also confused at this time is " Any willing and capable faction can bid on any opposing territory provided they have no affiliations with the current owners." What is an "affiliation?" Could that be an old friend ? How about some one I know who knows this guy who knows a gal who's on the other Leader's friend list ?

Or, "Practice or Training Wars are not allowed by the branch faction if the Territory is owned by an affiliated faction. " This seems to imply that Training TWs ARE legal if it's not with your Alt faction ? Are training TWs legal ? If so, then any "weaker" faction should be able to attack any "stronger" faction, excluding ganks... Unless they co-ordinate that which violates the predetermined outcome rule ?

How about "Alliances are allowed in Territory Wars provided they are not bidding on each other others Territories." So, is this the 3 mill per faction PWI Alliance, a SHIVTR web alliance or what ?

If thery're going to start enforcing rules they haven't over the past few rules, then they need to explain them a bit more to allow us to be within the rule and spirit of the rule. It's not for "wiggle room" in the rules, it's for self defense. b:shutup b:surrender

b:bye

Bro Bro your totally awesome and educated response is only going to have the gms/mods depth it due to lack of understanding . break it down so pwi staff can understand.

ovenusarmanio · April 2013

DoodsWH - Sanctuary wrote: »

Bro Bro your totally awesome and educated response is only going to have the gms/mods depth it due to lack of understanding . break it down so pwi staff can understand.

I am not a member of the pwi staff. Mods=/=gms. Please stay on topic.

@Faceroli

I'll poke a gm and see if they can clarify.

v4liance · April 2013

Hey guys,

I'm sorry if there's been any confusion so far, but just to clarify - the rule against having Alt Factions participating in TW actually takes precedence over the "must show up" rule.

FaceRolI, let's continue this conversation in private messages.

Thanks!

- Val

Toomaga - Heavens Tear · April 2013

Wait I am confused, there is a rule that you cannot have ALT TW guilds? If that's the case why do I see it still happening on HT?

v4liance · April 2013

This is a rule that Factions often have evaded, but does still get enforced when other players ticket in.

If you see alt Factions participating in TW, please submit a ticket with the details.

- Val

Reliea - Sanctuary · April 2013

Toomaga - Heavens Tear wrote: »

Wait I am confused, there is a rule that you cannot have ALT TW guilds? If that's the case why do I see it still happening on HT?

I guess they're lucky that the Factions in HT are less spiteful than average b:chuckle
Gee, the things we can get away with when we get to police ourselves b:victory

SkogDyr - Lost City · April 2013

v4liance wrote: »

Hey guys,

I'm sorry if there's been any confusion so far, but just to clarify - the rule against having Alt Factions participating in TW actually takes precedence over the "must show up" rule.

FaceRolI, let's continue this conversation in private messages.

Thanks!

- Val

Hey You, that is/has been the problem with PWE staff for ages. How about continuing the conversation in an open and public manner. Too many rules are overlooked or come and go with each passing CM. Asking your players to continue an important question in private only adds to the perception of secret PWE clicks and favoratism.

Sorry to call that out but... b:victory

FaceRolI - Sanctuary · May 2013

Update:
The informal but still official (and New) stance of PWE (in an alternate dimension) seems to be as follows:
The "no participating in TW with alt Factions" rule takes precedence over the you-must-defend land rule.

Therefore, those of you who have defended on alt factions should prepare to be executed by forced marshmallow ingestion. b:cute

Additionally it seems to be PWE's informal but also still official stance that we as players "should" have known this.

At first this sounds absurd, but if we step back and think about it, we as players have access to PWE staff via the wonderfully bejujular PWE ticketing service. We COULD have just asked PWE staff what we should do to avoid being stuffed full of marshmallows in this damned if you do/dont situatioin.

Oh wait!! Someone somewhere may or may not have had the foresight to predict that exactly this situation would arise, and therefore this figmentatious someone may have already asked PWE staff what to do. (they may have even specifically brought up the topic of defending on alt factions :O good job figmentatious someone!)

PWE staff being the well organized and uncryptic individuals that they are would have surely and clearly stated something along the lines of "if you defend on the alt faction you will be forced to ingest marshmallows" or at the very least "you must lose that land when it is attacked." MARSHMALLLLOOOOWWWW!!

But due to the infinite number of parallel universi, in at least one (or an infinite number of them) PWE staff may have responded with "you cannot bid with your alt faction." After which players may have been forced to ingest marshmallows until death (or until they became hippopotimi o.o) for defending a TW on the alt faction. After which PWE staff may have responded with "we already told you earlier to intentially lose the land" which is an outright lie as they never did until right then (barring the invention of silver De Loreans), DESPITE the fact that PWE staff was DIRECTLY ASKED what to do to prevent this EXACT situation.

Gosh thats all really confusing and I'm glad we are in this dimension, and nothing like that ever happened, ever.

TY b:thanks

Deceptistar - Sanctuary · May 2013

FaceRolI - Sanctuary wrote: »

But due to the infinite number of parallel universi, in at least one (or an infinite number of them) PWE staff may have responded with "you cannot bid with your alt faction." After which players may have been forced to ingest marshmallows until death (or until they became hippopotimi o.o) for defending a TW on the alt faction. After which PWE staff may have responded with "we already told you earlier to intentially lose the land" which is an outright lie as they never did until right then (barring the invention of silver De Loreans), DESPITE the fact that PWE staff was DIRECTLY ASKED what to do to prevent this EXACT situation.

seriously makes me wonder what sort of adults are behind that monitor we are talking to. Its like a twisted scenario you only see in the movies.

Decus - Dreamweaver · May 2013

I am confused as to what is unclear. If I recall correctly, the rule states that you cannot be an officer in one land-owning faction and a member of a second land-owning faction. It does not say you cannot participate in TW with two factions. Am I misinterpreting something? I feel like it's pretty simple to understand.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Eoria - Harshlands · May 2013

v4liance wrote: »

This is a rule that Factions often have evaded, but does still get enforced when other players ticket in.

If you see alt Factions participating in TW, please submit a ticket with the details.

- Val

Well, everyone on HL is about to get banned.

Deceptistar - Sanctuary · May 2013

Decus - Dreamweaver wrote: »

I am confused as to what is unclear. If I recall correctly, the rule states that you cannot be an officer in one land-owning faction and a member of a second land-owning faction. It does not say you cannot participate in TW with two factions. Am I misinterpreting something? I feel like it's pretty simple to understand.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

mm yeah your missing one thing. The officer stuff is understandable. Thing is, on every server there are factions that have alt factions on the map along side their main faction. Those alt factions are not suppose to be there (after all these years right?) But they are already on the map. So you assume that they cant attack and increase their land. The prob was the GMs didnt say that you were suppose to LOSE the land. So they got banned for successfully defending the land that was already there to begin with BEFORE the tickets started to pour in. And this is basically a rule that hasnt been forced upon from 2008-now.

The ironly of it all is that while the mediocre factions had continued this main and alt dual ownership of lands in the past, it became an issue when the strongest faction on the server decided to do so on a whim. Basically its become a harassment issue that the strong faction has to deal with because the petty ones need some leverage in some way or the other. The GMs arent in a position to know, or realize, that because the faction is strongest on the server, its being cyber bullied by mass ticketing for things that everyone else has done or is doing and was thought of as 'ok'

SinFulGodX - Sanctuary · May 2013

Deceptistar - Sanctuary wrote: »

mm yeah your missing one thing. The officer stuff is understandable. Thing is, on every server there are factions that have alt factions on the map along side their main faction. Those alt factions are not suppose to be there (after all these years right?) But they are already on the map. So you assume that they cant attack and increase their land. The prob was the GMs didnt say that you were suppose to LOSE the land. So they got banned for successfully defending the land that was already there to begin with BEFORE the tickets started to pour in. And this is basically a rule that hasnt been forced upon from 2008-now.

The ironly of it all is that while the mediocre factions had continued this main and alt dual ownership of lands in the past, it became an issue when the strongest faction on the server decided to do so on a whim. Basically its become a harassment issue that the strong faction has to deal with because the petty ones need some leverage in some way or the other. The GMs arent in a position to know, or realize, that because the faction is strongest on the server, its being cyber bullied by mass ticketing for things that everyone else has done or is doing and was thought of as 'ok'

its ok star, just mass ticket -removed until they get retroactive bans for previous seasons holding on -removed-

Tide_Surfer - Archosaur · May 2013

I just find it unfair as the whole reason I make alts now is to TW and NW on them, I don't just want to NW as I want to use them in organised PvP aswell, I personally am an executor in Dream (a TW faction) on Archosaur Server and there are several Commissioners in my faction in which have a higher leadership role/trust role than I do. You can't judge someone's trust by a position (Apart from Marshal/Director/Leader) they are given, a lot of the long time members in my faction are trusted/have more influence in the faction than I do, they're Commissioners yet are treated like Marshals (I'm not qq'ing, just making an analogy).
All in all, a position doesn't mean **** in 90% of scenarios.

Reliea - Sanctuary · May 2013

Hey, if one group gets banned for certain behaviors, EVERYONE who behaves that way should get banned. Since PWE isn't responsible enough to have an occasional GM come in to monitor activities on the servers and take non-biased action against TOS abusers, we have to do it ourselves.

I don't recall these supposed master grief-ticketers reporting last season's majority alt faction tw land holder for their long term abuse of the TOS. Perhaps they should have, so none of this would have happened and everyone would know sooner what -not- to do. It should have been obvious that having alt factions on the TW map was a bad idea to begin with. I am glad this lesson is learned so this will never have to be an issue again.

The only thing unfair about this ruling is how officers of tw factions can't be in 2 factions that tw, and even worse that this rule shows no hope of changing.

ovenusarmanio · May 2013

Guys, please stop discussing specific factions and bans. This isn't the place for that. This is a discussion about the rule, not who ticketed who. Thanks.

Deceptistar - Sanctuary · May 2013

oVenusArmanio wrote: »

Guys, please stop discussing specific factions and bans. This isn't the place for that. This is a discussion about the rule, not who ticketed who. Thanks.

but but but cant talk about a rule without giving some examples as to how or not its fair or unfair based on specific circumstances

ovenusarmanio · May 2013

Deceptistar - Sanctuary wrote: »

but but but cant talk about a rule without giving some examples as to how or not its fair or unfair based on specific circumstances

Sure you can give examples (that doesn't name names), but there is difference between having a flame war about who ticketed who, and discussing whether or not the rule is fair. I ask that you please get back on track to the topic at hand. If you have any further questions, please send me a pm.

Deceptistar - Sanctuary · May 2013

oVenusArmanio wrote: »

Sure you can give examples (that doesn't name names), but there is difference between having a flame war about who ticketed who, and discussing whether or not the rule is fair. I ask that you please get back on track to the topic at hand. If you have any further questions, please send me a pm.

*bites* >:E

ok someone put it on track...

Rfskkirby - Sanctuary · May 2013

So basically PWE doesn't do anything until there is a ticket or a mass QQ. Groups of people are allowed to control the server as long as they continue to ticket. You can break all the rules you want until someone decides to ticket you with proof.

Decus - Dreamweaver · May 2013

Deceptistar - Sanctuary wrote: »

Those alt factions are not suppose to be there (after all these years right?) But they are already on the map. So you assume that they cant attack and increase their land.

Maybe I am just not comprehending this well, but I don't get the problem. Is the officership of the main faction independent, in terms of accounts, from the alt faction? If so, then you are perfectly capable of being on the map and defending two territories.

Deceptistar - Sanctuary · May 2013

Decus - Dreamweaver wrote: »

Maybe I am just not comprehending this well, but I don't get the problem. Is the officership of the main faction independent, in terms of accounts, from the alt faction? If so, then you are perfectly capable of being on the map and defending two territories.

initially this is what was assumed. With that logic, the normal members should have free reign on their actions, which is defend or lose the land. In this case, it was defended. And then pple got banned again for a defending win >.>

Decus - Dreamweaver · May 2013

Deceptistar - Sanctuary wrote: »

initially this is what was assumed. With that logic, the normal members should have free reign on their actions, which is defend or lose the land. In this case, it was defended. And then pple got banned again for a defending win >.>

And the reasoning given was that you are not allowed to defend? What do you mean "normal" members? Was the officership not independent, then?

Deceptistar - Sanctuary · May 2013

Decus - Dreamweaver wrote: »

And the reasoning given was that you are not allowed to defend? What do you mean "normal" members? Was the officership not independent, then?

normal members as in commissioners.
Altho i kinda see what your saying, basically if any officership completely detached from the 'main' faction (as in people put into officership that have no relation to the parent faction) govern the alt faction, then thats a usable loophole for commissioners to act on as long as there is no cross section of officers in any way shape or form between the factions in question. is that what your saying?

TW Bidding Rules "New" Issue

Comments

Categories

TW Bidding Rules *"New" Issue*

Comments

Categories

TW Bidding Rules "New" Issue