Game for some

Rhinosauce Profile Options #51

0
0
Neutral
JamesX on 07/10/2012, 11:48 AM - view
Legitimate? oh please, stop throwing that word around.

What you are saying is "Legal" way. Legitimate has very different meaning than Legal.

A leader that gained the office via underhanded means, even if the means are legal, are not legitimate.

e.g. if a voting system does not make it illegal to fake votes (which kill trading essential is, there is no real combat there is no real GvG) and someone enters office by such means they are not legitimate leaders.


Legitimate in this case means they did not hack the game to take office. They used already coded means, and were creative in using that code to better their chances at winning.

Again I will state, I would not participate in this type of activity; but it is not "wrong". Why didn't they reset everyone's points? Why are they only punishing a select few?

People knew before the Vanarch PvP was ever put in game that it would be utilized in a way to ensure a win for some guilds. It is the developers job to create a system that has the least amount of exploits in the system. Hacks and exploits are one thing, but this is just using already coded game mechanics to ensure a win.

I'm not rooting for Bloodline or Tsunami, I don't even play on that server, but I hate when developers put a half concept into a game and then punish anyone because of their failed concept. The elections are pretty straight forward; popularity wins. But even there a small guild could work very hard to get more votes than a large guild. With the Vanarch PvP provinces, the current gvg system just doesn't work. Again I say implement sieges, that are not on a monthly timer, something similar to Shadowbane. Let us fight over the 6 provinces if we choose to, and let us take from someone when we choose, not on this monthly timer.
Edited by: Rhinosauce 11 months ago
firepixielance Profile Options #52

0
0
Neutral
Rhinosauce on 07/10/2012, 11:41 AM - view
The blame here is on the company not the players. The players used a legitimate avenue to try and win an election. Every guild should be set back to 0, not just a few hand picked guilds.

En Masse you are just creating a scandal like those that popped up in EvE.

My personal views will not allow me to trade kills, but I do support ingenuity in games. This really is piss poor for a change like this to be made half way through the election cycle. While I wouldn't condone these actions for my guild, I can't praise En Masse for what they are doing to handle the problem.

Bottom line is the Vanarch PvP is flawed at it's core. Please fix the root problem, not the symptoms that are sprouting from the root. This is a great time for BH and EM to implement sieges for the PvP aspect of Vanarchy. I'm not talking about the cross server fights, but same server sieges where we go after a castle/keep.


The concept of Vanarchy per EME, was to get people to vote for you even if it meant using "dirty" tactics such as buying votes with ingame gold. This is exactly the same as to how RL politicians can buy votes.

The exploit of this system could be compared to a "Double Agent" in RL. Someone who works for one government agency infiltrates another. While working for this agency he might have to kill someone from his "original" side simply so he can gain their trust.

Note I said, "could be compared to" and not "exactly the same". The mechanic is not the same as its RL counterpart, at all.

Plus, why don't you condone this for your guild?
Edited by: firepixielance 11 months ago
Rhinosauce Profile Options #53

0
0
Neutral
Catatonic on 07/10/2012, 11:51 AM - view
The difference between this game and EVE is that EVE was designed to be ruthless, cut throat, and being a [filtered] is promoted. In TERA it is not.


My EvE reference was because of the Devs in EvE giving their corps an unfair advantage. I would love to know if any of the devs play on VoT, and have now wiped away the competition. It's not fair to do this to a minority of the population. In this case it calls for the total reset of all guilds going for the PvP spots.
ChoppaGurl Profile Options #54

0
0
Neutral
Lol here's a 24 hour cool-down before anyone can join any guild now.

http://tera.enmasse.com/news/patch-notes/patch-173203
Rhinosauce Profile Options #55

0
0
Neutral
firepixielance on 07/10/2012, 12:11 PM - view
Plus, why don't you condone this for your guild?


Great question. I am morally opposed to trade killing. I am able to see though that it is not a hack to the game and thereby not a "wrong" decision to use the trade killing as a way to win the Vanarch PvP position.

First Se7en has chosen to go the electoral route again in their 3rd Vanarch race. If we had gone the PvP route, I would never have encouraged or brought up trade killing.

Personally I want to see a type of combat that sees a clear winnner and a clear loser; like how you lost your city if you couldn't defend it in Shadowbane. I believe that owning a city, and then having to defend that city against sieges is a far better metric for PvP prowess than a gvg under the current system.

With a siege system you couldn't have a month long time line. It would have to be open 24/7. Guild A initially gains the city, and in 3 days Guild B sieges the city, but doesn't win. Three days later Guild B sieges the city a 2nd time, but this time wins. Allow for a 24 hour cool down before the new owners can be sieged, and in 24 hours Guilds A, C or D could siege the city to take control. Yes we could see a seesaw effect, as the city (and therefor the province) changes hands. One of the best upsides to a system like this, is if you don't like the current Vanarch you can put people together to go oust him; not having to wait 20-30 days.

I say just borrow the mechanics from Shadowbane, and you have not only a great political climate via Electoral Vanarchs, but you have a great open world PvP climate via Sieging Vanarchs.
JamesX Profile Options #56

0
0
Neutral
Rhinosauce on 07/10/2012, 12:06 PM - view
Legitimate in this case means they did not hack the game to take office. They used already coded means, and were creative in using that code to better their chances at winning.

I was point out what you are talking about is "Legal".

Legal means it is not against the rules - e.g. no hacking, no botting, etc. all within the framework provided by the rules of the game.

Which is what you are talking about I think.

Legitimacy means it has legitimacy - meaning something has popular support, e.g. his success is affirmed by the community.

A person who gets into office because he exploited a weakness of the rules and sidestepped the expected competition system done it legally. Because the badly done rule did not prevent this.

He would have no legitimacy because the masses reject his means of accomplish this goal.

People keep using legitimacy as if it means legal, which is wrong. A Rebel government can be illegal (because they are illegal in their country's own laws) but be legitimate because the population of that country and/or international community recognize them as the true government.
Edited by: JamesX 11 months ago - Reason: Fixed Quotes
Devour88 Profile Options #57

0
0
Neutral
Devour Lvl.60
Mount Tyrannas (PVP)
Elin Lancer
Angry Br's make me chuckle.

Rhinosauce Profile Options #58

0
0
Neutral
JamesX on 07/10/2012, 04:12 PM - view
Rhinosauce on 07/10/2012, 12:06 PM
Legitimate in this case means they did not hack the game to take office. They used already coded means, and were creative in using that code to better their chances at winning.

I was point out what you are talking about is "Legal".

Legal means it is not against the rules - e.g. no hacking, no botting, etc. all within the framework provided by the rules of the game.

Which is what you are talking about I think.

Legitimacy means it has legitimacy - meaning something has popular support, e.g. his success is affirmed by the community.


A person who gets into office because he exploited a weakness of the rules and sidestepped the expected competition system done it legally. Because the badly done rule did not prevent this.

He would have no legitimacy because the masses reject his means of accomplish this goal.

People keep using legitimacy as if it means legal, which is wrong. A Rebel government can be illegal (because they are illegal in their country's own laws) but be legitimate because the population of that country and/or international community recognize them as the true government.


le·git·i·mate/liˈjitəmit/
Adjective:
Conforming to the law or to rules: "his claims to legitimate authority".
Verb:
Justify or make lawful.
Synonyms:
adjective. lawful - legal - rightful - just - licit - valid
verb. legitimize - legalize - warrant - justify - legitimatize

If a guild is able to get PvP points by farming an alt guild, it is a legitimate way to become a Vanarch.

*Edit*
Well it WAS a legitimate way to achieve a Vanarch position. Now that the rules have been changed, it is no longer a valid way to reach the Vanarchy.

These guilds had conformed to the coded rules of the game. It doesn't matter if the populace liked the practice. There are lots of times I don't like something because I didn't think of it first, and wasn't able to benefit from it myself.

As I've said throughout these posts, I personally wouldn't have done kill trading; but the issue is how En Masse responded and released the PvP for Vanarch not the kill trading.
Edited by: Rhinosauce 11 months ago
dvessel Profile Options #59

0
0
Neutral
You forgot a few there:


legitimate
adjective |liˈjitəmit|
conforming to the law or to rules: his claims to legitimate authority.
• able to be defended with logic or justification: a legitimate excuse for being late.
• (of a child) born of parents lawfully married to each other.
• (of a sovereign) having a title based on strict hereditary right: the last legitimate Anglo-Saxon king.
• constituting or relating to serious drama as distinct from musical comedy, revue, etc.: the legitimate theater.

Note first bullet. Although the term is closely tied to law, legitimacy also means what is right or justifiable. What is right informs what should be law. Well, that’s what we hope.
Edited by: dvessel 11 months ago
Mazrem Profile Options #60

0
0
Neutral
People are still arguing this?

What was the intention of GVG vanarchy campaigns? It was for guilds to earn vanarchy through pvp. It's meant to be a fun competition. Sure, what happened was not against the rules, but it is obvious that it wasn't intended to happen. It was a loophole. People exploited that loophole. That is called exploiting, and anyone who has played an mmo in the last 10 years knows that exploiting IS against the rules. PERIOD.

Don't act so surprised that they reset your points.