[TERA PC & Console] En Masse is closing, but TERA lives on! We will continue to support TERA PC (NA) and TERA Console until service is transferred. Stay tuned for more information.
[TERA Console] The Grotto of Lost Souls update (v85) is now live! Read the patch notes here: https://bit.ly/TERACon_v85

[TERA PC] The 64-bit update (v97) is now live. Check out all the changes delivered on August 11 here: https://bit.ly/tera64_patchnotes
[TERA PC & CONSOLE] Summerfest Part 2: The Beach Bash is on from August 11 until September 1! Participate in event activities to earn tokens redeemable for costumes, consumables, mounts, and more! Details: https://bit.ly/tera_sf20

Civil Unrest Abuse

13

Comments

  • Competitive guilds do what they can to win, but in using others as meat shields they lose legitimacy to claim they're elite or earned a win.
    you dont lose legitimacy by working together with allies. youre the only one trying to draw connections between manifest being #1 and monopolizing CU. we've never declined a challenge for equal numbers.
    It has nothing to with seeking to fight at a disadvantage and more to do with not going out of your way to break PvP simply because others do the same.
    youre trying to revive the "breaking pvp" excuse. we've already gone over how alliances arent the reason PvP is dead.
  • hellno wrote: »
    you dont lose legitimacy by working together with allies. youre the only one trying to draw connections between manifest being #1 and monopolizing CU. we've never declined a challenge for equal numbers.

    I have actually never seen Manifest accept an equal number fight. Everytime I have tried doing that with Manifest they say yes we can do a 20v20. They lose a few people into the fight and then summon a whole extra raid to wipe us.
    the next time this happens, have someone record it and post it online. I can assure you that any equalized fight coordinated by a leader/officer will always be fair.
    hellno wrote: »
    As for CVU they are putting in the work to get the number and alliances to constantly win so nothing anyone can actually do or say about it.
    you can challenge us as did the guilds during the first 3 weeks of CU. nothing has changed except their ambition to try.
    hellno wrote: »
    Alliance had the buff losing teams got so even with less numbers you could stay competitive. They should probably add something like that to CVU
    this would be an awesome change
  • Alliance buff types? Bad idea. Look at asscoms.

    Manifest are like the CB were on TR. At the end of it all. You should all scrap your allies and just kick each others faces in.

    CU / GvG even BGs. Play to win by all means. But be prepared to lose.
  • SchwerpunktSchwerpunkt ✭✭
    edited December 2016
    jrtseven wrote: »
    you can challenge us as did the guilds during the first 3 weeks of CU. nothing has changed except their ambition to try.
    In other words, you're content with killing PvP in this game by making it far more difficult for anyone to challenge you than you need to.

    You don't want PvP. You don't want fights. You stack the odds entirely on your favor, then you complain that no one wants to bother anymore.

    That's how you lose your legitimacy.
  • jrtseven wrote: »
    you can challenge us as did the guilds during the first 3 weeks of CU. nothing has changed except their ambition to try.
    In other words, you're content with killing PvP in this game by making it far more difficult for anyone to challenge you than you need to.

    You don't want PvP. You don't want fights. You stack the odds entirely on your favor, then you complain that no one wants to bother anymore.

    That's how you lose your legitimacy.


    How are they stacking the odds beyond closing guild recruitment?

    Why is nobody even trying at all to take them on? Oh right salt and lack of a backbone /skill.

  • jrtseven wrote: »
    you can challenge us as did the guilds during the first 3 weeks of CU. nothing has changed except their ambition to try.
    killing PvP
    >third time trying to use the excuse "killing PvP"
    It's not difficult to challenge us in any way, as proven by the first three weeks of CU.
    You don't want PvP. You don't want fights.
    That's how you lose your legitimacy.
    incorrect again
  • If you want to stop the abuse of CU:V it's easy take out the BAMS. CU:V is suppose to be pvp so why is it the only spot that gives ambush boxes. If you want straight up pvp then take out the BAMS then all that will be left will be the people who actually want to pvp not those who want to try and snipe or kill a BAM for drops. Now with that being said I have been to several of these now and see many flaws with CU:V for one I understand the map concept but putting obstacles so only one way in is kinda silly it boils down to who can get the best defensible position and if you're unlucky to get that spot the remaining spots are just bad. I also think that if people don't sign up or have at least a party of raid size in the zone at the start shouldn't be allowed a tower that would cut out the whole strongest guild/alliances can block with multiple alt towers just to prolong CU:V to farm all three BAMS. also if your party falls below the minimum requirements your tower is destroyed. That would keep people from forming a starter raid only to flip to a main raid just so enough towers are there to start it or continue it. also I have seen this now a few weeks in a row now and I find it to be a little cheap people are bringing in alt healers and placing them in certain areas just to log them out and on whenever they need a teleport I'd say to fix this if you are not logged in or lose connection that within 5 mins after a d/c,offline that the person is removed from the zone. but in ending this I still say if it's all about pvp WHY IS THERE BAMS and PVE? They could easily rectify a lot of the anger and frustration by simply removing the BAMS that would stop all the bickering but then if they did it only a few would actually participate since pvp for the most part is dead.
  • Annavind wrote: »
    If you want to stop the abuse of CU:V it's easy take out the BAMS. CU:V is suppose to be pvp so why is it the only spot that gives ambush boxes. If you want straight up pvp then take out the BAMS then all that will be left will be the people who actually want to pvp not those who want to try and snipe or kill a BAM for drops. Now with that being said I have been to several of these now and see many flaws with CU:V for one I understand the map concept but putting obstacles so only one way in is kinda silly it boils down to who can get the best defensible position and if you're unlucky to get that spot the remaining spots are just bad. I also think that if people don't sign up or have at least a party of raid size in the zone at the start shouldn't be allowed a tower that would cut out the whole strongest guild/alliances can block with multiple alt towers just to prolong CU:V to farm all three BAMS. also if your party falls below the minimum requirements your tower is destroyed. That would keep people from forming a starter raid only to flip to a main raid just so enough towers are there to start it or continue it. also I have seen this now a few weeks in a row now and I find it to be a little cheap people are bringing in alt healers and placing them in certain areas just to log them out and on whenever they need a teleport I'd say to fix this if you are not logged in or lose connection that within 5 mins after a d/c,offline that the person is removed from the zone. but in ending this I still say if it's all about pvp WHY IS THERE BAMS and PVE? They could easily rectify a lot of the anger and frustration by simply removing the BAMS that would stop all the bickering but then if they did it only a few would actually participate since pvp for the most part is dead.

    This combined with significantly increased rewards for first through third. It would be cool if the BAMs were on a respawn timer similar to alliance bams throughout the week, excluding CU times.
  • This is something they could also do if they want to keep the BAMS and the pvp fight make it so that the BAM will only spawn after a certain amount of kills have been reached if that number isn't hit then no spawn would make it more to the whole pvp affair rather than sit and wait 30 mins till BAM spawns go kill it rinse repeat every 30 mins. I just hope they do something with CU:V that would generate more pvp cause the current state of pvp is lacking and a lot of it is because of equalizing gear. I will continue to go to these and solo kill as many as possible because I like to pvp somewhat and seeing if I can kill some of the tougher players.
  • "Remove CU BAMs"

    I'm sorry, but is the goal here to revive CU or kill it? BAMs are the only reason a bunch of people show up for the CU on FF, which apparently is one of the only ones that actually functions close to the way it was intended. Take them out and you're just going to get dead CU on every server. If you want PVP in CU, you provide more rewards/incentives, not less. I honestly have no idea what makes you think removing reasons to show up will bring more PVP or improve CU in any way.

    Just read this Manifest dude's posts to get an idea of how that would help the overall situation on MT. The Manifest alliance crap has jack [filtered] to do with the BAMs. The dead CU situation on MT started before Ambush came out, it's just that when it was only Imp Boxes dropping, Manifest ended CU instantly, the only difference now is that they'll wait an hour and a half for some free money too. And from what I've seen, other PVP guilds don't even bother showing up to contest CU as it is on MT, what makes you think getting rid of BAMs will make those people start coming more?

    If anything I think there should be more BAMs in CU. Spawn a constant stream of smaller ones that just give the gems and stuff in quantities that aren't as high, but enough to bring people in, this could give smaller guilds/groups an opportunity to profit as well. Tying it to participation might be nice, but isn't necessary. The rewards for second place etc. would also be good. Not that anything we say here is going to make it to the ears of the people actually controlling the changes, let alone be implemented though.

    And as for those other suggestions, they're nice and all, but ultimately they mean jack [filtered] as far as CU outcome is concerned. You and your guild/alliance/whatever can abuse the [filtered] out of all of those tactics you mentioned, but a geared group twice your size is still going to mop the floor with you. A big enough zerg is always going to have its way with CU, it doesn't matter how many towers you build or alt healers you switch to. People aren't going to stop zerging and making alliances if you take out the BAMs, so removing them isn't going to affect this "abuse" in any meaningful way.
  • TWMagimayTWMagimay ✭✭✭✭✭
    jrtseven wrote: »
    the opinion that youve gathered from the behavior of a small minority of manifest does not equate to manifest believing they are unbeatable.

    being comfortable with losing =/= wanting to lose.

    youre making it much more complex for yourself to understand. competitive guilds do what they can do win. just because we will fight at a disadvantage doesn't mean were going to seek that situation because its convenient for you.
    I wouldn't call it a small minority if Manifest only has 70 members.

    Being comfortable with losing =/= doing everything in your power to win.

    Competitive guilds do what they can to win, but in using others as meat shields they lose legitimacy to claim they're elite or earned a win. It has nothing to with seeking to fight at a disadvantage and more to do with not going out of your way to break PvP simply because others do the same.

    Convenient for me? I don't participate in CU. I'm not even in a guild.

    So, you and I are supposed to fight 1v1. You call a friend to help you. Afterwards, I call a friend to help me as well. have I ruined the fight or have I evened the odds after you tried to ruin the fight? Think carefully before you answer.
  • TWMagimay wrote: »
    So, you and I are supposed to fight 1v1. You call a friend to help you. Afterwards, I call a friend to help me as well. have I ruined the fight or have I evened the odds after you tried to ruin the fight? Think carefully before you answer.
    he's still thinking real carefully it seems

  • ToxicDemiseToxicDemise ✭✭
    edited January 2017
    There are so many flaws with CU it's unreal. CU has turned into a pve playground rather than PVP. I am on TR, and three top guilds organize wins for each week. The guilds that don't get the win for that week are given free reign to the bams as a trade off. Those guilds invite a limited amount of members to kill bams for ambush boxes. Most of these players are straight up PVE players and rarely pvp elsewhere in the game. You ask anyone these days about CU and pvp, and they will say "PVP is non existent in CU. It's all about guilds coordinating with each other". I'd say keep the bams but remove ambush boxes from the loot list and replace it with something else like materials or gold. Since CU is guild vs guild I never understood why guilds were allowed to remain in the event once their tower was down? I personally think if you lose your guild tower you should be out for the rest of the event. There should be a maximum and minimum limit on raid size for each guild. There should only be allowed 40 people max for each guild, and 20 minimum. You shouldn't be allowed to lay down a tower unless you have a minimum of 20 players in your raid. Yes I know it limits the amount of people allowed in but this makes it more fair play between the guilds participating. Fair play isn't three raids of 60 players vs one raid of 20 players. OR just make it 20 members only per each guild. Summoning in CU should be disabled PERIOD! Since when was anyone allowed to summon in battlegrounds? This can be abused in so many ways as it was mentioned above. Disable the option like it is in battlegrounds. Simple fix.

    Don't get me started on the current status of PVP battlegrounds. They are pretty much non existent right now unless an event is going on. Still no action on Enmasse's part to rectify the issue. I can't even get into a battleground now and most of my PVP friends have quit the game. I am curious on how many players they've lost because of this. Power hour in December was the only thing that saved PVP battlegrounds but with that gone now the PVP side of this game is dead once again. Enmasse, I understand that BH has control and is the only ones to truly fix this issue. However, we do know that you can make battlegrounds alive again just by increasing the rewards, and bc/ks credits. Why not for every day of the week have a different battleground each day that gives out double credits? Make it a permanent solution to fix this until BH makes some changes (if they will)? Add better items in the KS/BC vendors as well!! We all know the vendor could be updated with better items. Starfall materials were at a much lower BC/KS cost than the current ambush materials.. Why is that? These items are 70k/160k that's ridiculously higher than what the starfall items cost even when starfall was top VM gear. These changes alone would have people in battlegrounds again. The longer you sit on this issue more people will quit the game.
  • TWMagimay wrote: »
    So, you and I are supposed to fight 1v1. You call a friend to help you. Afterwards, I call a friend to help me as well. have I ruined the fight or have I evened the odds after you tried to ruin the fight? Think carefully before you answer.
    Anyone can fight 2v2. If you say you're the best in the game, that no one can beat you, then you call in someone to help you in a 2v1, then you're only proving that you're no better than anyone else.

  • Okay so power hour is back for January. Good move Enmasse! Hopefully more changes will come in the future that will help bring more interest in PVP. I hope CU sees some necessary changes ASAP.. as it is now it's a completely abused system that benefits only the top guilds.
Sign In or Register to comment.