[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

Remove or fix CU

24

Comments

  • Margarethe wrote: »
    People use the term "exploits" very easily. It sucks that CU is built the way it is, but that doesn't mean big guilds are cheaters and should be banned...

    Future updates ease the one guild takes all meta...
    Changed the method weekly tax is distributed

    Rank 1: 50% of weekly tax
    Rank 2: 30% of weekly tax
    Rank 3: 10% of weekly tax
    Rank 4: 5% of weekly tax
    Rank 5: 5% of weekly tax

    Added rank rewards

    Participants of rank 1 to 20 will receive a participation box (box received from higher rank will be worth more)
    Civil Unrest rank reward will only be rewarded to players who participated a certain amount of time
    Players who did do not actively participate in Civil Unrest will not receive rank-dependent participation box

    Changed Civil Unrest ranking rules

    Protecting your own tower while destroying enemy tower can give placement in the rankings
    As it gets closer to the deciding moment of Civil Unrest, you can get placement in the rankings

    And some simply refuse to see the issues, or are part of them.

    Tell me the issues and what cheats people use to win, Elaborate!
  • ElinUsagiElinUsagi ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Margarethe

    You should do it first since you are acusing ppl to ignore or to be part of the problem.

    Otherwise your comment is just as ofensive like an insult for trowing random lies about the event and their contenders.
  • Margarethe wrote: »
    CU:
    Not active on it at the moment, comment based on forum and player feedback.
    Guilds making multiple alt guilds to feed tower/player kills.

    As I said, no personal experience on CU recently.

    It only happend first few weeks, atleast on TR I haven't seen that happening yet.

  • MelyodisMelyodis ✭✭✭
    edited March 2017
    I'm shocked, remove CU LOL nothings wrong with it. You all just don't get it, form alliances work together don't complain you have to work hard, you know how hard the guild I'm in works together with our alliance in FF we help our members get gears we training for every class its hard work I love CU if you can't put in the hard work don't complain you all want everything free and easy. if you want to be top you have to go all out or nothing.

  • Some people here are right. Even if Civil Unrest was badly designed, in the end it still comes down to which guild is the top.

    If you are not part of one of these guilds and want to let them know that you're worthy of getting all the loots and the laurel and the win, you should prove it.

    You don't like feeding? Get your guild to kill them all.
    You don't like top guild alliance? Then prove your guild can rip this alliance apart, or let them know your guild is strong enough to be part of it.
    You don't like the same guild winning again and again each week? Try and get the win for yourself, then.

    It's not like these guilds that come out on top did not work hard to get where they are right now.

    It's either you win or lose. They were just more powerful, that's all. You either have to accept that or do something about it if you don't like it.
  • edited March 2017
    Margarethe wrote: »
    If this is so, then EME is useless as moderators outside of the forums.
    Please make an official post the game is without moderation, and players should take action by themselves.

    It's not without moderation, but the time it takes to analyse all the evidence and prove that there is actually malfeasance (as opposed to the appearance of malfeasance) is high, and meanwhile there are people with much more pressing problems (can't connect to servers, character stuck, problems with payments, etc.). People do get banned for feeding sometimes, but the evidence has to be pretty incontrovertible. And yeah, seeing the same accused cheaters keep going on apparently without action taken is frustrating -- this is a point Player Council raised with EME, in fact. But at the same time, if BHS keeps programming systems that are ripe for this sort of abuse with no mediating systems in place, how much time/effort/energy should be invested to police it? Indeed, it's better to just eliminate these systems entirely.

    So anyway, if you ask me personally, I'm all for a tougher stance against all cheaters and exploiters, but I also think the true blame lies on BHS. Making these sorts of bad systems just foists more work on EME if they want to try to keep it fair. BHS needs to stop assuming that people are going to be "good sports," since clearly they're not.
  • Elin123Elin123
    edited March 2017
    @Montblanck From a different analogy: So in 3v3's when players are sync-queueing and intentionally forfeiting to boost a specific comp's rating, that makes them "working harder" and the "better team"? It's feeding, eg an Exploit. And we're supposed to git gud and just accept that? If it was possible to stop the feeders than I probably wouldn't be posting on the forums. The reason they feed so much is because they couldn't win fair otherwise, that does not make them better.
  • edited March 2017
    Margarethe wrote: »
    Margarethe wrote: »
    If this is so, then EME is useless as moderators outside of the forums.
    Please make an official post the game is without moderation, and players should take action by themselves.

    It's not without moderation, but the time it takes to analyse all the evidence and prove that there is actually malfeasance (as opposed to the appearance of malfeasance) is high, and meanwhile there are people with much more pressing problems (can't connect to servers, character stuck, problems with payments, etc.). People do get banned for feeding sometimes, but the evidence has to be pretty incontrovertible. And yeah, seeing the same accused cheaters keep going on apparently without action taken is frustrating -- this is a point Player Council raised with EME, in fact. But at the same time, if BHS keeps programming systems that are ripe for this sort of abuse with no mediating systems in place, how much time/effort/energy should be invested to police it? Indeed, it's better to just eliminate these systems entirely.

    So anyway, if you ask me personally, I'm all for a tougher stance against all cheaters and exploiters, but I also think the true blame lies on BHS. Making these sorts of bad systems just foists more work on EME if they want to try to keep it fair. BHS needs to stop assuming that people are going to be "good sports," since clearly they're not.

    I agree.
    However, we also have the option to kill, steal and misbehave in real life.
    Question, what keep us from doing so? The law.

    No system is perfect.
    If players exploit something with the knowledge it is wrong, they should be punished.

    In principle, I agree with you. But I know that the practical reality is that there aren't enough "cops" to police this regularly, and at the end of the day the attitude here is that -- unlike real life -- it's still ultimately a game. And, without a significant-enough confluence of evidence, you are likely to get people who try to "frame" people they don't like and accuse them of things that may not be true. They most likely do not have the time needed to validate all the claims they receive (as the long ticket delay suggests). Saying "well, EME should just hire more cops to police this part of the game" is a nice statement, but who will pay them? It's better for BHS not to create systems that require the hiring of so many cops, or for EME to be able to turn off systems where the cost is greater than the benefit to the game.

    As you say, we live in an imperfect reality where, sometimes, cheaters get away with it. It sucks and I think EME should do a better job. But, I am not expecting miracles. If I had to apply pressure somewhere related to this issue, it'd primarily be on BHS for creating this mess (but also on EME for allowing this perception to fester -- and this latter part has, actually, already come up).
  • Elin123 wrote: »
    @Montblanck From a different analogy: So in 3v3's when players are sync-queueing and intentionally forfeiting to boost a specific comp's rating, that makes them "working harder" and the "better team"? It's feeding, eg an Exploit. And we're supposed to git gud and just accept that? If it was possible to stop the feeders than I probably wouldn't be posting on the forums. The reason they feed so much is because they couldn't win fair otherwise, that does not make them better.

    Off the top of my head - 3v3 sync queue is something you can't do anything about; it's random and the game decides who confronts each other. CU, on the other hand, is a 1-2 hour long guild versus guild battlefest that you can make a bloodbath if you so desire.
  • KoikoiKoikoi ✭✭✭
    to the people complaining of Zerg guilds. everyone realizes the max account limit is 100 per? if 100 people is too hard to beat for a smaller 25-50 account guild. team up or merge guilds.

    Stop complaining and do something.
  • sanj66sanj66 ✭✭✭✭
    People use the term "exploits" very easily. It sucks that CU is built the way it is, but that doesn't mean big guilds are cheaters and should be banned...

    Future updates ease the one guild takes all meta...
    Changed the method weekly tax is distributed

    Rank 1: 50% of weekly tax
    Rank 2: 30% of weekly tax
    Rank 3: 10% of weekly tax
    Rank 4: 5% of weekly tax
    Rank 5: 5% of weekly tax

    Added rank rewards

    Participants of rank 1 to 20 will receive a participation box (box received from higher rank will be worth more)
    Civil Unrest rank reward will only be rewarded to players who participated a certain amount of time
    Players who did do not actively participate in Civil Unrest will not receive rank-dependent participation box

    Changed Civil Unrest ranking rules

    Protecting your own tower while destroying enemy tower can give placement in the rankings
    As it gets closer to the deciding moment of Civil Unrest, you can get placement in the rankings

    this isnt really going to solve anything, as like in mt the 2nd, 3rd and so forth are all guilds within that same alliance and its probably the same on other servers, so the wealth is still going to kept within the confines of the same alliance. the system is actually more flawed that the old alliance system tbh, atleast solo players had a chance at getting rewards in alliance from their participation, in cu you cant, also the last hit on bam for loot is also nonsensical and that alone discourages people from it.
  • Elin123Elin123
    edited March 2017
    Koikoi wrote: »
    to the people complaining of Zerg guilds. everyone realizes the max account limit is 100 per? if 100 people is too hard to beat for a smaller 25-50 account guild. team up or merge guilds.

    Stop complaining and do something.

    No one is complaining about zerg guilds... The problem is guilds forming an alliance and feeding all of their towers to one guild. Sometimes even ending CU early before bams spawn and before anyone can do anything to stop them.
  • EllieChuEllieChu ✭✭✭
    Elin123 wrote: »
    Koikoi wrote: »
    to the people complaining of Zerg guilds. everyone realizes the max account limit is 100 per? if 100 people is too hard to beat for a smaller 25-50 account guild. team up or merge guilds.

    Stop complaining and do something.

    No one is complaining about zerg guilds... The problem is guilds forming an alliance and feeding all of their towers to one guild. Sometimes even ending CU early before bams spawn and before anyone can do anything to stop them.

    If an alliance is keeping fulll control over CU i dont think they would be stupid enough to end CU early when theres so much free gold laying around in those bams. Only reason they would need to end early is if someone actually opposed them to a point where they wouldnt get the scores they favor. My alliance has a deal that one guild gets rank 1 every week, only time we ended early was when we were underprepared during mongos and someone came in and almost broke the tower of the guild that was getting rank 1.
Sign In or Register to comment.