[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

Deleted UserDeleted User
in PvP Discussion
The only experience I have with civil unrest is it being abused by the biggest guilds. They just force everyone to ally with them and use the combined power to overrun everyone who doesn't play how they want. They removed alliance and added this, but CU is easier to abuse, so they removed something fun and put in this [filtered] and none of it even solved the problem. GG
«134

Comments

  • MundalaMundala ✭✭
    I'm assuming you're talking about MT, but either way there is nothing against guilds teaming up to set a monopoly in something like CU. It's smart and takes coordination from the guilds, and allows other guilds to do the same.
  • GlitchyTrashGlitchyTrash ✭✭✭
    It's not just MT that has this problem I've heard. Also it's the type of behavior and tactics that reduce and kill PvP sadly. But people still won't listen to that, they are too worried about winning any way possible.
  • FerrishynFerrishyn ✭✭
    Is like alliance gold grind, but less funny and more getting rekt by 10 gunner at same time XD they just do it because is once a week, ad you dont have to do quest to enter in the "conflict" aka the event by earning rank.
  • PalochiPalochi ✭✭✭
    CH has the best CU:V
    Everyone is so bad that no one wins!!
    So far it only ended like half of the times; the last one had no winners because the two guilds with higher number of people/best gear broke up.
    owo)b best server <3
  • kknaexkknaex ✭✭
    Things in FF changed dramatically
    U know what, after raid capacity extended to 30 ppl and former Dominating guild Divine dead.
    Now there are ppl forming a big Mob fought for no guild, just aimed to wreak havoc and take bams for Ambush box. And ppl who is busy attacking and defending towers have little chance to take the bam. And this "guildless" army included the best pvper includes me (and other former Divine players)in FF and we were almost unstoppable and able to take any guild tower if we want.
    And I got an Ambush Weapon Box along with tons of gems. BTW, before joining the raid me and another friend were doing stealth kill on anyone who is apart from their guild, even did a 2 vs 5 and I killed 3 of them with no casualty, which is the best part in my CU experience.
  • CoolkiclCoolkicl ✭✭
    FF sounds lit
  • SchwerpunktSchwerpunkt ✭✭
    edited December 2016
    Mundala wrote: »
    I'm assuming you're talking about MT, but either way there is nothing against guilds teaming up to set a monopoly in something like CU. It's smart and takes coordination from the guilds, and allows other guilds to do the same.

    It's smart for those guilds, bad for the game. This is how PvP dies and people get bored of the game and leave.
  • TWMagimayTWMagimay ✭✭✭✭✭
    Schwerpunkt wrote: »
    Mundala wrote: »
    I'm assuming you're talking about MT, but either way there is nothing against guilds teaming up to set a monopoly in something like CU. It's smart and takes coordination from the guilds, and allows other guilds to do the same.

    It's smart for those guilds, bad for the game. This is how PvP dies and people get bored of the game and leave.

    PvP dies when the developers don't know how to do PvP properly. They keep trying to push these faction-type systems in a game that has none of the conditions required to support such PvP. And then they go ahead and do it in the worst way possible. Instead of promoting the type of PvP that works with a game like Tera............
  • BorsucBorsuc ✭✭✭
    edited December 2016
    TWMagimay wrote: »
    PvP dies when the developers don't know how to do PvP properly. They keep trying to push these faction-type systems in a game that has none of the conditions required to support such PvP. And then they go ahead and do it in the worst way possible. Instead of promoting the type of PvP that works with a game like Tera............
    +1

    If you blame the player/community because he is able to do stuff like this, it is the GAME's fault (well the developer) for allowing it in the first place. The moment you put trust into the community for something to work is the moment you know the design is beyond pathetic.
  • SchwerpunktSchwerpunkt ✭✭
    edited December 2016
    If you like TERA, I see no reason why you would want to contribute to its demise.
  • BorsucBorsuc ✭✭✭
    edited December 2016
    Schwerpunkt wrote: »
    If you like TERA, I see no reason why you would want to contribute to its demise.
    Because it puts you at a disadvantage. And also your logic would only apply to a proper PvP game with no progression or "rewards". If people liked TERA, they wouldn't want rewards in the first place, thus "abusing" wouldn't be much of a factor, just having fun.

    Get rid of progression and then everyone (who will still play it) will care for the game instead of just getting rewards, abuse or not.

    This behavior is reinforced by how badly designed the games are, and they expect people to care of the game? Nobody who abuses likes the game the way it is. They like the rewards, which means the game is badly designed for those people. Either get rid of such content, or get rid of progression. Both are viable to make people "care" for the game. (notice quotes)

    Note that I'm talking about abuses in the form of game mechanics. Abuses in the form of exploits are a completely different thing. Things like hacks, cheats, bug exploits, etc... will happen in any game, even with no reward, as long as you can get an advantage, some butthurt kid will do it. That's unrelated, of course.
  • SchwerpunktSchwerpunkt ✭✭
    Borsuc wrote: »
    Schwerpunkt wrote: »
    If you like TERA, I see no reason why you would want to contribute to its demise.
    Because it puts you at a disadvantage.

    Why does that matter? Why does it really matter if you win or lose? I spend my entire day getting wrecked by Reapers, Ninjas, Brawlers, Archers, and Warriors, and yet I keep playing, keep fighting players I know I can't beat, keep playing classes I know are at a disadvantage.

    .. all because it's fun. Just PvPing is fun. I shouldn't matter if you win or lose.
  • BorsucBorsuc ✭✭✭
    edited December 2016
    Why does it matter? Because the game is designed that way, so it matters? It's because of this progression cancer that makes potential PvP like this.

    I mean I agree with you that just going "to have fun" is fine, that's the point of a game, unfortunately you see, in some games (including TERA and most MMOs) there's this thing called progression and increasing your power in PvP and people will do what it takes to be on the edge (including farming for "next patch"). "Liking" TERA includes not ignoring such a part of it.

    Don't get me wrong, if it were for me, I'd scrap progression cancer in PvP from the game completely. Plenty of PvP-only games where PvP is truly just for fun with population 100 times higher than TERA's prove that it is the norm, not an alien concept. Until then people won't "like" TERA because TERA puts them at a disadvantage when not winning (i.e no progression or lower). So yeah it IS the game's fault.
  • jrtsevenjrtseven ✭✭✭
    GlitchyTrash wrote: »
    worried about winning any way possible.
    >makes anti-manifest alliance
    >sees manifest retaliate with their own alliance
    >loses
    >'their behavior is killing pvp'

  • GlitchyTrashGlitchyTrash ✭✭✭
    Of course people try to take out the biggest threat, had the "anti-manifest raid" won, wouldn't change the fact that having the majority of the geared or experienced pvpers in 1 guild doesn't promote PvP. There is just no arguing that fact. But it's not anyone's fault except bhs' for not understanding how to help keep PvP alive.

    Even crusades gave an indication that allowing 100 people to participate on 1 side makes for unbalanced PvP because you can't compete with raw numbers.

    There is nothing wrong with having 2 alliances against each other, competition is a good thing. Sadly CU wasn't designed for real alliances to be made so it still gave an advantage to the side that had less friendly fire. The sad part is the majority of 1 side deciding not to continue the fight :/
Sign In or Register to comment.