The Devilsaur monopoly.

[Myllz 8]

So Elysium should enforce rules that Blizzard didn't?  That makes absolutely zero sense.  Where do you draw the line?  What's "obviously a rule" to you isn't necessarily a rule to someone else.

[metagame 8]

1 minute ago, Hurricane2 said:

Time and money I assume.  I was never an employee at Blizzard so I don't know why they would choose not to enforce the rules.

You are implying that due to not enforcing rules that its ok to break them.  That is an incorrect assumption.

Do you have a source on whether or not there was a rule Blizzard made regarding communicating and collaborating with the opposite faction? Why would they set up a forum for this exact purpose if it was supposed to be against the rules?

Regarding your definition of griefing, competition for world objectives is not griefing. If someone on your faction takes a treasurechest you clearly saw first, but you're clearing the mobs surrounding it, that isn't a bannable offense. The faction system is implemented as-is and the rules surrounding it are not stated for interpretation, they are followed exactly as they are written in code. If you don't agree with that, you're in the very small minority of people who feel like your interpretation of the game's intended mechanics is different than what they are in reality. That's ok, it's just not correct historically nor is there a consensus that agrees with you. In fact, most people agree the opposite is true, which is why you are facing so much resistance in this thread.

[Hurricane2 2]

The game designers obviously intended to prevent cross faction communication.  Just because you can easily break a rule doesn't mean it's allowed.

[Caltrix 0]

3 hours ago, Kajjan said:

There's obviously a monopoly when it comes to the devilsaur farming in Un'goro where Hordes and Alliance collude to clear the spawns from anyone else and then completely overpricing it on the auction house. Is this allowed? 

For example, i went to a spawnpoint where there were 2 other hordes. An alli shows up and tries to kill me but i had the upper hand and was about to kill him when one of the other hordies who havn't done anything but watch up to this point, starts polymorph-spamming the alliance guy in order to heal him up. Ending up with me dying and them not trying to kill eachother at all.  Mage name: Dimu, alli named: Phx. Time: about 17:30 cet (8mars) (Elysium pvp)

Another example, i stand around waiting for spawn with other hordes. I get the tag and kill it. The other hordes try to camp the corpse to steal skin. I tell them that i wont loot the corpse before they're gone. One of the other hordies (who are obviously grouped up with the other hordes) starts verbally harassing me because of it. After half a minute an alliance groups shows up just to kill me. They totally ignore the others and the others ignore them. (already reported in a ticket)

Is this allowed? Because this crap has been going on since the beginning of Elysium PVP.
I get how trying to group farming this is okay, but working with the other faction to get a monopoly going...

Sounds like you need a back up squad. It's a cold world out there, put on your big boy pants and go handle it.

[Myllz 8]

1 minute ago, Hurricane2 said:

The game designers obviously intended to prevent cross faction communication.  Just because you can easily break a rule doesn't mean it's allowed.

If you're just going to keep spewing that with nothing to back it up there's no point in continuing.

[Fladrif 14]

The mechanics by which I can't attack same faction players should not be exploited to setup a monopolio: if by any chance they earn real money from it, they'll have more resources than anyone else in protecting their business (because they're paid for it).

if there's a monopoly on an item and they keep the price at 25g, they can sell 100g for $17 by trading 4 items. None will catch them.

[Hurricane2 2]

3 minutes ago, metagame said:

Do you have a source on whether or not there was a rule Blizzard made regarding communicating and collaborating with the opposite faction? Why would they set up a forum for this exact purpose if it was supposed to be against the rules?

Regarding your definition of griefing, competition for world objectives is not griefing. If someone on your faction takes a treasurechest you clearly saw first, but you're clearing the mobs surrounding it, that isn't a bannable offense. The faction system is implemented as-is and the rules surrounding it are not stated for interpretation, they are followed exactly as they are written in code. If you don't agree with that, you're in the very small minority of people who feel like your interpretation of the game's intended mechanics is different than what they are in reality. That's ok, it's just not correct historically nor is there a consensus that agrees with you. In fact, most people agree the opposite is true, which is why you are facing so much resistance in this thread.

Are saying you could go to the Blizzard forums, find your server and then make a post saying "Sign up here for cross faction coordination to contol farming in un'goro.  We can't communicate in game but that is easily circumvented." and Blizzard was cool with that?  

Of course they have forums to discuss the game but that was obviously not created to set up cross faction coordination/communication or you would be able to do that in game.

It's not an interpretation, it's a fact and I'm not in the minority.  

Also another terrible example with the chest.  Whoever loots it 1st in the open world gets it regardless of faction (assuming you're not in group).

[Hurricane2 2]

12 minutes ago, Myllz said:

If you're just going to keep spewing that with nothing to back it up there's no point in continuing.

The game was designed that way.  How do you consider that irrelevant?

[metagame 8]

2 minutes ago, Hurricane2 said:

Are saying you could go to the Blizzard forums, find your server and then make a post saying "Sign up here for cross faction coordination to contol farming in un'goro.  We can't communicate in game but that is easily circumvented." and Blizzard was cool with that?  

Of course they have forums to discuss the game but that was obviously not created to set up cross faction coordination/communication or you would be able to do that in game.

It's not an interpretation, it's a fact and I'm not in the minority.  

Also another terrible example with the chest.  Whoever loots it 1st in the open world gets it regardless of faction (assuming you're not in group).

I thought my chest example was clear, but I'll explain in further detail: the chest is an example of how game mechanics work regardless of how it would be if everybody were following "the obvious rules". The obvious rule is that someone who finds a chest first gets it, but the actual way the game works is someone who finds it first pulls the mobs and enters combat, and the second person to finds the chest gets the loot.

It's not a fact that cross-faction communication is against the rules, because it happened in game and no one was ever banned for it, to my knowledge. There were tons of guilds who allied cross-faction to farm in Silithus, and killed other players from other guilds on sight, to maintain the "top guild" position on each of their factions. This wasn't against the rules then, and it isn't now. People openly discussed collaborating with the opposite faction for the gurubashi arena chest, too, I would know considering I had 8 level 19 twinks with 2x AGM trinket on retail (not in Vanilla, but still). This took months to complete and was achieved with collaboration between myself and others on the same and opposite faction. No one was ever concerned with getting banned... because it was not a bannable offense.

 

[Fladrif 14]

Stop trolling the thread with the cross- factions communication thing.

Nobody gives a shit and the thread will be closed.

The real problem here is the monopoly: 

The mechanics by which I can't attack same faction players should not be exploited to setup a monopolio: if by any chance they earn real money from it, they'll have more resources than anyone else in protecting their business (because they're paid for it).

if there's a monopoly on an item and they keep the price at 25g, they can sell 100g for $17 by trading 4 items. None will catch them.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Fladrif

[metagame 8]

It's not a monopoly, by definition, if you can easily compete on level playing ground with zero cost to entry.

[Myllz 8]

5 minutes ago, Fladrif said:

Stop trolling the thread with the cross- factions communication thing.

Nobody gives a shit and the thread will be closed.

The real problem here is the monopoly: 

The mechanics by which I can't attack same faction players should not be exploited to setup a monopolio: if by any chance they earn real money from it, they'll have more resources than anyone else in protecting their business (because they're paid for it).

if there's a monopoly on an item and they keep the price at 25g, they can sell 100g for $17 by trading 4 items. None will catch them.

It's not a monopoly.  You can go stop them.

[Hurricane2 2]

10 minutes ago, metagame said:

I thought my chest example was clear, but I'll explain in further detail: the chest is an example of how game mechanics work regardless of how it would be if everybody were following "the obvious rules". The obvious rule is that someone who finds a chest first gets it, but the actual way the game works is someone who finds it first pulls the mobs and enters combat, and the second person to finds the chest gets the loot.

It's not a fact that cross-faction communication is against the rules, because it happened in game and no one was ever banned for it, to my knowledge. No one was ever concerned with getting banned... because it was not a bannable offense.

 

It doesn't matter who sees a chest first, it matters who gets to it first.  I don't understand why you being bring this example up.

 

It is against the rules.  Just because they didn't enforce it with bans doesn't mean it's allowed.

[Fladrif 14]

5 minutes ago, metagame said:

It's not a monopoly, by definition, if you can easily compete on level playing ground with zero cost to entry.

No.

You can't easily compete. You have to setup a monopoly yourself and if someone makes real money out of it, there are no chances you could compete by playing in your spare times.

[metagame 8]

I brought the chest example up because it's an exact analogy. In fact, your own evaluation of the hypothetical treasurechest proves why you are wrong about this topic.

Quote

It doesn't matter who sees a chest first, it matters who gets to it first.

It doesn't matter what you think the rules are, the only thing that matters is what the actual server rules are and the way the game mechanics are programmed. In the case of a stolen treasure chest, there is no rule against this, and this is the way the game is made. Similarly, if some group of horde players are forming a group and helping opposite faction members by sheeping them to heal them, that's not the way it should work, but it's the way the game works. There isn't a rule against it.

Whether or not Blizzard had a rule against cross-faction communication is hard to determine considering there were many examples of this, yet look, no one was banned. Like you said, it could have been an unenforced rule, but until you provide evidence of this "rule" it's unsubstantiated based on your opinion or memory.

Finally, even if you could prove that Blizzard had a rule against out-of-game cross-faction communication, the fact remains that Elysium can make whatever rules it wants. Personally I agree with their decision.

[nooobieee 3]

8 minutes ago, metagame said:

There isn't a rule against it.

By this logic then there is no rule against win-trading right? That's simply people in both factions communicating to the benefit of both parties and against everyone else.

Or is this just blatant hypocrisy.

[davfer 0]

I mean whatever point you are making is moot. The people who run the server deem Win-trading against the rules and the devilsaur co-op not. What you think about it is ultimately irrelevant. But by all means continue, it is entertaining.

[metagame 8]

6 minutes ago, nooobieee said:

By this logic then there is no rule against win-trading right? That's simply people in both factions communicating to the benefit of both parties and against everyone else.

Or is this just blatant hypocrisy.

Win trading was bannable in retail (in arena at least) as people's arena ratings were reset to 1500 and gear was taken away, etc. There is years of evidence to support this precedent.

[Hurricane2 2]

15 minutes ago, metagame said:

I brought the chest example up because it's an exact analogy. In fact, your own evaluation of the hypothetical treasurechest proves why you are wrong about this topic.

It doesn't matter what you think the rules are, the only thing that matters is what the actual server rules are and the way the game mechanics are programmed. In the case of a stolen treasure chest, there is no rule against this, and this is the way the game is made. Similarly, if some group of horde players are forming a group and helping opposite faction members by sheeping them to heal them, that's not the way it should work, but it's the way the game works. There isn't a rule against it.

Whether or not Blizzard had a rule against cross-faction communication is hard to determine considering there were many examples of this, yet look, no one was banned. Like you said, it could have been an unenforced rule, but until you provide evidence of this "rule" it's unsubstantiated based on your opinion or memory.

Finally, even if you could prove that Blizzard had a rule against out-of-game cross-faction communication, the fact remains that Elysium can make whatever rules it wants. Personally I agree with their decision.

Again the example of the chest makes no sense.  It is not comparable in any way.  There is no rule in regard to seeing and looting chests. 

The game mechanics were created in such a manner to prevent cross faction coordination/communication. It's not an interpretation, it's a fact.  Again the chest example has no bearing whatsoever.   

Nothing I just stated is an opinion.

Yes, Elysium can choose any rules they want but they try to be blizz like and Blizzards design is self explanatory regarding communication/coordinating.

[nooobieee 3]

1 minute ago, metagame said:

Win trading was bannable in retail (in arena at least) as people's arena ratings were reset to 1500 and gear was taken away, etc. There is years of evidence to support this precedent.

"helping opposite faction members by sheeping them to heal them"

How is that not exactly win-trading?

[Nosleep 4]

I thought win trading and 'spying' were against the rules?

[metagame 8]

@Hurricane2 I feel like we've reached an impasse. Your interpretation of the way the game is made is different than mine.

Just now, nooobieee said:

"helping opposite faction members by sheeping them to heal them"

How is that not exactly win-trading?

I don't know how to respond to this, is it possible you can explain what you mean? Are you saying "the game is made this way therefore it should be allowed"? I would disagree with that, as the game's rules are a combination of game mechanics and written guidelines.

[nooobieee 3]

5 minutes ago, metagame said:

I don't know how to respond to this, is it possible you can explain what you mean? Are you saying "the game is made this way therefore it should be allowed"? I would disagree with that, as the game's rules are a combination of game mechanics and written guidelines.

If an alliance player helps a horde player beat another alliance player. And the horde player does the same for the alliance player... that's the definition of win-trading.

I don't see any way you could consider that within the rules. I get Pottu's point that they don't have the resources to police this (although this is how policing works, you find the most troublesome place and you enforce there until the trouble move to another place... rinse/repeat). Not policing something is not the same as saying it is within the rules.

Edited March 8, 2017 by nooobieee

[Haestingas 30]

Or maybe people want an easy way to farm gold for consumes. One such way is teaming up with 100 people to control the supply of a very valuable resource, and then taking turns farming it when you want gold.

 

PS you guys are pathetic, git gud or get out

[nooobieee 3]

3 minutes ago, Haestingas said:

Or maybe people want an easy way to farm gold for consumes. One such way is teaming up with 100 people to control the supply of a very valuable resource, and then taking turns farming it when you want gold.

I think teaming up with 100 people to control the supply is fine... as long as those 100 people on all on the same faction and not griefing anyone. This should be causing world PvE, not preventing it which is what seems to be the case here.