Couldn’t we have the same mechanic that works when You lose internet connection? Your vehicle stays on the battlefield and the kill is still contributed like normal player?
1 Like
Normal people do not steal.
The “intended purpose” of the Abandon Vehicle mechanic is not to deny an enemy of a kill.
Again, if you just wanted to stop playing, then you’d go back and land to nullify the repair cost. If you just wanted to stop playing, then you’d also J-out in favorable situations (but you won’t, I already know your kind).
So why did you abandon your vehicle? Surely if I go check the replays where you have done this, you totally won’t have noticed an enemy about to kill you and J’d out to deny them this kill… right?
So any j-out?
1 Like
Normal people do not steal.
Congratulations on entirely and woefully missing the entire point of what I said. By God I am very glad you do not preside over the judicial system.
To make it as painfully blunt as I can to you, the equivalent of gaijins vague EULA for your theft analogy would be a law stating “Theft: Anyone who takes something that isn’t theres is guilty of theft and subject to between 10 - 3 years of jail.”.
Now you see the problem with having a law be as vague as that is that you could extend this to almost any circumstance you wanted. I borrowed one of the guys at my works pen to use today to write a note for myself because I never had one, I stuck it back afterwards.
I can now possibly be charged with theft. If someone was looking for a reason to imprison me, they could now abuse this incredibly vague definition to charge me for theft. Whereas in the real world acts, theft is VERY specifically defined, as with other laws to avoid situations like this. In general the prospect of normal people having their lives ruined by abuse of a vague and open ended judicial system is seen as significantly worse than the prospect of some bad actors slipping through the gaps through some unforeseen loopholes or technicalities.
Loopholes can be closed, normal peoples lives being ruined can’t be reversed. This isn’t some new or insane concept, vague laws have and do continue to be abused to the detriment of normal civilians in the world.
Case in point again, here is how detailed the act of theft is: Theft Act 1968
The “intended purpose” of the Abandon Vehicle mechanic is not to deny an enemy of a kill.
Again, if you just wanted to stop playing, then you’d go back and land to nullify the repair cost. If you just wanted to stop playing, then you’d also J-out in favorable situations (but you won’t, I already know your kind).
Actually the intended purpose of abandon vehicle mechanic is to abandon your vehicle. Nowhere within the game or the ToS does it specify conditions for being allowed to abandon vehicle.
So why did you abandon your vehicle? Surely if I go check the replays where you have done this, you totally won’t have noticed an enemy about to kill you and J’d out to deny them this kill… right?
You can look at my replays all you want, you seem to have missed the line earlier where I said “I’ll play the role”. It also would not matter if I had seen an enemy about to kill me before leaving my vehicle, nowhere in the ToS does it state you are required to die to the enemy to be able to leave your vehicle or leave the match.
I, and anyone else is free to leave vehicle or leave match whenever they wish. I can leave my vehicle the nanosecond before a bomb hits me to change to another vehicle and it would not matter, it does not state anywhere in the ToS that I must wait to die before leaving vehicle to change to another. Simple as that.
There are many situations where you can abandon your vehicle without denying someone a kill.
That could violate fair play.
See above.
If you don’t want to play the game that much, why even log onto WT?
And if every enemy J’d out right before you were about to kill them, and you never got any research or SL, do you think that’d be fair? Do you think they should just be able to do that forever?
A bit of topic on laws in other countries, i'm by no means an expert and might have some things wrong and if i do then anyone can please feel free to correct me
Funnily enough, Swedens laws do exactly this.
And the opposite of this.
Just for clarity here is the Swedish online law books definition of theft (Google translated, Brottsbalk (1962:700) (BrB) | Lagen.nu ):
Then there are provision to guide if other surrounding circumstances changes the definition to a different crime (Robbery, Breaking and entering, Assault, etc) or other circumstances that changes the theft into either petty or aggravated.
But the main law is just that screenshot. What Sweden does is to use previous cases with the same or similar circumstances to compare judgements of those cases to get a ballpark of punishments, but IIRC it’s ultimately up to the Judge/Jury on how to apply punishments within the confines of what the law outlines.
You can’t really apply only your own countries laws to make a point as there will in most cases be counter arguments/examples.
1 Like
That could violate fair play.
Does not say anywhere in that paragraph that I cannot leave my vehicle unless having first being killed by the enemy.
Try again.
See above.
See above.
If you don’t want to play the game that much, why even log onto WT?
Not beholden to you to justify my desire to play or not the game.
And if every enemy J’d out right before you were about to kill them, and you never got any research or SL, do you think that’d be fair? Do you think they should just be able to do that forever?
Silly hypothetical given that this will never happen since even the slightest damage will award a kill on leaving vehicle.
Top tier ARH slingers matches. top tier CAS vs Anti Air. Many situations where it’s very possible for that hypothetical to happen.
1 Like
I can’t speak for how capable or just swedens judicial system is, I did state in one of my earlier posts that a lot of judicial systems in the past and current world exist with vague laws which are abusable against normal civilians and why that is problematic.
Top tier ARH slingers matches. top tier CAS vs Anti Air. Many situations where it’s very possible for that hypothetical to happen.
- I’ve not been talking about air battles this entire time.
- This isn’t applicable given percussions extreme hypothetical is referring to “every enemy” Jing out before being killed to the extent that you would never be able to progress research, which is quite literally never going to happen. It’s a pointless “what if” based on a set of circumstances that are never going to occur. What if pigs learned to fly tomorrow? We would likely have a shortage of bacon production as all the pigs would fly out their pens.
Quite frankly I’d bet my entire bank account on this allegedly “very possible” hypothetical never occurring in a ground or air battle, albeit I doubt I would find a bookie that would entertain such unfathomable odds.
It isn’t pointless though, it shows the extreme end of that type of play. It’s a thought experiment ment to highlight that the usage of the mechanic in that way isn’t a good thing even in small amounts. By hyperbolically making a hypothetical where it’s extremely widely used, it serves the purpose of highlighting the issue with it and does so quite well (at least in my personal opinion). It likely wasn’t ment as an actual possible scenario.
“or other unfair methods of play.”
Shooting someone that has absolutely zero chance of fighting back, even theoretically, could be interpreted as unfair.
2 Likes
This thread went from j out problem to laws and judiciary this is funny as hell 😂
“or other methods of unfair play”
I distinctly remember seeing a video of someone in an A-10 about to strafe an IRIS-T SLM and the SPAA J’d out to avoid getting gunned down by the slowest high tier plane.
I do not think there is a scenario where that will be the case every time consistently. That player most likely put themselves in a situations where that was possible in the first place, something that likely could have been avoided by playing differently. To my knowledge there is nothing in the game that is 100% completely unable to be countered in any way.
1 Like
This regularly happens in air simulator battles when there’s an air grind event happening.
I spawn in my fighter. I see black dot.
Black dot spams Gunner view and cockpit view back and forth, which makes the cursor for gunner aim automatically snap to hostiles.
Black dot sees cursor snap to the black dot that is my plane.
Black dot checks map, sees they’re too far to make it to base or airfield before I intercept them.
Black dot J-s out or pushes stick forward to crash.
Why does black dot do this?
Because if the whole server full of zombers actively suicides whenever a fighter might intercept them, the fighter is going to get annoyed flying around for 30-45 minutes without action or reward and leave the lobby, allowing the zombers to afk grind event score in peace.
On top of this, zombers will all-chat spam the location of fighters using spectate mode to better coordinate in making lobbies impossible to enjoy and play.
2 Likes
It is pointless because it’s a hypothetical which is far outside the basis of reality that it is meaningless.
Quite literally no different from me saying “What if pigs learn to fly tomorrow?”. You can make a hypothetical about quite literally anything regardless of how detached from reality it is, it doesn’t mean it is worth the time it took to bother writing.
Which is the case here, the hypothetical is so far removed from reality that it is unequivocally never going to occur.
So now it’s the player’s fault he wasn’t able to hide his three big trucks on a post stamp sized map. Just great.
You could take, lets say, Type 81 and I’ll take an MBT of the appropriate BR. You should be able to kill me in those 25 minutes that the match lasts for, right ?
It quite literally happens with annoying frequency in ASB matches during air event grinds, and we have some players who outright admit to this being their goal on the forums.
There’s a reason I lowkey stop playing the game when there’s air grind events, or stick strictly to rank 2 or below - it makes it easier to avoid the ju 288 and other zombers who eject the moment a fighter shows up within 8 kilometers.
1 Like
If a P-47 is mowing the lawn and gets dived on by a Ki-43, which parks himself no more than 500m behind him, is there anything the P-47 can do? Is it “fair” for the P-47 to J out because he’s in a bad spot?