This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
so was it confirmed by a higher up or is it still your interpretation
and if we go this way to describe using game mechanic for “unfair advantage” will players that go out of bounds of the map to get to OP camping spots get banned too?
The reason for my answer was this:
“any” includes legitimate uses.
This might be the best solution i’ve seen so far, there are some problems with it though but i think the benefits would outweigh them so not worth bringing them up.
Administration in this case, likely in the same or similar ways that they handle other griefing, teamkills and bans of those nature.
J-out is even more unfair if done to deny a kill as there is absolutely nothing the enemy can do to counter it in any situation. Imagine it the other way around, you use an inferior vehicle, you outsmart the opponent that is in an overpowered vehicle in such a pro play move that the enemy is a guaranteed kill, they J-out out of frustration to deny you your kill. Does that sound fair and fun?
Still my interpretation. Which is why i use words as “can” , “depending” , “likely” , “risk” , etc.
Depend on what you mean by “out of bounds”, if they in some way phase through the terrain/obstacles to get there then it would be against the rules yes. If it’s just going outside the play area and getting the “return to the field” notification then likely not, they do however patch those areas out if they become an issue so it’s worth reporting anyway.
Just as a recent example:
2 Likes
In some cases, no
A few examples :
-
Su25 knows where you are, spawns with unguided rockets, and you are on a very open map, He goes all flares out : no chance you can lock it with a manpads. If you appear to have no guns, you are done for, and won’t have any way of countering
-
A heli, sitting 3.5km away, throws an atgm at you. Since your IR missile can’t lock it at this distance, the only thing you can do now is either find a building and let him massacre your team, or make a little dance
-
A multi SAM system is very complicated to hide on a small map, and you are very much defenseless against any kind of ground vehicles
-
Someone throwing AGM in GPS or GNSS mode from behind a hill isn’t threatened, although i’ll give you that you can counter its missiles (very unreliable though)
Does this mean spawning a Su25 or a tank to rush the spawn and kill AAs is against the ToS ? Of course not.
My point is, in many engagement, when both enemies see each other, it usually comes down to aims best, who can make the most effective evasive maneuvers (especially for planes and battleships), but if the same situation applies with a SPAA in the duel, it is almost always at a disadvantage (Guns AA around 8.0 excluded).
I’m not trying to justify the behavior, but it can be easily understood why this sometimes happens : people don’t like serving as RP and SL Piñatas
In order for this issue to be properly solved, there needs to be a feeling of fairness, and a global overhaul
- Make CAS actually threatened across all BRs, and decrease their spawn point so the justification “but i paid in SP to have an advantage” does not hold any water anymore
- Move multi SAMs SPAAs outside of tank maps, or at least make it harder to go after them. It makes sense for AAs to be on tank maps at lower BR because of low engagement distances, but a SAM site has no business being 1 km away from a ground threat. The “distance inflation” is an issue on its own and an entire topic could be made about it
The people here that are desperately trying to rationalize bailing out to deny others a chance at engagement (death is not necessarily imminent) are exactly the sort of people you’d expect it to be.
Once you’ve been around long enough, you realize most of the relevant individuals absolutely despise being outplayed and defeated. They’d rather bail out to deny others a chance at even engaging them than try to fight and (possibly) lose while guaranteeing the loss of their vehicle solely out of spite.
These people are not truly upset about enemy vehicles, some ‘OP’ weapon or even their K/D…they just don’t want to face possibly being outplayed and defeated. Competition is antithetical to these people…they feel entitled to win or they want to take their ball and go home.
It is admirable to hear administration is willing and able to clamp down on such unsportsmanlike conduct; going further, I fully endorse additional penalties for repeat offenders (for instance, say, a 1 week lock away from the game burning 2 weeks of premium time).
The people who are trying to haggle about how/why they bail out to deny engagements should stick to custom battles with the bots where it’s safe.
3 Likes
I only support J-out in specific situations and vehicles in which if you don’t do that, it could actually be interpreted as griefing by the game’s own rule set.
Your situation doesn’t sound fair and fun, but neither do mine that I gave you in a previous post but for clarity, here’s another one.
Imagine you’re driving your Israeli Chaparral and you get pushed by an MBT of the equivalent BR. What’s your play there, shoot him with your IR missiles that can’t lock tanks ? Maybe ram him into the wall ? Maybe have your crew get out of their vehicle and use their handheld RPG to kill it ?
Do you see anything unfair here ?
EULA is extremely vague and leaves just too many things open for interpretation which is never a good thing, as it introduces subjective opinions that can vary between different people thus rules can end up being applied differently. Some parts of it are as good as null and void until properly written.
That wouldn’t count as “unfair” as the surrounding circumstances that led to that situation in the first place could have been avoided. The MBT had to fight through the rest of your team to get to you in the first place. So your teammates could have prevented that situation and the enemy has put in the effort to get to that advantageous position so denying them their reward for that effort in a way that is impossible for them (or anyone else in the match) to counter by any means.
2 Likes
Very variable and map dependent affirmation. Already had a case where a MBT just yolo rushed our spawn after getting killed in his Ka-50.
He did not cross any ally and was never spotted, and he was allowed to do so because multiple SAM systems were stuck on that bus ticket sized map that is advance to the rhine.
I will concede a MBT killing a SPAA usually worked harder than CAS at some BRs though
I hope you can quote me the rule that explicitly states this and defines what unfair is.
If you can’t, then that definition is open to personal interpretation and thus will vary from user to user, which obviously isn’t a good thing when dishing out penalties.
I can simply state that situation is unfair to me and if there’s nothing in the rules that explicitly state otherwise, my interpretation of that is just as wrong/right as yours is. You acting up on that “rule” and punishing me would require you to interpret the rule in your own way and adding your own “flavor” to it, which is quite literally, criminally bad behavior.
This doesn’t have to happen.
That’s like saying MBT’s team could’ve killed me before I managed to J-out from the engagement with him, so they could’ve prevented the situation. Everything is preventable if you think about it for long enough.
I beg to differ.
People will exploit something that isn’t clearly defined as they’ll think they can get away with it (plausible deniability), which is totally opposite to clearly defined rules that are just black and white.
Loopholes can and do get patched all the time but that just strengthens your rules, making it better in the process.
Just defining a gray area simply doesn’t work.
If that system was in use, a manslaughter would be treated in the same way as a first-degree murder, as murder is a murder, just like J-ing out to deny a kill is always the same in all circumstances, right ?
You trying to dodge a rockfall on the road, going into the opposite lane and killing two people in the process would be treated the same as someone that killed his wife and a child in cold blood. That’s just eerie and one of the many reasons/use cases why laws have to be strictly written.
No offense, but I do hope you aren’t in charge of writing laws for a living.
2 Likes
AMEN!
Then we have different views on the validity and reasoning behind the rules being that way and any further discussion on that topic wont lead anywhere.
Which precisely why i have stated so many times “for the purpose of denying a kill” being the main driving factor, in the same way as in your example where the intent matters for the purposes of punishment.
2 Likes
My IR SAM doesn’t even have a theoretical chance of fighting back against ground units, so outcome is already predetermined as I have no means of killing my opponent.
Beating up a fully tied down man isn’t really defeating and outplaying him, it’s straight up foul play.
That’s the whole issue in this matter.
The fact we have to argue over something that should be cut and dry is a clear sign of trouble. People shouldn’t really have to argue over laws, which is literally the whole point of such a system.
I don’t know what exactly your tasks and powers are as a GM, but I highly doubt you’re allowed to alter the rules and add your own “flavors” to it based on your subjective thoughts and feelings. You replying to me with:
is basically just that, rule altering and flavoring it up to suit your needs. Shouldn’t you just enforce something that’s already been written up as is, without looking into it any deeper ? You should object as a GM as the laws you’re trying to enforce basically can’t be enforced due to their vagueness.
Of course, do correct me if I’m wrong when it comes to your powers as a GM.
That’s like you get pulled over by a cop in some country with extremely vaguely written laws and then he tries to act upon some poorly written definition, adding his own clauses that literally don’t exist just to “spice” it up and strengthen his narrative.
I don’t know about you, but that would be straight up ludicrous.
I already explained how kill denial isn’t always the same and how it could be split up and categorized, same as how murder is in any semi-sane country.
Which is done anyway even when they are written clearly, that is why there is an entire profession dedicated to precisely doing that.
Again, i stand by my previous statements, having clear cut rules creates other issues in of themselves.
Therein lies the issue, if what happened and was reported is slightly outside the clearly defined offence in the rules then it wouldn’t be able to be punished and the offender gets away with it scott free. Players would find ways to stay just outside the rule but still be able to grief other players. (Example here being that it isn’t stealing if its under X amount of monetary value, people would then start stealing X-1 valued things and not be able to be stopped or punished).
The best thing in my personal opinion is the vague rules as they are now, enforced not by a single person but rather voted on by a team (or at minimum enforced by a single person but judged by a team if appealed). That way you to a large extent avoid power hungry moderators or ones that abuse a system (for me this goes for any situation where punishment is handed out) as those types of moderators are in that case weeded out rather quickly. It’s even better if that team also lurks and feels out the communities thoughts and comments on specific issues to see if harsher measures are needed or if it’s time to be more lenient (to a degree, there should still be some lines that aren’t to be crossed even if a community thinks they want that, it’s very often that a large part of a community know to little to realistically make a call).
(Speculation:)
I think that last part is what happened with teamkill punishments recently as there had been a lot of complaints on the forums about it for some time. They then did a large teamkill ban wave and have since done teamkill ban waves regularly together with the cheating ban waves (the teamkill bans that are a week or longer are now also listed in the Fair Play posts which they haven’t been before).
(end of speculation)
Game Masters handle in-game chat and name bans, as a Senior (together with the other Seniors) i also handle appeals for those types of punishments. I don’t think i can go into more details than that.
What i personally also do (that is outside of the responsibilities as a Game Master) is raise concerns seen on the forums, if i see what i believe to be an increase in complaints about an issue i bring that up to possibly be looked into. It’s ultimately up to them if they look into it and want to or can do anything about it.
1 Like
Skill issue fool
You mean attorneys ?
If that’s the case, they argue if their client falls under certain laws or not based on evidence or other stuff. In WT, all evidence you need is clearly available from the get go, so arguing over that doesn’t make any sense.
Trying to argue about clearly written and complete laws that don’t break the constitution is a fool’s errand.
Clear cut rules are a backbone of every decent law.
Laws can be extended by adding new clauses to fight exactly that, which happens all the time in real life as well. Those iterations make the clear cut laws be much better in the end than the poorly made gray area ones, which is why IRL law is a very complex thing that can’t be defined in few clauses, unlike WT’s rule set.
I see that you’re assuming WT’s EULA or ToS can’t change at all, which is weird to be honest.
That’s why in a clear cut law you have misdemeanor theft and felony theft, which would both fall into the same category in your proposed gray area system, and that makes no sense. In some countries misdemeanor theft can be transferred into a felony one for repeated offenders as well.
You gave a really nice example.
Gray area system: Theft bad, all will go 10 years in prison, goodbye.
Clear cut system: Theft bad, if you steal 10 euros you’ll get a slap on the wrist, if you steal 100k euros you’ll go to prison, goodbye.
I don’t know about you, but I know under what penal system I’d want to live in.
So you’re proposing something like a tribal system where elders have the last say and are judge, jury and executioner all in one.
Only way to do this properly is via in-game polls as any other means (forum lurking) might create biased answers. It gets even worse if you decide to be harsher/lenient based off of that flawed dataset.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to go after you personally, but what you’re saying really doesn’t feel right to me, as I pretty much oppose any system where certain people can change the laws as they wish, almost on a day to day basis, without even informing anyone about it.
So I’ll assume you have no powers over altering the rules and you can only enforce them and that’s about it. As I said above, you can’t enforce something being “unfair” if that definition has never been written down and is open to interpretation by literally anyone.
I don’t really know if you have raised your concerns about this, but in my opinion you should.
Any appeal from a player that has been banned because “unfair play” should be accepted because the word unfair has never been defined so it’s theoretically impossible to hold anyone accountable over that.
Without a clear definition, killing IR SAM that can’t fight ground vehicles in your MBT sounds more unfair than anything else honestly, even J-ing out in the former vehicle.
Same can be said for griefing your team by not J-ing out in the former vehicle.
I did yes.
Which is exactly what players would do, they would start arguing that their actions don’t fall under the rules because of xyz reasons and circumstances. Some ridiculous examples would be: “The rules don’t explicitly state that they are valid on Tuesdays so i can do it on Tuesdays!” , “I didn’t push them into water, i crashed into them hard once and they flew into the water so that rule doesn’t apply.” . “I didn’t teamkill, i only damaged their plane, hitting the ground is what killed them.”.
Now those are silly examples just to show what i mean, the details quickly become blurry and vague anyway even if the rules are written straight forward, there are going to be examples that were obviously ment to be included in the specific rules but since it wasn’t explicitly stated they can’t be punished.
Not really, there are exaples of law systems that do not operate with clearly written laws. i’ve given an example previously:
Sure, but then that quickly becomes a fulltime job and lawyers have to be hired to sit around and do that every time something needs to be added/changed, having gray area rules means you can change a currently applied ruleset on the fly if necessary, changes can even be democratically voted on by a team.
Not at all, it can absolutely change but i do not see it being a reasonable thing to do. It will very likely take way to many resources and manpower to upkeep just those documents, it would in my opinion introduce more problems than it would help.
which would in those cases be judged based on all the surrounding factors and punished in a relative scale instead of a yes/no system. if someone feels like they have been mistreated by such a system then a team review can be done to adjust based on previous cases of similar type and circumstances as well as voted on.
A yes no system means that someone that stole x-1 would get a small punishment and someone that stole x+1 would get a large punishment even if it’s like 2 cents apart in value. That doesn’t make sense to me, They should both get very similar punishments as the value is so close (provided no other factors play a role).
My counter:
Gray area system: Theft bad, up to 10 years in prison. “Well how much did they steal? from whom? in what way?” , “Ah, 1 euro from their moms wallet, slap on wrist.” or “Oh 100K euros from a bank at gunpoint that traumatised everyone there, 10 years prison”. or in between, “Threatened one person with knife to steal 20k euro from their safe, 5 years. Oh 3 others did the same thing and got only 4 years? okay then 4 years it is.”
Clear cut system: " Theft bad, if you steal 10 Euro you’ll get a slap on the wrist, if you steal 100k euros you’ll go to prison, goodbye. " Where is the line? lets say 1k euro. You steal 999 Euro slap on wrist, you steal 1001 Euro 10 years prison? or is it going to list every day extra in prison for each one Euro added to the theft? What happens if its “and a half”?
Which is exactly how VERY many judicial systems work. Even the “clear cut” ones.
Fair point based on my comment, there are better ways to gather that datas (you could even automate the process as communication is text based, just scrape the websites/game chats for certain words and compile them). Polls come with their own issues as well, i’m not saying they are bad, but they aren’t without flaws.
Appreciate that clarification, i do not take it personally either so no worries there.
Then we differ in opinion there. I think a static clear cut system very often take to long to adapt, especially in todays society. Things change to fast for such a system to adequately keep up with all the details. Take in-game chat for example, a word that a couple of months ago was considered bad is now so common that no one really thinks much of it when it’s said, to quickly be able to change how that is judged is a good thing. Having to continue to punish it until the rules as written are changed (which might take a very long time depending on various factors) is in my opinion a bad thing. Or if something that was bad when the process of changing the rules started but had the time to grow into something players don’t really notice once the rule is changed then that is going to be punished when it shouldn’t have been.
Correct to an extent, i do not have direct control over the rules as written and cannot change them if i wanted to. What i can do is voice my opinion on them and give recommendations for what i think they should be and how i think they should be interpreted and what punishment i think would be appropriate. It’s then ultimately not up to me personally if that change is implemented or not. However, since i’m a senior i do have some say in how big some of the punishments are, but not as a blanket rule (i’m trying to answer best i can here without going into to much specifics).
You absolutely can, and may things are, even in real life (e.g. Swedish justice system). You are free to agree or disagree with that approach but it is very much possible and is used in large scales.
I also think you’re misreading the rule a little bit, personally i think the word “method” in there (i.e. “unfair methods of play”) plays a large part. It’s the systematic use of unfair methods that is the biggest issue, not specific cases that happens seldom (at least seldom enough to not be a concern), the intent can play a role.
Not really, if the actions they perform causes large amounts of players to be affected to the point of them feeling the need to send reports about it (and almost all the reports are on the same actions/issues) then it has in my opinion already there gone against the spirit of fair play and/or unfair methods of play and been judged by the community as something that shouldn’t be allowed.
It’s ultimately up for judgement on if it warrants a punishment and in that case how big. (But i think that many unrelated players wouldn’t report the same other player for the same thing over multiple unrelated matches and days if it wasn’t an issue to begin with).
2 Likes
That’s why you should have someone to patch those loopholes and make your laws stronger and stronger by each appeal. Every new, properly placed clause will result in one less problem to deal with in the long run.
Which is why you have a job of putting them there.
Every semi-serious company should have a team of lawyers protecting their interests.
Changing rules on the fly as you want them to be interpreted doesn’t sound so great.
I highly doubt one lawyer in a month wouldn’t be able to change the EULA enough to bring it to a better state than it is currently.
You’re mixing things up.
Stealing 1 euro from a mom’s wallet is a single charge.
Stealing 100k euros from the bank while using a gun would force many other charges on you, such as unlawful imprisonment/kidnapping, use of a deadly weapon while committing a crime and probably many others alongside theft of course.
Using a deadly weapon to steal even 1 euro is classified as a felony, even if the amount stolen warrants only a misdemeanor.
Many laws often have ranges of punishment so you could, for example, be charged with minimal of 2 and up to 10 years in prison for one crime. What you gonna get is often based on your previous record and other mitigating factors.
Probation is often given to first offenders and in some other cases. For example, if this is your first time stealing 1001 euros (committing felony theft) you might be put on probation for six months or whatever, instead of serving the minimal prison sentence for that crime.
Slap on the wrist > probation > jail time.
Bottom line is that public servants in real life are chosen by the people in one way or another. I doubt community here was given the chance to vote who will be in charge of the “country” and subsequently place GMs in power.
Even after elections, community have democratic tools like referendums to vote themselves on some highly questionable moves by the politicians. I don’t think people have these opportunities in a tribal system.
Not all people voice their concerns on the forum or in-game chat, so scraping that still isn’t a valid option.
If you want to gather voices of the community, in-game polls that target all active players of the game are your best bet and honestly, the only correct way of doing something like that.
Do tell me, as a GM, how a word that once was considered bad transitions into being okay ?
Something being common doesn’t really excuse it from being bad and/or offensive.
No reason to stop punishing people for doing something against the rules just because the players don’t mind it.
I for example don’t really notice or mind people calling each other idiots in the game chat, but I do believe it should be punished.
Without defining what “unfair methods” are, no one can tell what exactly falls into that category and that thing now becomes a gray area that’s open to interpretation and in the end, plausible deniability for the offender.
This is really bad as you’re yet again using your own and some other player’s personal feelings to enforce something for an action that doesn’t necessarily have to be against the rules.
It’s like you suddenly start driving your dirt bike on a public dirt road through a village and for example, villagers get mad at you because you now disturb them by driving there. Should a police officer ban you from using that public road just because some villagers reported this as they can’t cope with any noise at all ?
I don’t know about Sweden, but here if your bike is road legal and produces allowable noise levels there’s nothing stopping you from driving on public roads.
What you said here also raises some questions, as spawn killing/camping has been a hot topic for years now, so I assume many reports had been sent over that matter. This would mean spawn killing/camping should be illegal now as “significant” amount of people have voiced their concern about it, but IIRC one CM (Stona I believe) said that thing is perfectly legal. So who do I listen to now ?
That Rule 9 is just a reworded “we will ban you for anything and everything if you annoy us”. The word significant also isn’t defined, so can you tell me how much is it, 5, 10, 500, 100 000 ?
1 Like
Idk how this is hard to understand. J out is there for all kinds of emergencies, not to deny kills ( its a cowardly move imo) and its reportable. Simple.
1 Like
Not all kill denials are the same.