You have different tiers
A lobby in which most are just doing PvE
A lobby where most are doing PvE and someone asked for PvE only in all chat
A PvE lobby with people enforicng that PvE with tactics like abusive messages and TKs
A lobby created and populated with pre-planned people explicity for farming
First 1, not “illegal” at all. Second, technically bad, but not a big deal
Last 2, very bad.
How’s it not the same?
Is someone doing PvE in a “PvE lobby” automatically guilty of violating the EULA?
You have spent the last hour trying to say they were. So how do you prove it?
What is a rule violation and what isn’t?
Even if it’s not enforced and merely accepted, it makes all the genuine players of that mode lose out because they get to do it all in safety, without hostility…
@Bunny_宝妮 I don’t think you thought the issue through, and this guy is using your statements to try and make out that it’s alright.
I think this needs to actually be addressed because there are actual problems with allowing this to even be… Chances are some have already ground out the BP with it, and the current crafting event without a single actual hostility and more consented kills.
Just wastes all the effort that anyone legitimately puts into the game.
But what denotes “Acceptance”?
Should I immediately quit that match? Switch aircraft? Start hurling abuse at the guy? What am I suppose to do?
If they ask once and press it no further, then I just ignore them and go about my buissness, if they start repeatedly asking, I’d report it using the in-game function. But regardless of a “PvE lobby” or not, I employ the same tactics and in the same manner. If I do it right, I shouldnt see other players.
If someone PvPs and someone starts getting shitty. Then I report them. But if nothing happens or there is no PvP. (it happens if the match is quiet) then it doesnt prove anything. Only that no one has found anyone yet
You’re not calling into the enemy, to not engage… This is what those rooms and the insinuation behind them entails.
I’m sure this breaks the EULA as much as having someone sit on a cap, cap, then back off to let the enemy cap, and so on… I seen someone mentioning a pair did that in a random match and ended up with 20 caps…
It does, technically.
But the point Im trying to press is that simply being in one of those lobbies doesnt denote guilt automatically.
Technically I don’t care if you want to excuse it for any reason… It becomes common knowledge when you play with a bot farm of players, that it’s clear that there’s no PvP going on…
It’s almost as if people have forgotten the bot farm of consoles in Sim to make this sort of thing, a thing…
(False flaggers need removal, It’s hilarious because when challenged on this, I found a bot farm without even trying…)
What are you on about?
I think you need to read more and think about what we’re talking about more than trying to make excuses and whataboutisms for every scenario under the sun…
You are saying that anyone and everyone who engages in PvE acitivities after someone says “PvE lobby?” in all chat is automatically guilty and should get perma banned
Except. That is just stupid and idiotic and downright insane. Bombing bases is not against the EULA, never has been and never will be.
You just want PvE removed from SB. For what reason I dont know, but at this point I dont think you actually understand what this thread is about. It is about people using various tactics, like being abusive, false reporting or TKing to enforce a “PvE lobby”.
An entire match engaging in Mostly PvE activities doesnt mean they are colluding, might be out of game, its true, but almost impossible to prove without a pattern of matches.
So anwser this question, and you have yet to answer it.
With the punishment being a ban of some decription.
What criteria does someone have to meet to be in violation of the EULA when it comes to colluding with the other team in SB?
I told you before I was done with you, and the only response that I’ve given is because you were all ‘Good post’ to Bunny, who I genuinely don’t think recognized the actual insinuation, and what was being alledged here, all the while you’ve been excusing it the entire time.
Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it’s not a concern.
Maybe its you who needs to re-read through this thread. Inclduing the original post, because everything that I have said has just been para-phrasing others includng a GM.
I’d especially focus on the posts by Schindibee who is an ACTUAL senior game master who actually plays SB. Because everything i’ve said is what hes said as well.
The issue of "PVE" matches - #447 by Schindibee
The issue of "PVE" matches - #414 by Schindibee
So let me make it really nice and simple for you:
Just doing PvE in a random match is not violating any EULA
Actively avoiding “PvP” through the use of certain tactics (such as low level flying) is not a violation of the EULA
Someone saying “PvE Only” is technically against the EULA
Someone else saying “PvE Only” does not make that same PvE action a Violation of the EULA
Someone else saying “PvE Only” does not make those PvP avoidance tactics a Violation of the EULA
Choosing to totally ignore the player who said “PvE Only” and continuing as you were before they joined/said anything is not a Violation of the EULA
Agreeing to “PvE Only” in chat is collusion and thus a violation of the EULA
Being abusive or TKing is definetly a violation of the EULA
You may want to avoid using red text, that’s a special colour apparently.
I’m looking for clarity from the Game Masters on this because the situation is obviously out of your grasp being you’re fixated on what doesn’t count and trying to explain why people are vulnerable, when I’ve already mentioned many times that they are pretty obvious when you actually think about it rather than just straight deny it.
So @Bunny_宝妮 and @Schindibee who else do we need to bring into this, because I see this as not being an issue anymore seeing as the event is over and the BP is almost over, the sim PvE’ers here, would likely be long finished…
This shouldn’t be accepted in the slightest, and it allures to the idea of using the old sim botfarm method being ‘fine’ because the ‘player’ didn’t say ‘pve’ but yet just shot up a whole heap of bots on an airfield…
But its not “Always” that obvious though. You have only stated that someone engaging in PvE action in a manner that appears as if they are not “worried” about PvP (such as not looking around, or flying in a straight line) is proof of collusion. Depsite several examples being provided where that same behaviour could be innconently explained. Such as simply being a new or bad player.
But yes, It would be best to hand this over to a game master who can actually explain the rules to you better than I can.
The Users are not permitted to use red color when drafting and designing posts and signatures on the Forum. The red font is reserved for Administration and the Website Managers.
https://forum.warthunder.com/guidelines
2.3
That is probably the most clear description here about what is ok and what not.
It’s unavoidable that there is a “gray area” if it comes to such things, as ultimately clear proof of abuse is difficult to come by. Sure, certain actions (or lack thereof) imply someone acts in a way forbidden by the rules, but to actually prove misconduct often requires much more.
There’s a balance that any game producer must try to achieve: On one hand he doesn’t want his game to be abused in a way that makes it less fun for others to play, as this hurts business, on the other hand he only wants to punish people who really did something not allowed, because punishing people who have done nothing wrong also hurts business.
But how do you determine that?
With chat related offenses we GM’s are very fortunate: Our automatically generated chat logs 100% prove what offenses someone has typed in chat. N-word => chatban for racist languag. Simple. (Ok, nt only simple, as often context plays a role as well, hence automated filters only are of marginal use here…).
TK and team damage offenses also can be tracked quite easily server-side, as it’s obviously easy to track who killed who and thus how often someone does a blue-on-blue and deserves a time-out. So here an automated system as is in place in WT is a good way to go about it, and in my experience works very well.
All other gameplay related offenses (cheating, hacking, botting,…) are however much more difficult to prove (or disprove!), and this process a) relies heavily on the help of players observing the forbidden actions and reporting it, and b) requires a lot of resources to look carefully at those reported cases, to determine if a forbidden behaviour is 100% clear - so clear that it allows to irrevokably deny access to the game.
As to what is allowed and what not, @Morvran as I mentioned summed it up quite well.
What we do when observing such “PVE arrangements” in a match ourselves is to first warn, explain that this is not allowed. Often players simply are not aware that it’s against the rules, and often, that settles it already.
Where we immediately get active is of course if the warning is not heeded, and especially of course if the “PvE Fanatics” start enforcing it by harassing verbally or via gameplay. “Hey, we told you we don’t what that, yet you continue and are even being an donkey about this - out with you!”
Big discussion point obviously is also the detection of PvE (or even the definition of it), and also here I’m afraid @Morvran has repeatedly explained it well: Playing the game completing missions against AI units is NOT passive play, and neither is trying to avoid an engagement.
PLEASE NOTE that this is probably a bit different in Sim EC than in the other game modes: When I’m in a Realistic match and hide up in space or over an airbase to prolong the match and let tickets bleed out in my favor while the opponent can’t do anything about it, its a bit different from an Enduring Confrontation where actually longer matches are favored and ticked bleed is not so much dependent on time, but on actions.
But how to determine if someone is playing PvE?
Hard.
Just two examples for two Sim EC matches I played recently, both with Sea Harrier:
In the first match I took off, headed towards a target I selected. On the way there I noticed a blue base nearby just lost points, so I looked out and spotted the enemy attacker. I deviated course, and as the geometry favored me, engaged and killed the enemy Tornado that just had bombed the blue base.
I continued to kill “my” base, returned home, flew out again to kill another base, and after doing that circled the area a bit as some enemy aircraft were reported nearby, which I felt I could maybe take out. They found me first, and a Flogger got me. And later I killed some more bases, but did not engage or get engaged by the enemy players.
In the second match, I also took off and headed for a target, located relatively close, by the border of the map. I selected a route a bit off, as quite a few kills were reported a bit closer to the center of the map but still uncomfortably close, and judging from the kill feed and statistics, I judged my chances to go against the enemy there as being to unfavourable for me (enemy top ace killing a friendly just a grid or two away - not good…). So I continued on my bombing mission, NOE, between trees, to really avoid “getting into trouble”. Attack, disengage, sneak home again. Repeat.
For the causal observer this may have looked like botting or PvE: Straight lines, in and out quickly, no apparent reaction to other players. Yet I was observing my surroundings, radar and RWR very closely, always judging if my chosen route would lead me to success or to disaster, and just coincidentally my choice was wise, and I had no trouble with enemy fighters.
So, was I abusing the game mode playing “PvE” in this second match?
No. Circumstances just resulted in my actions being less “PVP-like” than in the first match.
So as long as the players don’t ‘mention’ that they’re playing PvE, then it’s fine to join a room full of bots?
This isn’t a chat offence, this is about the actual act of joining a room of known bots, and participating in that match, gaining the advantage of not having to be aware of any player actions, because those players, aren’t going to be doing anything against you, by their coordination.
No, that’s NOT what I said. Botting obviously is a punishable offense.
What I said is that players currently not participating in PvP activities are not necessarily botters.
That’s not what I said either…
If they aren’t the botters, but knowingly join a botting room, and exploit the fact that the bots, aren’t going to come for them, is that fine?
((Whilst I’m sure someone will be upset and be all ‘OMG HE’S STILL AT IT!!!’ it’s the technicality that’s been ignored here, throughout this thread, and hence why I was peeved at M for keeping on and on about how it may not be…
If someone just joins that match, with all the bots, not that they are the botter, but still ‘benefits’ from the passive play presented by that ‘PvE lobby’, knowingly, and demonstrably, they are definitely part of this issue… They didn’t say the key words, but if they’re joining, match after match with the same few botters, they are benefitting
It’s exactly like the Heli EC guys who were exchanging kills… Some of them, they didn’t even say a word… Everyone would just fly to the enemy spawn, and start spamming kills on the pad as a bunch… Hell of a good time for ‘all’ of them, not really for someone who chose the wrong spawn thinking players were going to try defend themselves…))