Troll squads

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
126

It very much can.

No he wouldn’t if he’s trying his hardest to do something with his available skillset and vehicles.
Someone spawning in a Reserve tier tank when he has multiple top tier tanks available is an intentional way to spoil others’ enjoyment. The intention behind it is irrelevant. You could go for the God Mode, you could try to jump over a 2A7V for a “funni” video or do something else entirely.

You did that with intent.

Scared of answering because it wouldn’t really go with your agenda ?
Supporting something but not wanting that to be happening to you is a clear way of knowing you’re in the wrong.

127

I agree with a BR restriction, and I’ve also said the exact same thing in the past that these biplanes do nothing but shooting the one who brought them into higher BR and dies for 99% of the times.

2 Likes
128

Not if you want to use the word griefing.

And if someone is trying their hardest with their available skillset and lower BR vehicle to try to get the achievement?

Not if you want to use the word “griefing” .

Again, has nothing to do with it and is irrelevant to the discussion. And no, i’m not answering on principle of sidetracking.

I can be against something and at the same time correct your incorrect word usage to describe that thing. They are not mutually exclusive and thus my opinion is irrelevant to the discussion.

I’m not “scared”. I’m trying to keep the discussion on track.

129

That would be negligence.

Standard negligence, in czech criminal law, is when the perpetrator either
A) knew he can break a law but without a proper reason thought the breach of law wont occur
B) didnt know he can break a law but in regard to the situation at hand as well as the person of the perpetrator he should have known the breach of law can occur.

Gross negligence is when the perpetrator knew he can brek a law with his action, but he simply didnt care he will do so.

Negligence is the same as intent for certain crimes.

Gross negligence is aggravating circumstance.

So no, the griefing does not neccesarily has to be intentional for it to be bannable offense, just as some crimes dont have to be commited with intent to be punishable by law.

1 Like
130

Not really.

Still bad as you aren’t bringing the best vehicles you can.
You getting an achievement is just your personal gain, so your team cannot suffer because of it.

Having an opinion is allowed.

Or you aren’t answering because you wouldn’t really want to experience things you’re valiantly labeling as okay in here.

This is one of the best questions you can ask anyone that supports this “fair” game mechanic.

This is a discussion about troll squads and my question is pretty much spot on when it comes to the topic.

131

I think i was being a bit unclear. I was thinking more in lines of what the alternative would be. As in if the same action was taken with intent.

So Negligent injury VS assault, Manslaughter vs murder, arson vs reckless burning. My point here is that he is trying to use the word that requires intent to describe all occurrences of the same action even if they are carried out with intent or not.

You cannot claim “griefing” for all actions of the same kind when you don’t know the intent of the person performing that action.

The word “griefing” then doesn’t apply anymore is my entire point. Even if the action can be considered part of a bannable offence you can’t attribute intent to all actions of that kind that happens.
Take teamkilling for example, its a bannable offence, but it only becomes griefing when intentional.

132

Have i ? where ?
No, really, where?

When did i support it?

Sure, but it has absolutely zero to do with why i started commenting in this thread to begin with.

You are using the word “griefing” wrong. That is it, that is all of what i’m trying to say here. 100% of my argument. My entire point.

133

Fair enough, I guess.

However keep in mind some crimes do not differentiate between intent and neglince. For example, § 155 of czech criminal code, exposing someone to STD idoes not differentiate between intent and negligence. or § 180, mishandling of personal information. There are many more examples I could give.

A) See above.
B) Intent can be inferred.

no but as stated above, some crimes do not differentiate between negligence and intent. and, as stated above, intent can be inferred.

God heavens, imagine the world if all criminals had to do was to say “i didnt mean to” to not be charged lol.

1 Like
134

By not being against it you’re supporting it.
Being neutral isn’t an option here.

Your semantics arguing doesn’t really bring a lot to the thread. Griefing, trolling or whatever word you want to pick, it simply isn’t an action that should be legitimate, even more so literally incentivized by Gaijin.

135

Correct, i think i would personally put using cheating software in that category. and Grave offences in chat as well.

Not inherently when there are actual game mechanics designed with that action in mind, the “god mode” achievement.

Valid point, but in this case i can make the comparison of you taking a free sample of a snack and the guy next to you buts a cookie packet in his shirt and then someone starts yelling that you are both stealing.

There is an argument to be had about changing the current situation, but calling something what you want it to be as if it’s fact, when it currently isn’t that, is in my opinion wrong.

136

By not stating either opinion that means i have chosen a side? How?

I do have an opinion, i just haven’t said it as it isn’t relevant to your incorrect word usage.

It is when the word you are using is directly mentioned in the rules and you are wrongly applying that word in practise.

138

We cant have no fun anymore

139

No you didn’t.

Yes, but not your word usage which is why i commented in the first place.

140

I suggest you keep on topic.
Also, why was my previous comment hidden ?

141

Chat sure, why not. entirelly possible, moreso we actually have quite a few statues close to this.

but cheating software? you kinda cant install it without knowing its cheating software, even if you want to claim that person installing cheating software didnt know they are installing cheating software, baseline is they were modifying a game. so not the example Id actually use.

Since the God mode is centered about destroying vehicle “5 BRs higher”, it can be argued that for the purposes of ARB, bringing anything more than 5 BRs below the maximum possible BR in a match can be considered at very best “suboptimal”.

Ah you see youd be technically correct but criminal code, as well the misdemeanor code (for less offensive acts) both work with “minimum amount of damage” for something to be prosecutable by law.

I think the issue here is the intent part.

To further elaborate, beside negligence, czech criminal law also recognizes two different intents - direct and indirect.

Direct intent is me knowing my act is against a law and can cause damage and I want to cause damage; whereas indirect intent is me knowing my act is against law and can cause damage but I dont want to cause damage.

Merely by claiming that person didnt want to intentionally grief his team by bringing biplane to top tier is enough as to not be considered bannable offense, then so I can claim that I didnt intended to t-bone a family of four while i was booze n cruisin (even if I knew damn well that I had 18 beers). Even if we were to believe the person did not intent to grief his team, bringing biplane to top tier its still indirect intent.

It would be the same as with the “cheating sofware” example earlier. “Oh i didnt know that uberwallhackengine 9000 is cheating software, I merely downloaded such file and then deliberately modified my game”

My brother in christ YOU clicked the button.

4 Likes
142

Played 12 games today to finish the event stage and what did I find? In 2 games I had these kind of trolls on my team once in a 2 man once in a 3 man squad again. Only one of them griefed the team at the start of the game. Ofc low level premium players with the even lower level mates in a biplane or a 3.0 one. In 2 other matches this kind of squad existed in the enemy team. With me shooting down a Gladiator with a fox 3 and in the other match the guy rammed himself into one of his mates also in a biplane at the start of the match.

This issue is quite persistent and occurs more often than you think. Especially around the 11.0-12.0 premium area this kind of squad is somewhat frequent

143

They should block people from queuing if there is more than a 0.3 or 0.7 BR difference in their squads planes, I don’t have an issue with people squading with slight differences in BR, I’ll often play with my friend with different BR planes due to not having planes at the exact same BR, but never more than a 0.3 difference… well not intentionally at least, accidents have happened.

2 Likes
144

A spread of 7 BRs? Holy crap!

What’s the point of having a limitation at all if the spread is that wide.
What the hell is an A7V going to do against a Jumbo?
Or a T-60 against a Tiger?
And the differences above are not even 6.

Or maybe (I’m hoping) that “7.0 BRs” was a typo?

145

I mean to be completly fair, some BR spread is neccesary. I bring Gepard 1A2 to 12.7 simply because theres no other choice for gun-armed SPAA for germany, and thats spread of 3 whole BRs. Hell, Bosvark is the only SPAA UK gets for 5.7-8.0 lineups, thats also massive spread.

But then again this is extremely niche issue which realistically wont impact too many people who uptier vehicles for legitimate reasons.

146

But the vehicle with BR spread of 3 is not your only vehicle, right? You have other vehicles within the BR range of the battle?

The post I responded to was not addressing that. it said “atleast 1 vehicle within 7.0 BRs of the top BR in the squad lineup”
So basically they are entering a battle with their BEST vehicle 7 BRs below the range of BRs for the battle.

Unless, as I stated in my post, it was a typo (worded poorly).