Code of Conduct regarding OP battles needs to be changed - IDÉES POUR RYZOM

Rechercher | Connexion Forums | Nouveaux posts | Ces dernières 24h


	IDÉES POUR RYZOM

Forums » IDÉES POUR RYZOM » Code of Conduct regarding OP battles needs to be changed

#20 Ajouté par Daomei il y a 8 ans Multilingue

{translate}

Kimmerin

Daomei
Feign attacks on OPs are legitimate when serving tactical purposes, mainly by simultaneous declarations
If there are two or more OP's contested at the same time by one guild, attackers have to appear at every OP at least once during active phase, otherwise defenders can report them for no-show and rightly so. ..

That is demonstrably false. Quoting the CoC

7 - Rules regarding ouptposts (OP)
..
b) Repeated fake declarations
When declaring war on one or several OP at a time, if you don't attend at least one of these attacks with a number of players reasonably sufficient to pass the threshold against the NPC defense squadrons alone, it is considered harassment.

There has to be at least one potentially successful attempt to attack on one of the outposts war is declared upon, not one on each of them.

Kimmerin

Daomei
But 2 occurences during several months do not really support such a suspicion.
There were two attacks at Placio's OP (Tryker 50) back in 2015 ..

So that clear violation of CoC happened up to 2 years ago, and was inquired by the CSR. The accused side asserted a mistake and was warned, so case was settled. What has that to do with the recent OP conflicts?

Kimmerin

Daomei
For those who like PvP fights the lower level OPs should be a good low cost opportunity to initiate a fight. The defenders have to live with.
You miss the point. It's not about low costs, nobody asks to rise an entry barrier for OP warfare. It's about Code of Conduct being applied to owners of low-level OP's in the same way as it applied to owners of high-level ones. If a team attacks a low-level outpost, that's fine, let's fight. If a single attacking toon runs through the OP with invulnerability on and dissappears in the woods (let's call that "Wulfspack tactic") and nobody else shows up, now that should be considered a fake attack no matter what level of OP.

The difference is that a small number of attackers is well able to launch a successful attack on a lower level outpost due to lack of strength of the NPC guards. So the rule in the CoC "a number of players reasonably sufficient to pass the threshold against the NPC defense squadrons alone" is met with 2 or 3 players attacking a q50-100 OP while it is not when attacking q200+ outposts.

If this rule is abused for repeated attacks with small numbers, the CSR may consider it harrassment, too. In this case there were 2 attacks during several months. Before raising accusations or demanding change of CoC it would be appropriate to contact the attackers by IG mail or tell and to ask them about the motives of their attack.

I know recently active players of WP, namely Greenz and Tomstato, from our old server as fair and helpful players. I would be disappointed if they are engaging in vain provocations, now. But the burden of proof for that is with the plaintiff. Did you contact WP people at all? And do you not believe it abusive against forum CoC to call name of the guild in question without proving that they intentionally engaged in questionable conduct?

---

Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral

#21 Ajouté par Bluaarbthi il y a 8 ans [en]

{translate}

In a way i get your point Kimmerin. The CoC should be the same for every OP. It kinda smells like class justice.

So let's apply the same rules for any OP.
Now that has been said, let us drop the harrasment rule altogether. Why?

Because this just comes with the flaws of owning an OP, simple as that..
Everyone would like to have some rubarn or maga creeper, this makes these goods valuable. Having acces to these mats gives a guild a nice bonus. And we all know the q250 OP are mainly under control off the big guilds. As in real live, we could argue that guerilla tactics are a tool for dislodging the status quo. So why would it be banned?

I could see this be used marauder guilds. Lore and RP are making this possible.
Hey i could even see altguilds with an marauder demeanor but who are controlled by a kara or kami or ... guild. It could even be used by trytonists to remain some kind of ballance between the different religious factions. And just think about te reasons rangers could have :)

By claiming an OP you are basicly saying you are willing to go to war and thus need to take in account the consiquences, War is nasty,..

So basicly i don't see any harm in fake attacks, but you are right, all OP's should be considered equal whan it comes to the CoC. There is no reason why there should be any difference at all

#22 Ajouté par Kimmerin il y a 8 ans [en]

{translate}

Daomei

That is demonstrably false. Quoting the CoC

Yes, my fault. I got used to the fact that with simultaneous attacks there is always someone attacking here or there.

Daomei

So that clear violation of CoC happened up to 2 years ago, and was inquired by the CSR. The accused side asserted a mistake and was warned, so case was settled. What has that to do with the recent OP conflicts?

This is another example of system abuse, when OP declarations used not for getting PvP content or taking outposts, but for harassing. I find it hard to believe that was a mistake, not two times in a row in one week. It's that some people consider declaring on a low-level OP as a cheap way to annoy someone.

Daomei

So the rule in the CoC "a number of players reasonably sufficient to pass the threshold against the NPC defense squadrons alone" is met with 2 or 3 players attacking a q50-100 OP

Which is wrong, because nobody attacks with 2 or 3 toons, knowing there will be decent defending forces present. And there will be defending forces, as right now all low-level outposts, except one, belong not to independent guilds, but factions. That renders "let small guild of three guys to take an OP" opportunity useless. That probably never happened, except for possible GvG matches, and unlikely to happen anytime in the future. Such an opportunity maybe looked well on the paper, but since OP warfare has been designed as a faction playfield, there is no room for small independent guilds of three guys. However, this system is vulnerable to abuse, as illustrated by examples in my previous posts.

OK, let's pretend none of the events I described before have been started for harassment purpose. There is no guarantee, that q50-100 declarations will not be used for harassment later. There is no guarantee, that attack at q50 OP starting at 8 a.m. on Sunday morning will not be a troll, but merely "a mistake". In this case, I can't tell a real attack from fake, as all it takes is one character showing up at the OP for a minute.

Daomei

motives of their attack.

Let's see. They weren't after the OP, because they knew it would be defended by the faction and they didn't bring enough numbers to overcome defenders and barely tried to kill NPC. They weren't after PvP, because they didn't engage in PvP. They weren't going for a grab from inactive guild expecting nobody attending the defense, because the owners of the OP are active. You see, I'm trying to think logically.

Daomei

Did you contact WP people at all?

Why should I care? The attack itself is a sign of hostile intentions. Had they wanted PvP, they would came and PvP. Had they wanted the OP, they would actually tried to take it. Had they wanted GvG, they would announced it prior to the battle. Nothing of this happened. Had they have a quarrel with the guild holding the OP, they would have made a statement, explaining as why they do it and what exactly has pissed them off. Needless to say, there was no statement. So if some guild repeatedly use harassment tactics, I'm the last one to care about reputation of this guild, and I call harassment, if I feel harassed.

Dernière édition par Kimmerin (il y a 8 ans).

---

"People let the same problem make them miserable for years when they could just say "So what". That's one of my favorite things to say. "So what". - Andy Warhol.

#23 Ajouté par Daomei il y a 8 ans Multilingue

{translate}

Kimmerin

Daomei
So that clear violation of CoC happened up to 2 years ago, and was inquired by the CSR. The accused side asserted a mistake and was warned, so case was settled. What has that to do with the recent OP conflicts?
This is another example of system abuse ..

No, it is an example demonstrating that CoC and its enforcement are working. That there is shoplifting in RL is no example that laws against theft are not working and one has to go back to hanging thieves or chopping their hands.

Kimmerin

OK, let's pretend none of the events I described before have been started for harassment purpose. There is no guarantee, that q50-100 declarations will not be used for harassment later. ..

Indeed. There is no guarantee that rules never be violated. Moreover, it is even possible that they be bent inappropriately.

An example: As stated, "a number of players reasonably sufficient to pass the threshold against the NPC defense squadrons alone" is required to stay inside the CoC for OP war declarations. Now, I am fairly confident (informed contradiction welcome and invited) that Diwu and me as launcher masters, with appropriate equipment and logistics (max stats q250 launchers, 2 times 3 packers + 1 mount), be able to kill all guards even of a 250 OP if undefended. Does that mean that we have an unlimited license to click?

In fact, no. There is a general rule:
CoC general rules

CoC

The following rules govern the Code of Conduct of Ryzom Services (including the "Ryzom" game, IRC and the forums)...
1. Any harassment, threat or other offending act causing uneasiness to/against another player is forbidden. ..

In fact, one must not try to exploit loopholes in CoC text like a hack lawyer, this will surely result in a warning or a disciplinary.

Daomei

Did you contact WP people at all?

Kimmerin

Why should I care? The attack itself is a sign of hostile intentions..

You should care. Again, the general CoC:

I. Disagreement with another player ..
In case of a disagreement with another player, you are expected to try to come to an amicable settlement yourself. A ticket should be a recourse of last resort, and happen only if you are not able to resolve the situation and a third party needs to step in.

Such is the correct procedure: First try to settle the conflict yourself, if not possible, raise a ticket. And if that solution does not work, apply for a change of rules or game mechanics.

---

Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral

#24 Ajouté par Ingfarah il y a 8 ans [en]

{translate}

I must agree with Daomei. Plus, this is becoming a Wulfpack's hunt. Don't aim for a specific group, aim for a behavior. This happened; all right, how do we fix it?

Well the only possible fix I see is to chat with them when you see think they've gone, and leave the battlefield for more pleasant things you can do if they say they don't come back. Screen the conversation if you feel the need to. Keep a loose eye on the rounds while you do anything you like; come back if someone decides to kill NPCs. Ok, it's not an ideal situation, but it's better than standing there and/or forcing attacker to forfeit any attempt at surprise.

#25 Ajouté par Mjollren il y a 8 ans [en]

{translate}

I still stand by my proposal to shorten the length of wars, as per my first post in this thread, simply because said activity is plainly boring. This would solve Kimmerin's grief (time wasted defending) while at the same time would encourage more activity on lower level OPs in general.

---

#26 Ajouté par Daomei il y a 8 ans Multilingue

{translate}

Mjollren: I politely disagree. Outposts in 50-100 regions have the advantage of being reached easily from faction teleporters within a 1-3 minutes range. So, they may be guarded by one player (even a low level alt) alerting the defenders to come for rez and reinforcement (a wicked observer may even be a neutral alt). So the surveillance and defense of a 50-100 OP is easy, why nerfing the attack altogether?

Compare it to the defense of Loria Stronghold, Ginti, Westgrove etc. where I lived through the defense boredom repeatedly. Neither Kami or Kara could afford to withdraw their defense forces as redeployment would take 10-15 minutes at minimum (not to speak of redeploying artillery). Thus the situation was WWI style static, everybody staying inside the trenches.

Declaring war in 50-100 zones may be easier, but so is defense.

Famous proverbs:
"Die meiste Zeit des Lebens warted der Soldat vergebens" (Most of his lifetime the soldier is waiting in vain)
"War is boring"

Edité 3 fois | Dernière édition par Daomei (il y a 8 ans).

---

Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral

#27 Ajouté par Ingfarah il y a 8 ans [en]

{translate}

A note here: actually Daomei, redeploying a faction in a level 250 area takes about five minutes at most. Multiple battlefields have proven the only real obstacle was the discipline of the faction in movement.

@Mjollren: Shortening the length of an OP war would make attacking a high level OP from a faction stronger than yours even more unthinkable, because the 2 hours are actually essential to get things done unless your numbers are greater than those of the enemy.

Hey, Mjoll, you're from the biggest faction; we don't mind if you guys come a few people short because of boredom, you know? It may even out the odds a little bit!:D

Now I don't know yet how that last statement I said made you feel, but I assume it to be quite similar to what your recommendation made me feel (except for the part where you're explicitely named/targetted). Shorter battles means the sheer bulk of the troops is even more important to the outcome than it is at the moment. Last battle on Ginti, offence needed less than an hour to get their 10 rounds, while defending party took nearly an hour and a half. Numbers during phase 1 are a bit blurry in my head, although I'm pretty sure it looked like something like 45vs30, while on phase II the numbers looked like 20vs30. In both cases, people killing NPCs were more in numbers, however NPCs will be way easier to manage if you have a bigger bulk of troops. NPCs that are harder to manage means it takes longer to reach the same stage in the battle.

I've been leading battles for groups usually (not always, but usually) roughly 2 thirds of the size of their opponents; please don't make a wipe even more costly for a smaller faction!

Edité 2 fois | Dernière édition par Ingfarah (il y a 8 ans).

Last visit mardi 26 Novembre 20:25:47 UTC

P_:G_:PLAYER