Code of Conduct regarding OP battles needs to be changed - IDEAS FOR RYZOM

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?