#18 Added by Bitttymacod 8 years ago
---
#19 Added by Kimmerin 8 years ago
Feign attacks on OPs are legitimate when serving tactical purposes, mainly by simultaneous declarations
But 2 occurences during several months do not really support such a suspicion.
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.
Edited 3 times | Last edited by Kimmerin (8 years ago)
#20 Added by Daomei 8 years ago
DaomeiFeign 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. ..
7 - Rules regarding ouptposts (OP)..b) Repeated fake declarationsWhen 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.
DaomeiBut 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 ..
DaomeiFor 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.
#21 Added by Bluaarbthi 8 years ago
#22 Added by Kimmerin 8 years ago
That is demonstrably false. Quoting the CoC
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?
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
motives of their attack.
Did you contact WP people at all?
Last edited by Kimmerin (8 years ago)
#23 Added by Daomei 8 years ago
DaomeiSo 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 ..
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. ..
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. ..
Why should I care? The attack itself is a sign of hostile intentions..
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.
#24 Added by Ingfarah 8 years ago
#25 Added by Mjollren 8 years ago
#26 Added by Daomei 8 years ago
Edited 3 times | Last edited by Daomei (8 years ago)
#27 Added by Ingfarah 8 years ago
Edited 2 times | Last edited by Ingfarah (8 years ago)
powered by ryzom-api