Jump to content


are players of the same clan that don't shoot each other cheating?


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

Dorander #41 Posted 06 February 2019 - 11:19 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 19122 battles
  • 3,909
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostLordMuffin, on 06 February 2019 - 08:05 AM, said:

Not shooting enemy tanks is against normal etiquette, it is bad sportsmanship and despicable. 

 

Absence of action is punishable by WG (see afk/excessive camping).

 

When you push the battle buttom, you are agreeing on trying to do your best to win that battle to the best of your ability.

 

It's arguably not very sportsmanlike, which is why it's a perfectly valid response to send a replay to Wargaming and see if they agree.

 

Shooting someone else than your teammates until the very end and winning by cap isn't absence of action. It isn't AFKing. Camping is not against the rules to begin with. A single incident doesn't qualify for excessiveness or repetitiveness either, because it's a single incident.

 

When you push the battle button you agree to no such thing. There's no rule that states that, it's impossible to verify or even enforce, and it's a guarantee that everyone breaks it.



Fighto #42 Posted 06 February 2019 - 11:21 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36399 battles
  • 1,013
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011
I struggle not shoot clan mates when they are on the same team never mind in red.

LordMuffin #43 Posted 06 February 2019 - 11:36 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 50000 battles
  • 12,083
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostDorander, on 06 February 2019 - 11:19 AM, said:

 

It's arguably not very sportsmanlike, which is why it's a perfectly valid response to send a replay to Wargaming and see if they agree.

 

Shooting someone else than your teammates until the very end and winning by cap isn't absence of action. It isn't AFKing. Camping is not against the rules to begin with. A single incident doesn't qualify for excessiveness or repetitiveness either, because it's a single incident.

 

When you push the battle button you agree to no such thing. There's no rule that states that, it's impossible to verify or even enforce, and it's a guarantee that everyone breaks it.

 

The moment you agree to take part of a team, in any sport or game etc you agree to do your best to win, follow the rules to the best of your abilities etc.

This is called etiquette and same etiquette exist in WoT just as it does in your football team playing for fun without referees and without a league.

 

In WoT, the objective is to play to win.

 

4.08. Any conduct that is considered by Wargaming staff as disruptive to the gaming experience of others can be sanctioned in accordance to rule 1.04. This conduct includes and is not limited to: malicious and/or intentional in-game harassment, intentional exploitation of in-game mechanics or any action that intentionally goes against or abuses the game design. The application of game restrictions will always be done to protect a positive and fun gaming environment and will be applied after careful investigation and internal deliberation.

 

"Any action intentionally going against game design" (within the design is the objective of playing to win) is in conflict with the EULA.

 

When you accept the EULA you agree to play to win every battle you play. 


Edited by LordMuffin, 06 February 2019 - 11:37 AM.


StinkyStonky #44 Posted 06 February 2019 - 11:50 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 31334 battles
  • 2,422
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 05 February 2019 - 09:26 PM, said:

I just come out of a battle where top tier platoons of both sides didn't shoot each other.

 

Which clan ?  I want to join them !!

 

When -SJA-s run into each other (either accidentally or deliberately through count-ins) we end up focusing clan members.  It's not unheard of for players to go yoloing across the map just to be able to get at a clan mate.

 

I got into a battle against SaltyJedi the other day.  I was gutted that he died (he went river, I went heavy flank on Abbey) before I could get to him !

 

Killing clan mates is the best fun ;-)  Especially when you're on voice comms together and you can taunt them :teethhappy:



pecopad #45 Posted 06 February 2019 - 11:57 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25914 battles
  • 1,330
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

Are players of the same clan that don't shoot each other cheating?

 

YES



Dorander #46 Posted 06 February 2019 - 12:00 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 19122 battles
  • 3,909
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostLordMuffin, on 06 February 2019 - 10:36 AM, said:

 

The moment you agree to take part of a team, in any sport or game etc you agree to do your best to win, follow the rules to the best of your abilities etc.

This is called etiquette and same etiquette exist in WoT just as it does in your football team playing for fun without referees and without a league.

 

In WoT, the objective is to play to win.

 

4.08. Any conduct that is considered by Wargaming staff as disruptive to the gaming experience of others can be sanctioned in accordance to rule 1.04. This conduct includes and is not limited to: malicious and/or intentional in-game harassment, intentional exploitation of in-game mechanics or any action that intentionally goes against or abuses the game design. The application of game restrictions will always be done to protect a positive and fun gaming environment and will be applied after careful investigation and internal deliberation.

 

"Any action intentionally going against game design" (within the design is the objective of playing to win) is in conflict with the EULA.

 

When you accept the EULA you agree to play to win every battle you play. 

 

If the game design is to win then any intentional action taken in a battle that results in a loss is a violation of the EULA, as is playing while drunk, playing while tired, playing a tank out of meta, playing a tank with a crew without full skills, playing a stock tank, etc.. as is grinding credits, marking tanks or trying to achieve personal missions.

 

It's flat out not what that line means, because it leads to ridiculous conclusions. What the game design refers to is "These are the things you can play for, these are the mechanics are have at your disposal which you can use while following the rules for playing." Winning is neither a sufficient or necessary condition to achieve these goals or to play the game according to its design. To play according to its design, all you need to do is undertake basic actions like move, shoot, spot, etc..



HassenderZerhacker #47 Posted 06 February 2019 - 12:23 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 29085 battles
  • 2,831
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostDorander, on 06 February 2019 - 12:00 PM, said:

 

If the game design is to win then any intentional action taken in a battle that results in a loss is a violation of the EULA, as is playing while drunk, playing while tired, playing a tank out of meta, playing a tank with a crew without full skills, playing a stock tank, etc.. as is grinding credits, marking tanks or trying to achieve personal missions.

 

It's flat out not what that line means, because it leads to ridiculous conclusions. What the game design refers to is "These are the things you can play for, these are the mechanics are have at your disposal which you can use while following the rules for playing." Winning is neither a sufficient or necessary condition to achieve these goals or to play the game according to its design. To play according to its design, all you need to do is undertake basic actions like move, shoot, spot, etc..

 

let's stop the far-fetched arguments.

 

they didn't "choose to shoot someone else" - after I and another player died, they were in a situation, in that part of the map, where they could not shoot anyone else than their clanmates (no line of sight to other tanks). But they didn't.

Result: they didn't fight their clanmates, instead both platoons drove to each other's caps to hunt arty there.



Dorander #48 Posted 06 February 2019 - 12:35 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 19122 battles
  • 3,909
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 06 February 2019 - 11:23 AM, said:

 

let's stop the far-fetched arguments.

 

they didn't "choose to shoot someone else" - after I and another player died, they were in a situation, in that part of the map, where they could not shoot anyone else than their clanmates (no line of sight to other tanks). But they didn't.

Result: they didn't fight their clanmates, instead both platoons drove to each other's caps to hunt arty there.

 

How is driving to another location to shoot an enemy tank not "choosing to shoot someone else"? Also wasn't the problem that they "caused your death prematurely" rather than what happened after you died?

 

They killed enemy tanks, they didn't idle passively, and brought the battle to a legitimate conclusion by capping. They didn't actively hinder you by blocking, they didn't report allied team positions to the enemy as far as anyone knows, so the worst thing that happened is they saved their buddies a repairbill. Whichever team succesfully capped, the other team subsequently lost, so in the end they did fight each other.

 

Is it a twit move for everyone else, yeah, probably. Is it clearly against any rule, no. Should you send the replay to Wargaming so they can decide if it falls under rule 4.08, definitely, as that is the only way something potentially happens rather than going on the forum, starting a discussion and then complaining about "far-fetched arguments".



eldrak #49 Posted 06 February 2019 - 12:50 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 49655 battles
  • 1,189
  • [GR-W] GR-W
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

It's been stated before by WG that such behavior is against the rules.

 

Count ins is ok as long as you play like normal and try to kill each other.



jabster #50 Posted 06 February 2019 - 12:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12627 battles
  • 25,001
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 06 February 2019 - 11:23 AM, said:

 

let's stop the far-fetched arguments.

 

they didn't "choose to shoot someone else" - after I and another player died, they were in a situation, in that part of the map, where they could not shoot anyone else than their clanmates (no line of sight to other tanks). But they didn't.

Result: they didn't fight their clanmates, instead both platoons drove to each other's caps to hunt arty there.

 

That seems to somewhat miss the point. Your question was is it against the rules, if a poster claims that yes it is as the rules state a player must play to the best of their ability then it’s perfectly reasonable to ask them to justify why they believe that it’s a rule considering it’s not explicitly stated nor is it clear that it’s implicit in the rules.

 

Personally I think it would fall foul of the rules but that’s for WG to decide.

 

11:53 Added after 1 minute

View Posteldrak, on 06 February 2019 - 11:50 AM, said:

It's been stated before by WG that such behavior is against the rules.

 

Count ins is ok as long as you play like normal and try to kill each other.

 

Doesn’t that mean that going out of your way to kill a clan member is also against the rules?

Edited by jabster, 06 February 2019 - 01:14 PM.


DracheimFlug #51 Posted 06 February 2019 - 02:07 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 9933 battles
  • 4,270
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostDorander, on 06 February 2019 - 12:35 PM, said:

 

How is driving to another location to shoot an enemy tank not "choosing to shoot someone else"? Also wasn't the problem that they "caused your death prematurely" rather than what happened after you died?

 

They killed enemy tanks, they didn't idle passively, and brought the battle to a legitimate conclusion by capping. They didn't actively hinder you by blocking, they didn't report allied team positions to the enemy as far as anyone knows, so the worst thing that happened is they saved their buddies a repairbill. Whichever team succesfully capped, the other team subsequently lost, so in the end they did fight each other.

 

Is it a twit move for everyone else, yeah, probably. Is it clearly against any rule, no. Should you send the replay to Wargaming so they can decide if it falls under rule 4.08, definitely, as that is the only way something potentially happens rather than going on the forum, starting a discussion and then complaining about "far-fetched arguments".

 

When they are going out of their way not to shoot enemy tanks of the same clan even when all other enemy tanks are dead, it is not merely 'choosing to shoot other tanks.' They did not try to hinder each other capping, even though it should have been obvious quickly which side would win that race. 

Dorander #52 Posted 06 February 2019 - 02:45 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 19122 battles
  • 3,909
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostDracheimFlug, on 06 February 2019 - 01:07 PM, said:

 

When they are going out of their way not to shoot enemy tanks of the same clan even when all other enemy tanks are dead, it is not merely 'choosing to shoot other tanks.' They did not try to hinder each other capping, even though it should have been obvious quickly which side would win that race. 

 

Nothing in the game rules require you to shoot enemy tanks instead of capping the base. Regardless of what you might think of imperatives to achieve victory, both these conditions are victory conditions and thus legitimate choices.

 

One side was victorious so one side succesfully capped, at the cost of victory for the other side. They didn't generate a draw intentionally. Achieving victory by capping IS hindering the other side from capping, because once it is completed and victory is achieved, the other side can no longer cap.

 

Unless OP somewhere finally snuck a replay into the thread, we don't actually know how was determined who got the victory or what they tried to do. It's also worth pointing out that both sides had heavy tanks, OP's side had an IS7 and an E100. The E100 is definitely too slow to make it to the other side of the map to interrupt a cap by two enemy tanks. The IS7 probably is too. You can demand that people go through the motions anyway but if you know your tank and know you won't make it to the other side to interrupt, it's a legitimate choice to stop trying.

 

You can make all the assumptions you like, but we don't have a lot of facts here. It's POSSIBLE they did something wrong, but with the current information there's no clear and hard rule that's been violated so you can't possibly make that judgement, the only one capable of doing that is Wargaming by reviewing the replay and making a decision based on observable facts, rather than player conjecture.



HassenderZerhacker #53 Posted 06 February 2019 - 04:24 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 29085 battles
  • 2,831
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostDorander, on 06 February 2019 - 12:35 PM, said:

 

How is driving to another location to shoot an enemy tank not "choosing to shoot someone else"? Also wasn't the problem that they "caused your death prematurely" rather than what happened after you died?

 

They killed enemy tanks, they didn't idle passively, and brought the battle to a legitimate conclusion by capping. They didn't actively hinder you by blocking, they didn't report allied team positions to the enemy as far as anyone knows, so the worst thing that happened is they saved their buddies a repairbill. Whichever team succesfully capped, the other team subsequently lost, so in the end they did fight each other.

 

Is it a twit move for everyone else, yeah, probably. Is it clearly against any rule, no. Should you send the replay to Wargaming so they can decide if it falls under rule 4.08, definitely, as that is the only way something potentially happens rather than going on the forum, starting a discussion and then complaining about "far-fetched arguments".

 

there... a ticket to my ignore list. BYE !

SaintMaddenus #54 Posted 06 February 2019 - 04:30 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 36606 battles
  • 2,064
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-04-2011

"Doesn’t that mean that going out of your way to kill a clan member is also against the rules?    "

no because focusing on a particular enemy is not against the rules.   We have all sorts of focus in this game from XVM, clan tag, skill, unicum status etc.  It's annoying, but not against the rules.   Also forumites..  You'd probably get focused if you played Jabster, people remember your name.



HassenderZerhacker #55 Posted 06 February 2019 - 04:34 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 29085 battles
  • 2,831
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostSaintMaddenus, on 06 February 2019 - 04:30 PM, said:

 You'd probably get focused if you played Jabster, people remember your name.

 

Dorander will soon enjoy the same kind of fame :trollface:

Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 06 February 2019 - 04:34 PM.


Dorander #56 Posted 06 February 2019 - 05:00 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 19122 battles
  • 3,909
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 06 February 2019 - 03:24 PM, said:

 

there... a ticket to my ignore list. BYE !

 

Oh no, whatever will I do now :rolleyes: :teethhappy:

 

Got to love a person who opens a thread on a forum asking a question and then gets upset when people actually discuss what the answer should be.



jabster #57 Posted 06 February 2019 - 06:04 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12627 battles
  • 25,001
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostSaintMaddenus, on 06 February 2019 - 03:30 PM, said:

"Doesn’t that mean that going out of your way to kill a clan member is also against the rules?    "

no because focusing on a particular enemy is not against the rules.   We have all sorts of focus in this game from XVM, clan tag, skill, unicum status etc.  It's annoying, but not against the rules.   Also forumites..  You'd probably get focused if you played Jabster, people remember your name.

 

If not playing as normal is against the rules then playing to target a player because they are a member of the same clan is against the rules surely?

LordMuffin #58 Posted 07 February 2019 - 08:30 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 50000 battles
  • 12,083
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostDorander, on 06 February 2019 - 12:00 PM, said:

 

If the game design is to win then any intentional action taken in a battle that results in a loss is a violation of the EULA, as is playing while drunk, playing while tired, playing a tank out of meta, playing a tank with a crew without full skills, playing a stock tank, etc.. as is grinding credits, marking tanks or trying to achieve personal missions.

 

It's flat out not what that line means, because it leads to ridiculous conclusions. What the game design refers to is "These are the things you can play for, these are the mechanics are have at your disposal which you can use while following the rules for playing." Winning is neither a sufficient or necessary condition to achieve these goals or to play the game according to its design. To play according to its design, all you need to do is undertake basic actions like move, shoot, spot, etc..

No.

 

In the design lies to objective to win, this is the main goal of every battle, and dominate all other personal goals you could have.

 

If you don't do that, you are being unsportsmanlike to your team mates and disrupt their fun/enjoyment of the game.

 

Which is very similar to how a person that wants to play football have to play for a win or simply get kicked out, no matter in what situation he wants to play football in.

 

 

It is far-fetched to argue that not playing to win is not unsportsmanlike though.


Edited by LordMuffin, 07 February 2019 - 08:40 AM.


jabster #59 Posted 07 February 2019 - 08:37 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12627 battles
  • 25,001
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostLordMuffin, on 07 February 2019 - 07:30 AM, said:

No.

 

In the design lies to objective to win, this is the main goal of every battle, and dominate all other personal goals you could have.

 

If you don't do that, you are being unsportsmanlike to your team mates and disrupt their fun/enjoyment of the game.

 

Which is very similar to how a person that wants to play football have to play for a win or simply get kicked out, no matter in what situation he wants to play football in.

 

So you think playing to complete missions, that don’t require you to win, is against the rules then?

DracheimFlug #60 Posted 07 February 2019 - 09:20 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 9933 battles
  • 4,270
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View Postjabster, on 07 February 2019 - 08:37 AM, said:

 

So you think playing to complete missions, that don’t require you to win, is against the rules then?

 

 

Which missions do not involve harming the enemy? The only one I can think of is the heavy mission regarding bouncing damage, but that still requires you to engage the enemy and survive their hits. Plus as I recall you do still have to do damage to the enemy as well.

 

And my understanding is that colluding over missions is considered against the rules, so that should be a pretty strong clue right there.

 

The main problem in such cases is not the question of whether not trying to win is against the rules, but differentiating between actual unsportsmanlike behaviour and simply having no clue how to best play to win. In cases such as this one, it seems a lot more clear.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users