lendaugy Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I would imagine that it would fall under this part of the eula/tos Zone Disruption This refers to disrupting locations within the game so that it inhibits the play of or provides a level of disruption to other players. This can include excessive disruption of player sponsored events or gatherings, excessive use of sounds or visuals, blocking areas of the game, pulling creatures over and over so no one else may kill them, and killing specific vendors, key creatures or quest givers for no reason other than to cause disruption or ‘grief’ to others. Not participating in a war zone is imo zone disruption. Finally some one busted out the rule-book.... Indeed, i agree.. however it says nothing about being Required to participate in a warzone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardis_Jett Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 When entering a warzone... it never says that im Required to engage in combat... Unless ive missed it, show me with a screenshot or detailed explenation where it says, "You've entered a warzone, you must engage in combat or you will be disrupting gameplay". Maybe ive missed it? It doesn't say you are required to engage in combat, but you are to assist your team and any matter of ways to accomplish the said warzone. Thats the point of the Warzone. This is your objective achieve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maradigamer Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 It doesn't say you are required to engage in combat, but you are to assist your team and any matter of ways to accomplish the said warzone. Thats the point of the Warzone. This is your objective achieve it. So anyone farming medals instead of pursuing objectives is disruptive and again, a team that could win and refuses to win so they can farm is also disruptive. Bans all around then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aribethx Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Technically. Yes thats a disruption of gameplay. Again, you can be kicked from your ops group or your heroic group. Until there is a /vote kick option (which I might add will probably be abused) If the affect parties are okay with you "afking" then no. Its not a problem. Man. You really are trying your best to fight your side of the argument but are failing miserably. If BW would allow an option for people to avoid these non-contributors, I think that would be the best solution here. Allow rated WZs, full 8 man premades, etc. But I can't jump on board with the general policing of individual members of a PUG in a WZ. If I'm stealthed, watching my PUG team get absolutely stomped on, repeatedly, after attempting to help and watching the crap begin to flow in /ops chat, you bet I'll prowl the sidelines and watch instead of participating in the giving of free medals and valor to the other team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardis_Jett Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Finally some one busted out the rule-book.... Indeed, i agree.. however it says nothing about being Required to participate in a warzone... By joining the warzone in the first place WHERE I might add only a select few may join, is like signing a electronic signature to participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lendaugy Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 It doesn't say you are required to engage in combat, but you are to assist your team and any matter of ways to accomplish the said warzone. Thats the point of the Warzone. This is your objective achieve it. Weird where does it say im required to assist anyone? Untill bioware takes a Firm public stance on this... its all open to interpretation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardis_Jett Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 If BW would allow an option for people to avoid these non-contributors, I think that would be the best solution here. Allow rated WZs, full 8 man premades, etc. But I can't jump on board with the general policing of individual members of a PUG in a WZ. If I'm stealthed, watching my PUG team get absolutely stomped on, repeatedly, after attempting to help and watching the crap begin to flow in /ops chat, you bet I'll prowl the sidelines and watch instead of participating in the giving of free medals and valor to the other team. Which I believe should be a punishable offense. You are giving up rather than taking a shot at winning. People in the professional level of sports would be fired for that. I think that should be the case here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timadan Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 No I just took a piece of it from their faq section here's the whole section in the TOS agreement Harassment Policy Our goal is to build a strong community that offers a comfortable atmosphere for all of our players. This means seeing that players have the ability to combat antisocial behavior Harassment consists of misuse and/or abuse of game mechanics and verbal harassment with the intention of distressing and offending other players. Game mechanics allow players to interact with the world and each other. For example, the ability to block a doorway is a game mechanic. Use of game mechanics like these is by no means considered harassment in and of itself. The key to determining whether the mechanic is being misused or abused is to determine "intent." Reported incidents are not considered harassment until it is determined by the SWTOR CS that it was done to intentionally to cause distress or to offend other players. Harassment is also any behavior that is incessant, inescapable, derogatory and directed specifically at you or your group. Before reporting, a genuine attempt to alleviate the situation should be made by leaving the area or the offending player, or asking them politely to stop. If a sincere attempt has been made to solve the problem and the offending player persists in the behavior, it should be reported. Behavior that is always considered harassment includes derogatory and/or hateful comments that are sexual, racist, religious, or related to gender or creed. A judgment of valid harassment can result in penalties placed on the harassing party up to and including immediate account closure, based on the severity of harassment and the player's past account history. Player versus Player (“PvP”) activities, where available, are not exempt from this policy. look at the second sentence and the last sentence closely Again this is just my opinion and interpretation. I'll have to dig further after I get back from dinner, but I believe there is also a clause somewhere that I noticed that dealt with using the system to get inappropriate in game gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einlanser Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 So if i decide to afk in ilum for 20minutes, is that considered Disruption of gameplay for the majority of players in my Ops group? is it wrong to take a 10-20 minute break? or is that okay since its not a warzone.. if so, why the double-standard? Can i stand AFK in a heroic 2 mission area? if its me and another person trying to complete it? after all im disrupting his quest progression because hes relying upon me to complete said heroic 2? Or should each setting have its own specialized ruleset? What holds true for one area, may not hold a torch to the next area... I'm going to do my best not to get too far off track here, but in the study of law, and the study of philosophy, we'd refer to your argument as wrong "on its face," or we'd say that it fails the general test of reasonability. You're also going far afield of the original situation with hypotheticals that, nonetheless, are examples of you interfering with someone else's enjoyment of the game to some degree. Consider the situation this way. A competitive game contains within it a tacit agreement from all those that take part that they are in the game for the same reason- to win. Otherwise, the game breaks down, it is not a competition, and the majority of the players have their enjoyment substantially interfered with by a minority player. That agreement exists, and infringing on that agreement does make you a jerk. You don't get a pass to ruin the experience of those that came to play the game's facial purpose simply because there is a lack of enforcement of consequences. What you're pointing to when you say "Well it's not in the rules" is a positive law argument, and it is the haven of children, those without knowledge of the reasons for rules, and Antonin Scalia. Sometimes we need to look a little further than what's written in the EULA and ask ourselves what the developers, and their audience, really wanted from those rules- and that's a good gaming experience for everybody, not just you. *******. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timadan Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 So when a team farms kills instead of winning and having the match done with, that's disruption too, right? Probably yes it could be considered disruption not positive though as the other team can stop the farm if they work together. I've been on both ends of that before and had some epic battles in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardis_Jett Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Weird where does it say im required to assist anyone? Untill bioware takes a Firm public stance on this... its all open to interpretation... You don't have to assist anyone, sorry. My you are to try and accomplish the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aribethx Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 "This refers to disrupting locations within the game so that it inhibits the play of or provides a level of disruption to other players." That is the only sentence worth anything in that portion of the rules, if indeed this comes from the actual rules (no link was posted). The rest of the paragraph deals with PvE so we can just disregard it in this PvP discussion. "disrupting locations" - if by location, you mean warzone, then a disruption has to be proved. However, given the PvE content after this sentence, it is highly arguable that anything in this sentence can relate to PvP. However, the meaning here is that Player A causes the disruption TO a location that then follows with... "it inhibits the play of or provides a level of disruption to other players" - then you have to draw a strong correlation between the action of the stealther and your actions and prove that his action would have resulted in a more favorable outcome for the team. I don't think this statement has anything at all to do with the concept being discussed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledric Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Sadly, no matter how much everyone wants to whine and cry and scream about it. So long as the player is present at the keyboard... Bioware will never take action against them. Doesn't matter if they are participating or not. If they can respond back to the CSR, they aren't going to get banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardis_Jett Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Sadly, no matter how much everyone wants to whine and cry and scream about it. So long as the player is present at the keyboard... Bioware will never take action against them. Doesn't matter if they are participating or not. If they can respond back to the CSR, they aren't going to get banned. That's not true. Do you know what the term 'griefing' means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aribethx Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Which I believe should be a punishable offense. You are giving up rather than taking a shot at winning. People in the professional level of sports would be fired for that. I think that should be the case here. This is your opinion, which is fine. You are entitled to it. But SWTOR pvp is not professional sports. Anyone can join in and play however they want to play. I still think BW needs to enforce the application and disambiguation of their rules, not the player base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timadan Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Ya'll are going to make me late for dinner and the wife isn't going to be happy. So here's the link and I'm out. http://www.swtor.com/legalnotices/rulesofconduct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illanair Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) I love how one side is repeatedly trolling the OP argument, and trying to bend the intention of the rules to the point of "Well it doesn't specifically say that I have to participate at all in a Warzone as long as I stealth around". I am positive that this counts as exploiting the intent of Warzone mechanics, and will/should be "punished" by having any medals earned by not participating at all removed. Edited February 4, 2012 by Illanair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardis_Jett Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 This is your opinion, which is fine. You are entitled to it. But SWTOR pvp is not professional sports. Anyone can join in and play however they want to play. I still think BW needs to enforce the application and disambiguation of their rules, not the player base. Its a competitive game is it not? Well at least PvP in a sense. So, linking SWTOR to professional sports in this argument does matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aribethx Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 That's not true. Do you know what the term 'griefing' means? I don't think you know what the definition of griefing is. Said stealthing player has no intent to disrupt you or the content you are engaging with. Inaction is the issue here. The player is not engaging with the content in the way you think he needs to. You need to find a new moral ground from which to fire your missiles of wrongdoing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maradigamer Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Probably yes it could be considered disruption not positive though as the other team can stop the farm if they work together. I've been on both ends of that before and had some epic battles in the process. An enemy team can go AoE the sides and corners and flush out the lurkers, too, if they work together. Or hey, they can just take their easy win, given some members of the other team aren't participating, and go on their way. But they're complaining instead, because it's not the win they care about, it's farming medals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardis_Jett Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I'm going to do my best not to get too far off track here, but in the study of law, and the study of philosophy, we'd refer to your argument as wrong "on its face," or we'd say that it fails the general test of reasonability. You're also going far afield of the original situation with hypotheticals that, nonetheless, are examples of you interfering with someone else's enjoyment of the game to some degree. Consider the situation this way. A competitive game contains within it a tacit agreement from all those that take part that they are in the game for the same reason- to win. Otherwise, the game breaks down, it is not a competition, and the majority of the players have their enjoyment substantially interfered with by a minority player. That agreement exists, and infringing on that agreement does make you a jerk. You don't get a pass to ruin the experience of those that came to play the game's facial purpose simply because there is a lack of enforcement of consequences. What you're pointing to when you say "Well it's not in the rules" is a positive law argument, and it is the haven of children, those without knowledge of the reasons for rules, and Antonin Scalia. Sometimes we need to look a little further than what's written in the EULA and ask ourselves what the developers, and their audience, really wanted from those rules- and that's a good gaming experience for everybody, not just you. *******. ^ This guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stilly Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 If BW would allow an option for people to avoid these non-contributors, I think that would be the best solution here. Allow rated WZs, full 8 man premades, etc. But I can't jump on board with the general policing of individual members of a PUG in a WZ. If I'm stealthed, watching my PUG team get absolutely stomped on, repeatedly, after attempting to help and watching the crap begin to flow in /ops chat, you bet I'll prowl the sidelines and watch instead of participating in the giving of free medals and valor to the other team. Is this the same as what the op posted? No, it isn't. The guy in the op's post is intentionally dodging combat to gain rewards he did not earn due to zero participation. This is as a matter of fact against the EULA/tos. Looking for the section right now. Now, if some role player decides he is going to move around a warzone and observe combat instead of joining it that is walking a fine line. He however is not breaking any rules. BW will decide his fate outside of the tos in a moral fashion. The EULA/tos is a guide line not the bible. It is wide open to changes as bw sees fit. I say personally if there are nothing but zeros in damage and healing the player is indeed in violation and I would venture to guess this person will eventually catch a tiny suspension. Bottom line, even if he did play the game he probably wouldn't matter towards the out come. Leave the games, give him nothing but 120 second games that end due to not enough players. If he enjoys being in stealth all the time the valor and credits shouldn't matter to him at all. Gear doesn't change how stealthed he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northwynde Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 If im not using a Bot program, and am At the keyboard... what then? Im playing the game, im just chosing to not engage in combat at that given time... why should i be banned? explain in graphic detail... And you refrence the EULA.. what does pertain too? RPing is not an excuse for what? playing the game the way i see fit, using in game mechanics that are working as intended? I don't think its working as intended. In a team setting the group leader has access to a kick function for those who wish to not participate or partake other undesirable behavior. When you are placed on a team in a WZ there should be some mechanic in place to remove problem people for the betterment of the team. I would also like to add that unless this is done properly it will be absused horrendously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aribethx Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I love how one side is repeatedly trolling the OP argument, and trying to bend the intention of the rules to the point of "Well it doesn't specifically say that I have to participate at all in a Warzone as long as I stealth around". I am positive that this counts as exploiting the intent of Warzone mechanics, and will/should be "punished" by having any medals earned by not participating at all removed. I don't really think anyone here is defending the guy who has no intention of participating at all. I think we all think it sucks. I agree with you however. Implement a base line of dmg or healing done in order to win any valor, xp or credits at all. Implement 8 man premades. Implement rated WZs. But I can't agree with the player base being the ones in charge of who gets to stay in a WZ pug or not. That way lies abuse and madness. You want control over your PvP group? Then I think BW needs to implement a different system of queuing up for PvP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lendaugy Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) I love how one side is repeatedly trolling the OP argument, and trying to bend the intention of the rules to the point of "Well it doesn't specifically say that I have to participate at all in a Warzone as long as I stealth around". I am positive that this counts as exploiting the intent of Warzone mechanics, and will/should be "punished" by having any medals earned by not participating at all removed. Here... Debate de·bate /dɪˈbeɪt/ Show Spelled [dih-beyt] Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing. noun 1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports. 2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. Trolling Trolling is trying to get a rise out of someone. Forcing them to respond to you, either through wise-crackery, posting incorrect information, asking blatantly stupid questions, or other foolishness. However, trolling statements are never true or are ever meant to be construed as such. Nearly all trolled statements are meant to be funny to some people, so it does have some social/entertainment value. Now.. that thats out of the way... Trolling and Debatng with someone are two entirely different things.... you may want to educate yourself before claiming TROLLOLOLLOL Edited February 4, 2012 by lendaugy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts