These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Wardec mechanic revisited (or why wardec shredding and decshield are bad)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#21 - 2012-01-03 02:19:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
ShipToaster wrote:
Mars Theran wrote:
I'm not saying that the Directorship of the Uni doesn't in some fashion deserve these WarDecs, but it's hardly appropriate to make the new players sheltering under their wing suffer for it. Fact is, most kills against Uni members in or out of war, have consistently been new players or occured on E-Uni Navy Ops involving newer players. The latter is fine; the former is griefing.


Again you are utterly wrong. Griefing in EVE has a very narrow definition and nothing relating to wardecs is considered griefing.


It seems the TOS and EULA have changed since I originally read them or understood them. Pretty sure the page in my original client install was much different, and there seem to be some specific sections missing.

Really, this was all I could find:

"Ban Policy' wrote:


•a. Is abusive, obscene, offensive, sexually explicit, ethnically or racially offensive, or threatening to another player or an official EVE Online representative.
•b. Uses role-playing as an excuse for violating the guidelines regarding fair play with others.


"Terms of Service" wrote:


1.You may not abuse, harass or threaten another player or authorized representative of CCP, including customer service personnel and volunteers. This includes, but is not limited to: petitioning with false information in an attempt to gain from it or have someone else suffer from it; sending excessive e-mails, EVE-mails or petitions; obstructing CCP Employees from doing their jobs; refusal to follow the instructions of a CCP Employee; or implying favoritism by a CCP Employee.


2.You may not use any abusive, defamatory, ethnically or racially offensive, harassing, harmful, hateful, obscene, offensive, sexually explicit, threatening or vulgar language. (Alternate spelling or partial masking of such words will be reprimanded in the same manner as the actual use of such words.)

4.You may not use “role-playing” as an excuse to violate these rules. While EVE Online is a persistent world, fantasy role-playing game, the claim of role-playing is not an acceptable defense for anti-social behavior. Role-playing is encouraged, but not at the expense of other player. You may not create or participate in a corporation or group that habitually violates this policy.


"EULA" wrote:


You may encounter and converse with people who are rude, offensive, belligerent, and who may use indecent, obscene, and/or threatening or harassing language while playing the Game. You may report any instances of such behavior to CCP. CCP will investigate and take such measures as CCP, in its sole judgment, determines are reasonable under the circumstances. CCP does not guarantee that you will not encounter behavior of others that you may view as insulting, demeaning, offensive, threatening or harassing. You assume all risk associated with playing the Game, and CCP assumes no responsibility for the conduct of any other players, and shall not be liable to you or any other person for their conduct.


Take that as you will. I'm fairly certain it's been changed since I read it; probably due to the popular trend of many players abusing it. That is their right of course; and they reserve that right. Most recent change was 2008 that I noticed, which about makes sense.

Used to say something along the lines of Griefing and preventing other players enjoyment of the game, or access to game content and whatnot.

That will probably be found in that link I saw earlier now; safely removed from the TOS and EULA + Ban Policy, and conveniently making them more of a historical notation than a rule.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Griefing

I believe this is the part I was talking about, in case you missed it; rule or not, it's still a valid definition.

quote="http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Griefing": While they are sometimes used for actual griefing (ie, declared only for the malicious enjoyment of seeing the victim suffer), ..../quote
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
ShipToaster
#22 - 2012-01-03 11:42:07 UTC
As I said the TOS and EULA have nothing to say about griefing or wardecs.

At least quote the full relevant part for people from the wiki as your quote misses out the actual CCP final word on this matter.

EVE WIKI wrote:
Griefer war decs

"Griefer war decs" refers to the practice of declaring a war, typically in high-security, against a party who is not your competitor in politics, regional control, industry, or anything else, and does not want the war. Such wars are often, but not always, declared with the intent to extort money from the victim for termination of the war. While they are sometimes used for actual griefing (ie, declared only for the malicious enjoyment of seeing the victim suffer), they can also be seen as a valid playstyle, and are used by many for simple isk-making and/or combat training.

War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature.


The "never officially considered griefing" means wardecs are not considered griefing by CCP ever under any circumstance. They wont stop wars on you just because you have been decced for a few weeks, months or years and people who have petitioned on this ground have got a HTFU message back from :ccp: when they were CCP.

You probably wont find these two other statements on the forum anymore. The only reason you would petition a wardec is if someone was trying to use a patch or update with a significant downtime to avoid the 24 hour warmup period. Anything else gets a working as intended response. If anyone terminates a wardec for any other reason then you are advised to report it to CCP Internal Affairs.

.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#23 - 2012-01-03 13:34:35 UTC
dear, a lot of words for something thats not broken.

To put it simply: if there is a wardec, there should be an "unwardec". Otherwise, its not balanced.

There is no reason a wardeccer should have a final word about who is being shot. If you want that final word, go to 0.0.
ShipToaster
#24 - 2012-01-03 14:18:16 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
To put it simply: if there is a wardec, there should be an "unwardec". Otherwise, its not balanced.


There are currently three "unwardec" options in EVE: surrender, drop corp, and quit EVE. First two dont work so well, so for you I suggest the third.

.
Previous page12