853 replies to this topic

[KitiaraLi]

How many guilds would go into a war without feeling they have exhausted all other avenues?

Our threshold for going to war is quite low, but fair.

Not low enough if you ask me


And to the late comers in this thread; No it does not boil down to "relics are meant to be taken" - this I haven't seen anyone argue against in this thread.
What it boils down to is "the game admins needs to let the players play the game and stop their divine intervention in favor of those, who first submit a ticket".

And should those same game admins follow HCS rules for the game, they really need to make the players know of these rules.
As of late, we are being stopped from doing things, that has always occurred in the game, and still look absolutely legal according to the TOS. Either we are to assume that a game admin has gone rogue, or the rules have changed.

We need words from the Hoof on this, and we need it a few days ago!

[sweetlou]

It seems likely that the cow view is: any time you use a threat -- even one communicated by actions instead of words -- to try to get people to stop doing something the game allows them to do, that's intimidation and therefore not allowed. In this the Cows may seem to be rewarding subterfuge and subtlty over directness.

First, it's the best argument I've seen yet.

So now instead of using a direct response(PvP) in reaction to an attack on the guild I will take up to 6 relics that I can reach from any guild alone. This new directive will only benefit players and their guilds at or near EOC, a small percent of the community.

Conversely, any guild has the ability to use previously acceptable reactions such as PvP and GvG as long as someone is in range. This effectively benefits the entire community. If the offending relic capturing guild doesn't like the reaction there are plenty of other relics they can use subterfuge to avoid attacks from expensive harassment.

[sweetlou]

I think you can use PvP or GvG to "subtly" react to a relic capture too. The trick is first, never admit that you are "retaliating" or ask them to change what they are doing, and second never increase the PvP enough that it stands out. If a guild figures out on their own that maybe they are getting PvP'd twice as much as usual and at the worst possible times because they took your relic, well, that's just them speculating, and if the attacks happen to slack off after they stop taking the relic, maybe that's just because the relic makes it easier for your guild to hit targets in other guilds.

I think the cows look for explicit or circumstantial evidence of motive. A massive increase in PvP the day after a relic is lost is circumstantial evidence of motive. A more modest increase in PvP over the course of a week, not so much. Of course, you'll have to be patient with less observant guilds ...

But that's just me speculating, based on my experience and training in mundane law.

What has drastically changed is that now, seemingly, one admin is mediating what has always been considered acceptable policy. That is that continual attacks, even every hour, are not considered harassment as long as no PMs are sent alongside the attacks. This new interpretation will effect how guilds will take/or not take relics. If guilds begin to constantly take up to the max 6 relics only because they are empowered then only the wealthiest guilds will even start to slightly empower. The cost is too much. This will bring an end to empowering as a good gold sink. Not good for the game as a whole.

[doogonzee]

Sorry for the OT, but I just want to congratulate HCS on fast and swift answer on this topic, You guys are great and your respect for your customers is really rarely seen in the world of the online games. I hope other players will treasure this as I did, and that they will change their donating habits accordingly to your effort.

[Denyza]

Why is everyone asking/waiting for HCS to give us an answer when they have already stated their view on the subject of using PvP as a form of relic defense (see KeranRyder's post on page 54 of this topic)? I know everyone does not agree with it, but they have told us their thoughts on the issue.

Because their answers seems to change based on the situation and often contradicts each other.

[sweetlou]

Why is everyone asking/waiting for HCS to give us an answer when they have already stated their view on the subject of using PvP as a form of relic defense (see KeranRyder's post on page 54 of this topic)? I know everyone does not agree with it, but they have told us their thoughts on the issue.

They have not. Sending a private message to one or a few players does not constitute a change of policy. This can only be done once the entire community is informed via a public venue. I for one have never read anywhere a public quote from a dev whereby defending a relic through PvP is now unacceptable. Right now certain individuals are the only ones being threatened with suspension or worse. This is a double standard. They need to make a judgment. I am patient. Until then I will play the way I always have.

[oucho]

This thread never was about lowering the price of empowering , hours it could be held, special groups to take, changing anything blah blah blah.

It was mostly about a guilds policy on taking relics and when there actions caused a reaction they didn't anticapaite, then using a ploy of harassment to the cows to alleviate it!

the ticket on the alleged harassment wasn't to stop harassment, is what i meant by ploy.

In doing this they risk the way the game is played and could of caused severe damage to the pvp aspects of fs.

the cows stepping in and making a ruling before thinking it out just added to the turmoil!

[RebornJedi]

Think the best way to avoid HCS attention on this type of 'defense' against any action is to not say a word to the guild..meaning NO CONTACT what so ever with ANY member. plus no messages to other players in your own guild about using PvP as the defense(use skype/msn/forum instead)..then just start throwing out attacks. ignore messages until a surrender is proposed or beyond, then take it to messages then. messages is what gives HCS its leverage in these types of situations..

HCS probably investigates and finds some type of message/s either from guild to guild or member to member and takes it as harassment/'against the rules' because of the 'verbal' acknowledgment of using this type of enforcement to stop/deter a guild/player from enjoying a part of the game.

If they still take action then HCS truly needs to set some straight forward rules or put in place mechanics within the game to stop such enforcement especially if no words were spoken.. Personally i think guilds/players should be able to use any type of defense against other player's actions..be it pvp, gvg, ignoring, etc..BUT spam/threats should always be against the rules and never used as an act of defense- ignoring is a way to stop this plus HCS already acts upon this..

Remember to fight with your sword, not your mouth.

[sweetlou]

I agree though, a public statement would at least let everyone know where they stand.

There we agree. Until a ruling and announcement takes place we have two sets of rules. How many more sets of rules will be created?

[sweetlou]

Think the best way to avoid HCS attention on this type of 'defense' against any action is to not say a word to the guild..meaning NO CONTACT what so ever with ANY member. plus no messages to other players in your own guild about using PvP as the defense(use skype/msn/forum instead)..then just start throwing out attacks. ignore messages until a surrender is proposed or beyond, then take it to messages then. messages is what gives HCS its leverage in these types of situations..

HCS probably investigates and finds some type of message/s either from guild to guild or member to member and takes it as harassment/'against the rules' because of the 'verbal' acknowledgment of using this type of enforcement to stop/deter a guild/player from enjoying a part of the game.

If they still take action then HCS truly needs to set some straight forward rules or put in place mechanics within the game to stop such enforcement especially if no words were spoken.. Personally i think guilds/players should be able to use any type of defense against other player's actions..be it pvp, gvg, ignoring, etc..BUT spam/threats should always be against the rules and never used as an act of defense- ignoring is a way to stop this plus HCS already acts upon this..

Remember to fight with your sword, not your mouth.

That is one way to possibly avoid sanctions against your guild. There are many others! This notion of being labeled a bully or that you are using intimidation is unjust when the aggressors are the ones who take the relic and hold your guild financial hostages and then complain to HCS. Using PvP as a defense is only defending your guild's finances, at a risk no less.

Edit: Btw, the aggressors have options: they can stop or move on to one of the many other relics in the game that aren't so aggressively defended. That normally ceases the attacks. They can also battle if a specific relic is what they want. This is not their intention, however. Their main goal is to cause financial harm to a guild without consequence. Isn't THAT bullying and or intimidation? At least some guilds are willing to battle these aggressors at any cost in defense of their guild instead of running to HCS looking for relief.

[Removed22342]

Remember to fight with your sword, not your mouth.

This.

As I said earlier, you can fill out 100 stam and click the attack button for whatever reasons and as often as the game allows you too (doesn't have to make sense for the target of PvP since that's a highly subjective matter and presumable not connected to any real life situations or moral standards). But this of course can have consequences for your character.

I think the problem isn't really what happens per se unless there's a breach of the use policy, the problem here is that consequence is neither game or player driven and it sucks. =/

[oucho]

This thread never was about lowering the price of empowering , hours it could be held, special groups to take, changing anything blah blah blah.

It was mostly about a guilds policy on taking relics and when there actions caused a reaction they didn't anticapaite, then using a ploy of harassment to the cows to alleviate it!

the ticket on the alleged harassment wasn't to stop harassment, is what i meant by ploy.

In doing this they risk the way the game is played and could of caused severe damage to the pvp aspects of fs.

the cows stepping in and making a ruling before thinking it out just added to the turmoil!

Please read the response your guild received (page 54). It said nothing about harassment, just HCS's view on relics being "defended" by PvP. OWC never said such PvP attacks were harassment, that was a WAL creation.

I thought we were past the WAL/OWC thing...

ev response; do you need a page number?
Three simple questions, ev.

1. Did We Are Legends, either as individual players or as a guild, threaten any member of White Crow in any way, shape, or form except with the possibility of hourly hits?

The threatening messages were reported via the report button for each message.

2. Did We Are Legends, either as individual players or as a guild, make any disparaging remarks to any member of White Crow?

Again, the disparaging messages were reported via the report button for each message.

3. Was any attempt made on the part of We Are Legends to resolve the matter prior to the situation devolving to a PvP stance?

I was not sent any messages offering any sort of "resolution" by any member of We Are Legends neither before, nor after the attacks started.

Addendum: did any ticket sent by a member of White Crow specifically complain about bounty reservations in the members of We Are Legends' biographies?

A copy of 1 bio was sent to HCS in the only ticket I submitted.

[Removed22342]

viewforum.php?f=23

[oucho]

http://forum.fallensword.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=23

oucho wrote:
This thread never was about lowering the price of empowering , hours it could be held, special groups to take, changing anything blah blah blah.

It was mostly about a guilds policy on taking relics and when there actions caused a reaction they didn't anticapaite, then using a ploy of harassment to the cows to alleviate it!

the ticket on the alleged harassment wasn't to stop harassment, is what i meant by ploy.

In doing this they risk the way the game is played and could of caused severe damage to the pvp aspects of fs.

the cows stepping in and making a ruling before thinking it out just added to the turmoil!

[sweetlou]

http://forum.fallensword.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=23

Agreed mick. These two guilds are spatting over who did and said what and when. It is counterproductive to this discussion. Please take your issue with each other to the correct Alliance and Conflict forum and start a thread to point fingers at one another.