Jump to content


PSA - rule change

Rule change

  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

Frizzled07 #1 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 04:31

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 34976 battles
  • 335
  • [RS] RS
  • Member since:
    02-02-2011

WG has decided to change the interpretation of the rule we all know as "playing with your food" to include people who join a battle then immediately back out. Most people have read the previous forums and I don't want that to happen to another respectable clan because they did not know about the mid-campaign rule change.  We have faced 1 team yesterday and 2 more today with 12 AFK tanks... some less than respectable clans are reporting for this and if they do your players will get a ban without warning. WG did the right thing with us and told us it was a violation but did not issue a penalty this time. That doesnt mean they will do that for another clan after all the coverage on the forums.

 

To those clans, thank you for showing up... we appreciate the points, however I don't want people doing the right thing and helping the community to be penalized.


Edited by Frizzled07, Dec 09 2016 - 06:07.


Hellsfog #2 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 04:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 31306 battles
  • 4,102
  • [WONKA] WONKA
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View PostFrizzled07, on Dec 08 2016 - 22:31, said:

WG has decided to change the interpretation of the rule we all know as "playing with your food" to include people who join a battle then immediately back out. Most people have read the previous forums and I don't want that to happen to another respectable clan because they did not know about the mid-campaign rule change.  We have faced 1 team yesterday and 2 more today with 12 AFK tanks... some less than respectable clans are reporting for this and if they do your players will get a ban without warning. WG did the right thing with us and told us it was a violation but did not issue a penalty this time. That doesnt mean they will do that for another clan after all the coverage on the forums.

 

To those clans, thank you for showing up... we appreciate the points, however I don't want people doing the right thing and helping the community to be penalized.

 

We just play like we're 3 tanks short and afk. 

 

Decent of you to make this post.



muscles1 #3 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 05:19

    Captain

  • Players
  • 33337 battles
  • 1,744
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    06-04-2012

View PostFrizzled07, on Dec 09 2016 - 03:31, said:

I don't want that to happen to another respectable clan because they did not know about the mid-campaign rule change.

lol, mid season rule change. I don't think so. Last campaign we were not aware of the playing with food rule and we got banned for 3 days and all of us missed the tank. We appealed to WG and they kept the ban and didn't respond pretty much til the ban was over for most of us. What we did was breaking the rules, even though we didn't know about the rule. We haven't broke that rule all campaign with that knowledge.



Frizzled07 #4 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 05:37

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 34976 battles
  • 335
  • [RS] RS
  • Member since:
    02-02-2011

View Postmuscles1, on Dec 08 2016 - 23:19, said:

lol, mid season rule change. I don't think so. Last campaign we were not aware of the playing with food rule and we got banned for 3 days and all of us missed the tank. We appealed to WG and they kept the ban and didn't respond pretty much til the ban was over for most of us. What we did was breaking the rules, even though we didn't know about the rule. We haven't broke that rule all campaign with that knowledge.

 

You are wrong, but this thread isn't here to debate that... go to the other thread if you want to...

 

This thread is just to get the word out to respectable clans that this strategy that used to be legal is no longer legal...just like the posts about legal mods that are no longer legal (i.e. autoaim plus)



Zepherex #5 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 05:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 22275 battles
  • 7,532
  • [YOUJO] YOUJO
  • Member since:
    10-28-2012

View Postmuscles1, on Dec 09 2016 - 00:19, said:

lol, mid season rule change. I don't think so. Last campaign we were not aware of the playing with food rule and we got banned for 3 days and all of us missed the tank. We appealed to WG and they kept the ban and didn't respond pretty much til the ban was over for most of us. What we did was breaking the rules, even though we didn't know about the rule. We haven't broke that rule all campaign with that knowledge.

 

Maybe pay better attention to whats happening during the campaign and you can avoid having issues.

_Marine #6 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 05:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 27704 battles
  • 3,265
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

Poor poor things. 

 

You tried to abuse the rules and got smacked like a spoiled child



Frostii_xD #7 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 06:29

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21856 battles
  • 277
  • [CHAI] CHAI
  • Member since:
    07-14-2012
Wait? What happened? You get punished if you kill the afkers?

ff8ff8 #8 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 07:03

    Captain

  • Players
  • 18006 battles
  • 1,178
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    05-24-2012
No, some clans were being really really scummy D-bags and filling a team with people that would immediately close the client and get on different accounts withing the clan to get into another battle.
This was done by them to avoid a tech penalty.
They knew it was scummy and skirting the rules, but decided to do it anyway.
They should be penalized for it, and those accounts used to do the switch should be temp banned to deter it from happening again. (as well as the penalty they were attempting to avoid be added in manually).


Funny enough, a camping clan hard turtled against one of these afk teams, and drew it out...because clans that camp are too stupid to scout or actually play the game. </rant about dark red turtle clans (all turtle clans are effectively dark red players)>

porkchop39 #9 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 14:24

    First lieutenant

  • WGLNA Bronze League Player
  • 43071 battles
  • 873
  • [UGKB] UGKB
  • Member since:
    09-24-2012
One would think that with the large number of dq's for rigging and account sharing in the top tanker event, people wouldn't be inclined to hop around on accounts.

_Marine #10 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 14:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 27704 battles
  • 3,265
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

One would think, but its clear RS didnt think.

 



kier321 #11 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 16:43

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15890 battles
  • 1,876
  • [-TDU-] -TDU-
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012
We came across this last night against -HERO. 2/3 of there tanks where afk, only about 5 players. I ammo racked a full HP type 5 heavy because lol. Was a fun match, I could care less, free fame points for us. Why people report this idk, much better then getting a tech for no fame points honestly. So thanks -HERO for atleast showing. Same with HARM, they yoloed 12 players down mid in BCs and meds and basically handed us a win. It isn't scummy, its just the fact that you cant fill 2-3 teams at tier 10, but don't want to tech and give other team no points. So no, -HERO was not reported. As for QSSF who won the match then proceeded to play with our E5 left so he couldn't win but they would draw, they where reported. logging out so they exploded and got the draw.(Our E5 was out of ammo (10k dmg) and they just keep resetting him on cap with HE to the tracks as to not kill him.) Have fun with those bans QSSF, wanna throw a match, cool, but don't defeat the other team then proceed to do that. You throwing, then you throw and let other team advance, you wanna play, you win fair and square and go on to next match, not play with your food as to loss. Albeit we got 66 fame off a loss because of it, but still, now that was scummy, imho.

boomftx #12 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 19:08

    Staff sergeant

  • WGLNA Bronze League Player
  • 20233 battles
  • 315
  • [RS] RS
  • Member since:
    01-05-2013

View Postff8ff8, on Dec 09 2016 - 00:03, said:

No, some clans were being really really scummy D-bags and filling a team with people that would immediately close the client and get on different accounts withing the clan to get into another battle.
This was done by them to avoid a tech penalty.
They knew it was scummy and skirting the rules, but decided to do it anyway.
They should be penalized for it, and those accounts used to do the switch should be temp banned to deter it from happening again. (as well as the penalty they were attempting to avoid be added in manually).


Funny enough, a camping clan hard turtled against one of these afk teams, and drew it out...because clans that camp are too stupid to scout or actually play the game.

 

 

Just to clarify: we did not have members going into battle closing the game and then logging into other accounts. We had people join a battle, press escape, click leave battle, the general would aks if you wanted to desert and you accept, then join another battle. There may be 1-2 minutes between battles so you have time. With that said, you may still consider us really really scummy dbags, but now you actually know what happened instead of assuming you knew. 

 

 

Regardless of opinions, WG has ninja'd rules and event postings on many occasions. This thread was made as an unofficial official announcement since WG lacks good communication. 



kier321 #13 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 19:17

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15890 battles
  • 1,876
  • [-TDU-] -TDU-
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012

View Postboomftx, on Dec 09 2016 - 13:08, said:

 

 

Just to clarify: we did not have members going into battle closing the game and then logging into other accounts. We had people join a battle, press escape, click leave battle, the general would aks if you wanted to desert and you accept, then join another battle. There may be 1-2 minutes between battles so you have time. With that said, you may still consider us really really scummy dbags, but now you actually know what happened instead of assuming you knew. 

 

 

Regardless of opinions, WG has ninja'd rules and event postings on many occasions. This thread was made as an unofficial official announcement since WG lacks good communication. 

 

​Exactly. Its literally a win win for both clans. The afk one gets a few free fame points for its members (Less then 10 each) the winning one gets a free win (80 or so fame points) and the chance to move on in the tourney.

Cheekyman #14 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 19:32

    Captain

  • Players
  • 47007 battles
  • 1,808
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
What about the clans that got penalties because they could not field enough battles at once because they did not use this method? was it a ''win win'' for them?

ViolentViolet #15 Posted Dec 09 2016 - 19:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 48956 battles
  • 3,143
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    05-22-2011

Giving the other team a tech vic or escaping out of a battle are not the only two options. Having clan leadership that correctly estimates the number of teams they can field is another option. I think all of us that have been responsible for chipping have had the stress of deciding whether or not we have chipped not enough battles or too many. The hardest part of chipping during a campaign is timing the battles or worse those sneaky defenses that you totally forgot about and they pop out of nowhere. Make sure your leadership chips on the safe side. If you are repeatedly unable to fill battles, the chipper is doing it wrong. 

 

As for the original point of this thread, of playing with your food- we had got clarification when the original rule was stated (back what- two or three campaigns ago?) on what exactly playing with your food meant. WG told us it was anything that showed that the other team was not doing everything they could to try and win the battle if they could. So that would include showing up and not fighting. It included not killing the last tank until you could cap and kill him at the same time for better xp. So basically it means, go to a battle and try your best to win and you will not be in violation. If you don't do that, you could be. 



kier321 #16 Posted Dec 10 2016 - 00:48

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15890 battles
  • 1,876
  • [-TDU-] -TDU-
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012

View PostViolentViolet, on Dec 09 2016 - 13:46, said:

Giving the other team a tech vic or escaping out of a battle are not the only two options. Having clan leadership that correctly estimates the number of teams they can field is another option. I think all of us that have been responsible for chipping have had the stress of deciding whether or not we have chipped not enough battles or too many. The hardest part of chipping during a campaign is timing the battles or worse those sneaky defenses that you totally forgot about and they pop out of nowhere. Make sure your leadership chips on the safe side. If you are repeatedly unable to fill battles, the chipper is doing it wrong. 

 

As for the original point of this thread, of playing with your food- we had got clarification when the original rule was stated (back what- two or three campaigns ago?) on what exactly playing with your food meant. WG told us it was anything that showed that the other team was not doing everything they could to try and win the battle if they could. So that would include showing up and not fighting. It included not killing the last tank until you could cap and kill him at the same time for better xp. So basically it means, go to a battle and try your best to win and you will not be in violation. If you don't do that, you could be. 

 

​The fact is if your landing runs over 2 hours youll have 2 matches at once. For a smaller clan, that cant be done and therefore you either 1) Throw a semi finals match as to not tech, 2) Take the tech, or 3) Do as RS did.

kier321 #17 Posted Dec 10 2016 - 00:50

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15890 battles
  • 1,876
  • [-TDU-] -TDU-
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012

View PostCheekyman, on Dec 09 2016 - 13:32, said:

What about the clans that got penalties because they could not field enough battles at once because they did not use this method? was it a ''win win'' for them?

 

​If this method was allowed, then yes, they could use this method. Its there own fault if they don't, just like not using gold rounds. Now that's it illegal, no one can, but its stupid that its illegal its giving free fame to that team, why complain.

Frostii_xD #18 Posted Dec 10 2016 - 00:52

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21856 battles
  • 277
  • [CHAI] CHAI
  • Member since:
    07-14-2012

View Postkier321, on Dec 09 2016 - 15:48, said:

 

​The fact is if your landing runs over 2 hours youll have 2 matches at once. For a smaller clan, that cant be done and therefore you either 1) Throw a semi finals match as to not tech, 2) Take the tech, or 3) Do as RS did.

 

You can minimize that problem by doing 2-1-2-1-2 or 1-2-1-2-1 now that some provinces have +15 min offsets. This will let you keep one tourney going from one of the previous province with a chance at getting to the province owner. This is viable even if the clan is not certain they can win all the landing tourneys. For big clams, they just don't apply to landings for the next timezone as they're not as worried of losing landing tourneys early on in the rounds.

CaitlynJenner #19 Posted Dec 10 2016 - 01:49

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7985 battles
  • 1,219
  • [PLSGO] PLSGO
  • Member since:
    01-29-2011
Take your penalty and stop multi-boxing and account sharing. Maybe you should plan more carefully if you don't have an active clan.

Cheekyman #20 Posted Dec 10 2016 - 01:50

    Captain

  • Players
  • 47007 battles
  • 1,808
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

View Postkier321, on Dec 09 2016 - 23:50, said:

​If this method was allowed, then yes, they could use this method. Its there own fault if they don't, just like not using gold rounds. Now that's it illegal, no one can, but its stupid that its illegal its giving free fame to that team, why complain.

 







Also tagged with Rule change

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users