That was bumping. And it explains its not harassment unless the victim makes an effort to move else where.
So wardecs can’t legalise harassment, because the victim can leave the wardec…Which is pretty much what CCP explains when they say this:
- War Declarations are a risk that every player corporation has to face and they are under no circumstances considered harassment. Wars in general can be completely avoided by remaining in an NPC corporation.
No, that was following people in several systems, in order to take aggressive actions against them. example given :
This specific stalking becomes legal, as well as all the other examples given there, once you wardec someone. Just as it is legal out of HS.
Not all all. What your quote says is that wardecing -that is, the act of initiating a war - can not be considered illegal harassment. So you can wardec whoever you want as much as you want, without a risk from CCP.
In the first sentence they talk about war DECLARATIONS and in the second, about “wars in general”.
So war decs are not harassment, but a war allow you to take actions that would be considered otherwise as harassment.
Even in that specific quote Nevyn is saying it only becomes harassment if the victim makes reasonable effort to get away and is still subject to a prolonged campaign.
You can get away from a war at anytime. They are in fact opt-in.
On top of that, following a player around and repeatedly murdering them outside of a wardec, does not necessarily mean you are harassing them. Its never been a clearly defined rule. Its not in the ToS…hell, you even thought it was hi-sec only.
And by harassment, you mean aggression…
it becomes illegal harassment. The context is about what is forbidden by CCP. Not warfare in general. So this is about the legal terms.
You repeat yourself. Unrelated.
I already answered that. You are wrong.
By your definition or CCP’s?
As per @GM_Karidor, from the original thread that defines harassment.
CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another player’s ship as an exploit.However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.
While it specifically relates to bumping it has commonly been assumed that the same applies to other activities because it’s the only official word on the matter that we have.
NB the thread indicates that it doesn’t represent CCP’s current position, probably due to mechanics changes; however there has been no further word on the definition of harassment so the spirit of their position is still taken to be the case.
Wardecs may seem to be harassment, but they’re not because the whole mechanic is designed around following other people around and blowing them up.
TL;DR CCP gets to say what harassment is, and their word is law.
okay, now you are circling around.
Well you never did answer the question did you?
CCP don’t really differentiate between legal harassment or illegal harassment, there is only harassment (in the same way there is no ‘legal GBH’ or ‘illegal GBH’. There is only GBH). Thats you stretching definitions so thin to try and argue your way out of this impossible position you’ve put yourself in
But yes I did.
But they do. It’s their role to define what is legal and what is not. They DO define legality in the game. The same way they define legal input broadcasting an illegal one.
No, that’s you unable to understand simple words and making stupid interpretations of a CCP quote while the literal sense is explicit, because you can’t accept that the change made by CCP was a logical decision.
And now making personal attacks because you realize your strawmen are failing.
I guess we reached the point where you are just unable to discuss anymore, so I’ll let you at your fallacies.
Remind me.
Then why don’t they specify ‘legal’ harassment and ‘illegal’ harassment when they use the term?
Why do they just say harassment?
Just to clear any misunderstandings: this is not Russian language. This is set of mostly incorrectly written Russian words without any punctuation and meaning. The author cannot make his thoughts into written text so his posts can be freely ignored.
Yeah Translate didnt make head nor tail of it.
They definately need NPC corp tax around 75% to make it fair for all
I do not understand this way of thinking at all. Why do people think that we get the advantage of using structures without the downsides that any corporation gets from anchoring them.
If you want to hurt a corporation you will go after the assets it has and nothing prevents people from decing the holding corporations. Now the only difference is in our case we decide who will show up in the war and who will not. This will allow new players to learn the ropes and once they are no longer green rookies who can’t shoot back they will join to fight you.
Now the thing that i do get is that if you want to shoot at new players who have no clue how to shoot back just to pad your killboard then yeah its a bit annoying that you cant do that with our community. Sadly we do value new player retention rate over zkillboard rates.
Because it’s rubbish gameplay. We all know that 100% of the time, there will be no defending force because the attackers aren’t going to choose a target that’s going to destroy them in a fight, which is an unlikely prospect since the war groups doing all the station sieging are bigger and stronger than most others in high-sec anyway.
The only downside of a structure in a holding corp is its value as a sunk cost, which is written off as a cost of doing business. Structures don’t encourage players to have fights; they have the exact opposite effect. But everyone seems to be buying into CCP’s claim that the structure requirement is leading to more meaningful conflict, because of what, the raw ISK destruction amount? Most of that is coming from the structures themselves, and not from ships.
By not actually being in that corp?
Deccing an empty station barely scratches a holding corp.
I assume you mean on the defending side.
Why would someone wanting that start a war? Literally (as mentioned above) the first thing most people in a corp that gets decced do is run away and quit rather than run away and keep making their fortune.
You seem to be under the impression I shoot folks. You are pretty wrong. Ive received more decs than Ive ever issued, and Ive never quit instead of playing.
And then you explain exactly why:
But the corporations assets aren’t within the dec. Only the structure is.
The corporation i want to go after is still using its assets to farm. And even the assets they leave in the structure are subject to asset safety.
Exactly, the players i want to go after are not within the dec. Despite their use of the structure and the benefits the reap from it, masses of afk orcas and farming faction battleships continue completely unaffected by the war.
They should not be so disconnected from the war. Or they should not get full benefits to use the structure whilst not at war.
Meaningful choices.
Aren’t you worried that you undermine your own position when you are this dishonest?
Or did you forget that the CSM minutes explained that new players are not the target of wardecs?
Why you want old rules back? With people joining wardeccable corps to avoid taxes and logging off for war length or forever. CCP already established what this rules bad for the game.
Because the current rules are enabling bad players to make bad corps and this is affecting the overall player experience in a way that is going to be far more invasive than wardecs ever were.
The toxicity that was so embedded in npc corps is now in player corps. And CCP is saying ‘join these corps’.
I’m a strong supporter of social corps. But these social corps should come with a meaningful trade off. There should be a clear separation between the level of play between social corps and full-on corps.