Slimeball91

Here's what Niko posted. The part in red is the actual rule, the text in black he added and is not in the official rules.

Being that cruisers are high RoF ships and left unchecked can do real harm, then I think this could be viewed as tangible harm to the other players. With CV sniping being a very questionable tactic at best, agreeing not to do it almost never seemed to do any actual harm. If cruisers ignoring each other didn't have a negative impact on the other players what would be the problem? If WG decides to weigh in on this I'd suggest they think very carefully before answering. Also, if they make the call that its somehow against the rules they better amend the official rules to make it clear.

If I'm remembering correctly WG said they weren't working on any new ops for the time being. That was in October, maybe in a mingles with Jingles vid??

How well has that worked for you?

Its not mentioned in the rules at all, go read them. At best we have an old interpretation of the rules. To be clear, the only rules against any player/team collusion is for clans. WG modified the rules to include player/team collusion for clans throwing matches but not for any other part of the game. Here's the rule. As you can see there is a rule against throwing matches, however, CV truces aren't throwing matches or forced draws. At best we can say its debatable that these things actually have any impact on the outcome of a match or harm the other players. That's the best you have, something that is debatable. If these truces were causing tangible harm then I might agree with you. It's funny, I was going to use this exact same example. First, the players would be removed if they actually violated the rules. Since this is a theoretical example we can't know if its against the rules. Proclaiming it is, is trying to use circular reasoning. Second, gentleman's agreements are a well established practice in sports. Third, 99.9% of the time goalkeepers agreeing not to score any goals would have no impact on the game whatsoever. Also, if we were to make this goalkeeper agreement the same as a CV truce, the agreement would be not to try to score a goal unless in was necessary to win the game or at which point the outcome of the game was already decided. Now the chances of that agreement doing any actual harm is approaching nil. In other words, its an irrational fear. And that's what this is about, an irrational fear that a CV truce somehow does tangible harm to you. Look, WG has had nearly three years to amend the rules to ban CV truces, they haven't. A forum post from three years ago interpenetrating the rules is a stretch to say its officially against the rules now. Yes, WG reserves the right to make judgment calls on the rules, and they have the final say. Neither you or I can't know the stance they have on CV truces now. One last thing. I firmly believe they reason WGNA made the judgement they did on CV truces was because it caused toxic behavior from some players (giving away friendly CV positions in chat) and not because the truce impacted to outcome of a game or harmed other players. I believe that because that is exactly what was happening. The funny thing is, angry players would do the same thing after being sunk by the enemy CV regardless if there was a truce or not. They did it try and punish all CV players. This is what WG was cracking down on.

I don't really focus on the gambling aspect. I see creates as a dishonest sales tactic because these companies know if they disclosed the odds you wouldn't buy the creates (or that it would greatly harm sales). Honesty/transparency should be the basis for every transaction.

By the time a player makes it to T8 they understand the Cv play. The problem they run into is being bottom tier and running into the good CV players. That doesn't inherently make CVs vulnerable to surface ships. That's not really a fair point. All ships are inherently vulnerable when they lose their team's support.

explicitly state I'm not debating that. He said its against the rules. He spoke for WGNA at that time, we agree. But you are. If you make no assumptions you can't say my argument is faulty. Again, we agree. Its up to WG to decide if CV truces are still considered a violation of the rules. No mention of CV truces being against the rules in the official rules. The part of the rule Niko quoted, he seems to added the "This also includes collusion between both teams to influence or manipulate the outcome of a battle" part as I can't find it in the rules other than rules for clan wars. So, the rules don't explicitly state CV truces are against the rules in general play. They could have added this to the rules but they didn't. Also, outside of clan wars, collusion between both teams isn't explicitly stated as being against the rules. It is possible WG might still interrupter the rules as such.

The "you have no CV experience" argument is very weak. I pointed to stats to show you CVs are taking much torp damage. It wouldn't matter if I never played CVs, that fact wouldn't change. Also, I can stand by what I said about being your being responsible for taking any torps. Tell me, if CVs are so vulnerable why do the T10 CVs have kill/death ratios of 6.18:1 for the Midway and 6.77:1 for the Hak??

That's a presumption. We don't know that it has any impact on the outcome of the game or unfairly hurts any players. Besides, I don't know if you were playing at that time but it was not uncommon for one player to agree to a truce and then immediately break that truce to trick their opponent to gain an advantage. In other words, you weren't able to let your guard down with a truce. The truces were by new players learning the game. You didn't see the truces happening in the higher tiers. The real attacking/defending game play wasn't being impacted by CV truces because these players were still learning the game. A no kill agreement is interpreted as being against the rules. Its a reasonable one. The gray area that no CV sniping agreements aren't a no kill agreement per se. Many of the rules are in place to prevent players from ruining the game for others. Again, CV agreeing not to snipe is a gray area because its rarely has any impact on the outcome of the game and/or hurts any other players. Saying "I won't sink you by CV sniping" isn't the same as saying you aren't going to try to stop the enemy CV, or do your best to prevent them impacting your teammates' game. I'll say this as the last point. WG has gone out their way to prevent CV from sniping each other in the rework because they view it makes for a bad experience not only for the CV player, but his team. I seriously doubt they are going to take a hard stance on no sniping agreements. You don't like my opinion so you attacked it as shoddy. I can stand by what I said. I don't think you can stand by yours. It's an old interpretation of the rules, that is a fact. WG may or may not still hold that view. You don't know, and I don't know. Your insisting you are correct is pointless. And let's be clear, I said a CV truce doesn't violate the rules per se. For one, its not explicitly stated in the rules (that I have seen). Also, Niko highlighted part of a rule that has nothing to do with CV truces but rather a possible outcome of a CV truce (players giving away the position of other friendly players). Niko didn't explicitly state why CV truces were against the rules so you are making assumptions as to why, just like I am. Calling my argument shoddy because I made assumptions when you did the same is hypocritical. You should try to have a civil discussion instead of attack people's opinions you don't like.

No, I made an argument as to why I think WG isn't going to enforce this no CV truce interpretation of the rules. You said my argument was shoddy, the argument isn't shoddy at all. Pointing that out isn't moving the goalpost. You made a claim you can't back up and now you are moving the goalposts.

Go ahead and disprove my shoddy argument then. Prove CVs not sniping each other hurts the game. Go on.

The problem is a CV truce doesn't violate the rules per se. The problem came from bitter people giving away the position of their CV to the other team. Niko highlights the part of the rules that prevent players from giving away the positions of friendly ships. A CV truce isn't giving away positions, they have nothing to do with each other. It would be like saying you can't eat cat food and then cite a jaywalking statute as to why not. It doesn't make any sense. I'd guess it was WG trying to head off the problem at what they though is the source. Let's go back to shortly after launch when CV truces were somewhat common in lower tiers. Those of us that were playing at that time know the truce was in low tiers when the game was still new and people were learning to play. You didn't really see the truce in the mid or higher tiers. It was new players learning to play CVs. There was no conspiracy to cheat anyone. The truce was not a no kill agreement in theory or practice. It was an agreement to not unnecessarily attack your CV opponent(s). As soon as it was necessary to attack your CV counterpart to win, the truce was off. It had no impact on your team's chances of winning. The problem that we did have was bitter players that somehow felt "cheated" by the truce because they were sunk by the enemy CV. Of course they were full of crap, and it was just misplaced anger of being sunk. These angry players would they tell the enemy team in chat where their friendly CV was. That is a clear violation of the rules and instead of enforcing the rules against the player actually breaking the rules, they muddied the waters with a poor interpretation of the good sportsmanship rule. Look, the argument against a CV truce is that it unfairly impacts the outcome of the game as a whole, or for some individuals. First, you'd have to prove that attempting to CV snipe increases your teams chance of winning, good luck trying to prove that. Next, your need to prove that not sniping unfairly impacts your teammates game play in some meaningful way. Again, good luck trying to prove that. You may be able to find some instances where a truce did impact the outcome, but its will be very rare. It didn't happen enough to justify making a rule change. It was an interpretation of a rule. We don't really know if that view was shared by all of WG or not. WG could have emended the rules to explicitly say CV truces are against the rules (and maybe they have) but I haven't seen that. My point is I don't think WG will enforce the rules as Niko posted anymore. This (old) interpretation of a rules is likely outdated. Its simple, show me that CV players having agreed to not snipe hurt the outcome of the game and I'll be fine with punishing those involved. Otherwise, let them play the game as they see fit.

I didn't read the entire thread so I don't know if Niko clarified later in the thread, but the rule he claim is being violated isn't actually being violated by a no snipe agreement. The part that Niko highlighted in red has nothing to do with a CV truce. The last part on "influence or manipulate the outcome of a battle" is highly debatable. This part seems clearly aimed at targeting teams/players agreeing to throw a match. CVs agreeing not to snipe isn't agreeing to compromise your team's chances of winning in the least. WG deciding this is against the rules is a strange interpretation. If I'm remembering correctly, at the time of Niko's post strafing wasn't in the game yet. I suppose a no sniping agreement could be viewed differently back then. With strafing you can remove the enemy CV without sniping. Also, the wording, CV truce/no kill agreement isn't really what the players are agreeing to. No sniping isn't a no kill agreement. If it was and it costs your team a win then you'd have a case. I'd be very surprised if WG would do anything about a no snipe agreement now. Does anyone know if there is a set of the rules posted on the forum? I wasn't obvious where I could find them.

This is in part why some people agree not to snipe, because its a waste of everyone's time.