Rules on provocative uncap engagement?

[pattynotoes]

Requesting rule clarification from administrator or relevant party:

How is provocative uncap engagement handled? Example: intentionally firing into enemy uncap without damaging enemy players or equipment (such as shooting above their heads, near them, etc- in such a way that the enemy returns fire and becomes free to kill legally). While on the topic, how does laser painting/locking on fit into the picture? Are we allowed to lock-on to enemy vehicles in uncap without firing? What happens if an uncap vehicle is laser painted and a separate individual fires a missile at the painted target, not knowing that the target is in their uncap?

Recently I've been using these highly provocative strategies within the limits of the rules, including uncap staredowns (aiming at enemies in uncap and waiting for them to fire first), uncap lock-ons (missile locking enemy vehicles in uncap and waiting for them to fire first), and intentional missing shots in order to provoke retaliation from enemies in their uncap. So far, several people have expressed anger and disapproval of these strategies. As a result, I am seeking clarification on the various loopholes of uncap firing in order to avoid future reports or complaints.

Maps that exaggerate the effectiveness of these tactics usually feature open spawn areas with little to no cover:
Siege of Shanghai, Rogue Transmission, Hainan Resort, Silk Road, Golmud Railway

 

[BigBadBagOfSwag]

Intentionally firing into uncap in hopes to trigger a response is frowned upon but would fall under a grey area. If you make a mistake and subsequently reported for it, you'd receive a harsher punishment.

Laser painting / locking into uncap is not allowed. Similarly, if someones fires at a lock in uncap, that would be grounds for a rule violation if they had not shot out yet or weren't all capped.
Since most punishments occur once a player is offline, temporary bans are issued in hopes that they'd attempt to appeal to receive clarification on our ingame rules.

If you don't target uncap, you don't run the risk of making a mistake.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

aiming at enemies in uncap and waiting for them to fire first

I am not a lawyer and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn since 2001.

This is what we in the real world call brandishing and is an expressive form of hostile intent or intent to do great bodily harm or cause death.

Technically, by aiming at the enemy you have already engaged and broken the rules.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

BTW, Swag, I would have never predicted your lackadaisical response re: "grey area". The rules states... blah blah blah Do not attack the enemy in their uncap except allowed if they fire out. Don't quote me. But the key take-aways are: do not, attack, uncap, unless provoked. Firing into uncap (whether or not you expect to hit something) is attacking. Unless or course we want to debate whether suppressive fire does or does not constitute an "attack".

On the other hand, some chad that simply fires on a locked target with no view to the target (happens all the time), and the target happens to be in uncap, is somehow deserving of punishment?

I simply cannot read your mind. And it's just based on common sense...

Dude here just gave a full public confession to an admin. Book him.

 

[BigBadBagOfSwag]

I am not a lawyer and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn since 2001.

This is what we in the real world call brandishing and is an expressive form of hostile intent or intent to do great bodily harm or cause death.

Technically, by aiming at the enemy you have already engaged and broken the rules.

Aiming at someone in uncap wouldn't be a violation.

BTW, Swag, I would have never predicted your lackadaisical response re: "grey area". The rules states... blah blah blah Do not attack the enemy in their uncap except allowed if they fire out. Don't quote me. But the key take-aways are: do not, attack, uncap, unless provoked. Firing into uncap (whether or not you expect to hit something) is attacking. Unless or course we want to debate whether suppressive fire does or does not constitute an "attack".

On the other hand, some chad that simply fires on a locked target with no view to the target (happens all the time), and the target happens to be in uncap, is somehow deserving of punishment?

I simply cannot read your mind. And it's just based on common sense...

Dude here just gave a full public confession to an admin. Book him.

It's been a long day. Put simply, it's situational. If you target uncap and make a mistake, it's punishable.

 

[-bZ-TargetOne]

Dude here just gave a full public confession to an admin. Book him.

Concur.

 

[MerkelValkyria]

Dude here just gave a full public confession to an admin. Book him.

Concur.

It's a joke, isn't it? The guy comes to ask for clarification on the rules in order to fully respect them. It is clearly in good faith and there is no need to punish him for doing so.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

It's a joke, isn't it? The guy comes to ask for clarification on the rules in order to fully respect them. It is clearly in good faith and there is no need to punish him for doing so.

So ignorance of the rules is an excuse for breaking the rules? Never the case.

Recently I've been using these highly provocative strategies within the limits of the rules...

There is no basis to claim ignorance as he knows the rules and admitted to intentionally pushing the boundaries of the rules. Mens rea has been established.

There is no respect in purposefully challenging the limits of the rules. Flouting the rules does not constitute acting in "full respect" of the rules.

Testing the limits of the rules does not constitute action done "in good faith." A good faith effort would have been to seek clarification before engaging in such potential rule-breaking.

So far, several people have expressed anger and disapproval of these strategies.

He admitted locking the enemy in uncap. That's not allowed. Never has been. This is common knowledge.

People complained (ostensibly told him he was wrong and breaking the rules) and asked/told him stop and he continued anyway.

The player (well-known at that) has self-reported his rule-breaking and is now asking to be absolved after-the-fact.

 

[BigBadBagOfSwag]

No one reported him for doing so, the context around the incidents that occurred are unknown except to him and those he targeted. Had the enemy been fully captured, he would've coincidentally been in the clear regarding uncap targeting.

While ignorance of the rules won't result in a pardoning, we do give several chances for most violations.
I can respect that he chose to ask for clarification instead of continuing on while assuming that he was in the right all along. It can be difficult for someone to admit they were wrong.

Most initial bans are issued in hopes that the players in question will come to the forums to appeal. This gives a chance for any potential misunderstandings to be cleared up.
Hopefully he will see the delayed response above and take the appropriate measures to not violate our ingame rules. If he doesn't, an appropriate punishment will be dealt.

 

[ithinkimabunny]

2: ATTACKING UNCAP IS NOT ALLOWED (Conquest Only)
Don't attack the enemy's uncappable base (main base). If they fire out you can return fire.

Intentionally firing into uncap in hopes to trigger a response is frowned upon but would fall under a grey area. If you make a mistake and subsequently reported for it, you'd receive a harsher punishment.

What I find fascinating, Swag, is that according to your determination above, it is not a violation to fire into enemy uncap as long as you don't cause damage to any enemy.

This is different than what I (and probably most others) believed was the case.

To illustrate my point, the rule is "Don't attack the enemy's uncappable base (main base)." This doesn't say don't attack the enemy in their uncap, it says DON'T ATTACK THE ENEMY'S UNCAPPABLE BASE. Perhaps this wording needs to be adjusted as a plain reading strongly implies that firing into enemy uncap is not allowed. (This is the very definition of 'attacking the enemy's uncappable base'.)

I see we just glossed right over this issue:

Unless or course we want to debate whether suppressive fire does or does not constitute an "attack".

So, by your ruling, suppressive fire into an enemy's uncap does not constitute an attack and is indeed allowed.

Exception: If you damage the enemy, or an enemy vehicle, or enemy equipment, in any way, a violation is deemed to have occurred.

Side bar: not sure why firing into an uncap would be allowed but using lasers to lock an enemy in uncap is not allowed. I would have never differentiated these two acts in my mind. They're fundamentally the same. Of course, I never do either as it's just "common sense."

Good to know.

 

[neonardo1]

What I find fascinating, Swag, is that according to your determination above, it is not a violation to fire into enemy uncap as long as you don't cause damage to any enemy.

This is different than what I (and probably most others) believed was the case.

To illustrate my point, the rule is "Don't attack the enemy's uncappable base (main base)." This doesn't say don't attack the enemy in their uncap, it says DON'T ATTACK THE ENEMY'S UNCAPPABLE BASE. Perhaps this wording needs to be adjusted as a plain reading strongly implies that firing into enemy uncap is not allowed. (This is the very definition of 'attacking the enemy's uncappable base'.)

I see we just glossed right over this issue:



So, by your ruling, suppressive fire into an enemy's uncap does not constitute an attack and is indeed allowed.

Exception: If you damage the enemy, or an enemy vehicle, or enemy equipment, in any way, a violation is deemed to have occurred.

Side bar: not sure why firing into an uncap would be allowed but using lasers to lock an enemy in uncap is not allowed. I would have never differentiated these two acts in my mind. They're fundamentally the same. Of course, I never do either as it's just "common sense."

Good to know.

Or we can let common sense prevail and leave the wording as-is.

 

[Silent_Killa613]

I mean it's pretty fuckin' simple people.. Don't fire into uncap unless they fire out... It's not rocket science here. If all flags are capped, giver.. Stop trying to find ways to be a douche bag..

 

[Helloface]

What I'm reading here is since my aim sucks, I can attack uncap to my leisure since I probably won't hit anyone anyways. Neat!

 

[pattynotoes]

New question: What are the rules for uncap engagement regarding enemy aircraft? Is their uncap zone the same as ground units? I ask because most aircraft (especially jets) have a much larger area of boundaries and most end up spawning really far behind the ground uncap. Do we respect the map-defined uncap for aircraft? Tracking the fast-movers as they cross borders is difficult given their speed. Of course, all this can be avoided by just 'stay out of uncap' but I still wish to know what the rules of engagement are for uncap jets.

The player (well-known at that) has self-reported his rule-breaking and is now asking to be absolved after-the-fact.

I never asked to be absolved. I made the post expecting to be banned for self-admission because in the end of the day, I still committed the crime. Nobody was there to report/witness it but it still happened. I've completely stopped lasing uncap due to the clarification, and i've stopped firing into uncap provocatively since there's too much risk of mistake or being reported. I still, however, stare down enemies in uncap with hostile intent. The average player panics and shoots the moment they see me which provides the justification I need to engage back. I've only encountered one other player who stared back at me and we ended up hovering around each other in scout helicopters in the uncap for like 3 minutes before someone else shot me down. Game recognize game I guess?

I agree that testing the rules is generally bad faith and I do so knowing that I run the risk of being punished, rightly so. In the end I have the option to play normally and avoid pissing people off.

What I'm reading here is since my aim sucks, I can attack uncap to my leisure since I probably won't hit anyone anyways. Neat!

Interesting take. Here's mine:

The enemy uncap is an advantageous combat zone for both sides. The defending party gets an AI anti-air gun, strength in numbers, the cover of every vehicle the spawns there, and a bannable rule that protects them. The attacking party's only advantage is the element of surprise, and the ability to flank if they're using an aircraft. Attacking uncap [[[legally]]] offers high risk high reward to the attacker. It puts the defending team in an uncomfortable mental state as they now have to focus on targets close to home. It disrupts their decision making process by exposing them to the vulnerability of being attacked somewhere they normally aren't attacked. It also creates delay and strain on the defending side's vehicles which indirectly buys time for the attacking team to make gains while the defenders are wrapped up in their spawn.

Historically, warfare favors uncap attacks. They're usually the most vilifiable acts of combat, but also the most effective. 9/11, october 7th, desert storm, a few examples. Damaging enemy infrastructure in their own home base is generally a winning move and also provokes the ire of the enemy and puts them in an aggressive, vengeful stance. Attacking with vengeance and arrogance leaves the enemy vulnerable to overcommitting into unfavorable combat terrain as they are blinded by their singular goal of retaliation.

Despite this, rules are rules. The effectiveness of the strategy means nothing because it's not allowed on the server, and I understand why the rule is in place. Nobody likes to spawn in an attack chopper and immediately be sniped out the cockpit, or spawn in a damaged tank and have to repair. It is unfair for players spawning into the game to immediately be met with combat. I still enjoy operating in the enemy uncap, albeit under heavy restrictions and within the confines of the rules. It's a very unique and interesting combat space that you don't find anywhere else on the map.

As for complaints, people complain about everything. Using a flir makes you terrible. Using frag makes you terrible. Sniping, driving a tank, firing TV missiles, etc. Any act of hostility is met with verbal hostility from the victims. This is a game where people drive motorcycles packed with explosives for 5 minutes just to bomb an enemy vehicle. They fly a multi-billion dollar combat jet into an inflatable boat. The more effective the strategy, the more universally frowned upon it is. All of these strategies don't come close to breaking the rules, so they're not in the same ballpark. However, people really give me shit when I launch a justified attack against their uncap. They'll see their teammates firing out of uncap for minutes on end, see me blow them up, and still complain that I'm 'camping uncap like a little loser.' I don't play to win or lose, I play to feel the simulated rush of combat. I respect any attack, no matter how creative or backhanded or scummy it is. You want to sit in your base with the anti-air gun and develop a false sense of security and superiority? Have fun! Someone's going to swoop in and disrupt that eventually. War is war.

 

[FluffMuffin94]

TL;DR?

 

[pattynotoes]

TL;DR?

Here's a sun tzu quote to give the false impression that I know what i'm talking about

 

[-bZ-TargetOne]

I ask because most aircraft (especially jets) have a much larger area of boundaries and most end up spawning really far behind the ground uncap.

And there's your answer.

Jets that spawn outside of the uncap would be fair game. On maps where jets spawn on a runway in the uncap (Oman & Caspian come to mind) then those would be off-limits.

 

[Helloface]

New question: What are the rules for uncap engagement regarding enemy aircraft? Is their uncap zone the same as ground units? I ask because most aircraft (especially jets) have a much larger area of boundaries and most end up spawning really far behind the ground uncap. Do we respect the map-defined uncap for aircraft? Tracking the fast-movers as they cross borders is difficult given their speed. Of course, all this can be avoided by just 'stay out of uncap' but I still wish to know what the rules of engagement are for uncap jets.


I never asked to be absolved. I made the post expecting to be banned for self-admission because in the end of the day, I still committed the crime. Nobody was there to report/witness it but it still happened. I've completely stopped lasing uncap due to the clarification, and i've stopped firing into uncap provocatively since there's too much risk of mistake or being reported. I still, however, stare down enemies in uncap with hostile intent. The average player panics and shoots the moment they see me which provides the justification I need to engage back. I've only encountered one other player who stared back at me and we ended up hovering around each other in scout helicopters in the uncap for like 3 minutes before someone else shot me down. Game recognize game I guess?

I agree that testing the rules is generally bad faith and I do so knowing that I run the risk of being punished, rightly so. In the end I have the option to play normally and avoid pissing people off.


Interesting take. Here's mine:

The enemy uncap is an advantageous combat zone for both sides. The defending party gets an AI anti-air gun, strength in numbers, the cover of every vehicle the spawns there, and a bannable rule that protects them. The attacking party's only advantage is the element of surprise, and the ability to flank if they're using an aircraft. Attacking uncap [[[legally]]] offers high risk high reward to the attacker. It puts the defending team in an uncomfortable mental state as they now have to focus on targets close to home. It disrupts their decision making process by exposing them to the vulnerability of being attacked somewhere they normally aren't attacked. It also creates delay and strain on the defending side's vehicles which indirectly buys time for the attacking team to make gains while the defenders are wrapped up in their spawn.

Historically, warfare favors uncap attacks. They're usually the most vilifiable acts of combat, but also the most effective. 9/11, october 7th, desert storm, a few examples. Damaging enemy infrastructure in their own home base is generally a winning move and also provokes the ire of the enemy and puts them in an aggressive, vengeful stance. Attacking with vengeance and arrogance leaves the enemy vulnerable to overcommitting into unfavorable combat terrain as they are blinded by their singular goal of retaliation.

Despite this, rules are rules. The effectiveness of the strategy means nothing because it's not allowed on the server, and I understand why the rule is in place. Nobody likes to spawn in an attack chopper and immediately be sniped out the cockpit, or spawn in a damaged tank and have to repair. It is unfair for players spawning into the game to immediately be met with combat. I still enjoy operating in the enemy uncap, albeit under heavy restrictions and within the confines of the rules. It's a very unique and interesting combat space that you don't find anywhere else on the map.

As for complaints, people complain about everything. Using a flir makes you terrible. Using frag makes you terrible. Sniping, driving a tank, firing TV missiles, etc. Any act of hostility is met with verbal hostility from the victims. This is a game where people drive motorcycles packed with explosives for 5 minutes just to bomb an enemy vehicle. They fly a multi-billion dollar combat jet into an inflatable boat. The more effective the strategy, the more universally frowned upon it is. All of these strategies don't come close to breaking the rules, so they're not in the same ballpark. However, people really give me shit when I launch a justified attack against their uncap. They'll see their teammates firing out of uncap for minutes on end, see me blow them up, and still complain that I'm 'camping uncap like a little loser.' I don't play to win or lose, I play to feel the simulated rush of combat. I respect any attack, no matter how creative or backhanded or scummy it is. You want to sit in your base with the anti-air gun and develop a false sense of security and superiority? Have fun! Someone's going to swoop in and disrupt that eventually. War is war.

referring to 9/11 as "attacking uncap" is peak autism

 

[vckrz]

And there's your answer.

Jets that spawn outside of the uncap would be fair game. On maps where jets spawn on a runway in the uncap (Oman & Caspian come to mind) then those would be off-limits.

Wouldnt be fair, jets should be able to reach where the opposing teams boundary starts like normal uncap

 

[The0bamessiah]

referring to 9/11 as "attacking uncap" is peak autism

I don't know what he was going for with that. Was he implying that those "uncap attacks" didn't lead to overwhelming success by the retaliating side? Maybe I could see that argument for 9/11 resulting in the US being overly-aggressive and reckless leading to their defeat in Afghanistan ( after 20 years of occupation ) but his other examples are awful. Hamas has been almost completely destroyed after October 7th and Desert Storm was a resounding success with Iraq's military and infrastructure being completely annihilated in record time. Given that two out of his three examples of "uncap attacks" being actually negative for the uncap attacker I'd say his entire argument is meritless.

Also you missed this gem :

I don't play to win or lose, I play to feel the simulated rush of combat.