I have a Problem with these types of "Tactics"

We don't disagree. The sort of behavior which can be considered as metagaming or cheating is relative from company to company. But there is no omniscient narrator to decide that certain kind of behavior is right or wrong. Many of things which add to EVE's complexity and depth could be considered as banable offenses in other games.

That said I don't think anyone got banned for friendly fire(unless he was always targeting a specific player). SOE implemented weapon lock for a reason.

Fair enough, if we're talking a narrator spanning gaming, yeah there is no actual rule set. It's still foolish to think because it's allowed over there, that it's okay over here. Many people ARE fools though...


They did implement weapon lock for a reason, but that's more for bad players being bad, careless shots, or just juvenile players being douchie when killed by said bad shots. The grief point punishment is weapons lock without removing support capabilities, not removal of the player.

Actual, intentional griefing is a different offense that needs to be addressed in a much more heavy handed manner as it's calculated before execution. This player isn't concerned about a weapons lock.

Arguing and/or playing with psychopaths is pointless.

Back on jeagers I filed a support ticket for someone switching sides and TKing.
I was told that the game has a built in griefing punishment mechanic, weapons lock, and it is working as intended.

So... Good luck getting someone banned for TK.. lol

Makes it no less BS or that it goes against how you are supposed to play the game. Metagaming ruins fun, because it is a form of cheating. Using external outside influences to cheat, by TKing important positions so that the enemy can win doesn't make any sense in the actual game itself. 3 sides in an eternal struggle for control shouldn't mean that suddenly it's O.K. for someone to switch sides and C4 a sunderer so the faction that has their main character on it can win.

It might not be aim assist or wall hacks kind of cheating, but it is still cheating.

While I disagree with your condescending attitude towards people, I do agree it is obvious that rules from other games should never be used as an excuse to break the rules of the game you are currently playing. My reference to EVE was simply to prove a point how certain behavior which is considered bad in one game can contribute to richness and uniqueness in other game.

We can only speculate on devs thinking. It is also possible that if devs wanted to separate metagamers from careless shooters they would use more refined approach to grief point system.

Griefing indeed does need to be addressed in a much more heavy handed manner. Teamkilling for sole purpose of ruining other player's fun contributes nothing to the game and needs to be eradicated. Possible solution would be to have player mods.

I've seen about every stupid thing in the game that can be seen. But you do need to be a little careful about blaming people for tank mining your sunderer. I had mine blown up by a guy in our teamspeak. Or at least he got the credit. He tried to stop an enemy from blowing up the sunderer and triggered the tank mine as he did it. So it came up on my death screen crediting him for killing me with a tank mine. I've also gotten credit for C4ing friendlies as a max as I took out LA. Not that I haven't also seen this type of thing done intentionally. One guy was brazen enough to get on leader chat and tell everyone to stop attacking the VS and started blowing up our sunderers in a little tantrum. So we had to fight VS and this guy. He wasn't a VS troll, just someone throwing a tantrum because he felt ignored. Plus these guys that walk in front of a max or heavy and then cry about being TKed need to be shot. Well.. I guess they were. But they should be shot again with more enthusiasm. I've apologized to people who killed me when I happen to get caught out in front of their firing line.

It depends on your attitude. If metagaming became another avenue for competing then it would enrich the game experience. People would have to invest more thought into their gaming. Problem arises when people refuse to deal with challenge and expect to win.

There is meta like EVE meta which to me is actual meta. There are times where treachery, and flim flamming adds to the experience. However PS2 isn't EVE and will never ever hope to even come close to the sandbox that is EVE. Also even if it adds to the experience it is still generally cheating especially in a game where you can't have your actual character switch sides. I feel like those who take the time to move up the ranks just to pull the traitor card as long as the lore and the game supports it I don't think it's always a bad thing. I do think that for how PS2 works this form of meta just doesn't make any sense.

The problem in PS2 is the only way to stop someone from C4ing that sundy is to keep on killing them to prevent it. However the only thing that will do is in a minute you will get a weapons lock while they will still be able to eventually C4 that sundy. A challenge assumes that this can be eventually overcome. The reality of this situation is it isn't actually a challenge.

Nope, there was an alliance and I've got proof of it. Some very large outfits on both sides, those outfits are still around as well. Basically an event was started a while back (think of a player created alert, before there were alerts), the NC couldn't get their outfit members to go to it and the VS/TR took this as a backstabbing attempt by the NC and decided to punish them for it by warpgated us for a week.

They got warpgated themselves and the NC three capped the continents. After that they decided pretty much to make it a two faction war with it being TR/VS vs NC. This is why NC commonly sees or saw Scythes helping TR movements and the like. The problem however is that the TR never really had a population over 28%. So during alerts the VS would screw them over by gobbling up everything and using them to hit the NC on other fronts. Basically the only Techplants, Biolabs, and Amp Stations that the TR were allowed to have other than ones next to their WG, is ones they took from NC. And THAT is why they never won an alert. Their job was to make NC lose so VS could win.

But had they attacked the VS in force, they could have thrown their former allies off balance and actually took those places and made the fight a little more even. Yeah.. it means the NC might win more too, but at least the TR would have a chance at getting a bigger chunk of points (3-4 stations instead of 1-2), and maybe even win once in a while. But they have to decide if taking pressure off the NC is worth it to put it on the VS.

This post is making me think there are some that do think its worth it. Since its not turning out to be profitable for this little agreement with the VS to continue. But as I said before.. its going to be up to the bigger outfits that run and direct your zergs. They know who they are. Heck you probably know whom I'm talking about.

That's about all I'm hearing. Granted I'm not even on the radar of the lowest rungs of Connery's influential outfits - to whichever outfits you assign that role - but there's never been a time when I've seen broadcasts of "treaty" "truce" and the like. At the same time, I don't care about nonsense like this; I sign on and shoot at everyone and everyone shoots at me. So if it makes you feel better to formulate some grand and shaddy background politics to somehow build a narrative about how Connery works (or fails to work) for whatever reason, go for it.

Team killing IS griefing and a reportable act. Do you imagine its on the list of reportable acts because they WANT you to do it? People don't get banned because its difficult to prove. You know that, we know that.

Sorry, its cheating and you know its cheating. Man up, stop cheating.

You want screenshots? I did say I have proof and I can PM them to you if you'd like.

Very cute.

I haven't personally witnessed what the op is talking about but I wouldn't be surprised if it's taking place. Although a faction lock might not work in a f2p game it would at least discourage people. I doubt it'll ever happen though, SOE probably aren't keen on limiting players in character choice.

Stop conflating killing one specific player over and over again for sole purpose of ruining his fun (which is griefing) with teamkilling Sunderers with purpose of defending a base(which is metagaming).

it is entirely unintended and its not meta gaming, it's more like the back handed tactics of a sore loser. or do you honestly think that people doing this are somehow enriching the game play experience?

Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. Whether you want more depth to the game or not is up to you - but don't to try to mask your avoidance of challenge as contempt for "back handed tactics of a sore loser".

how is it a challenge exactly? should I sit next to my sunder and level a shot gun at every person on my team that spawns on it? explain to me how this is a valid way to fight a battle at all?.

all this says is you are to lazy to figure out how to fight your way to that sunder, so instead you bypass it by abusing the game mechanics in an unintended manner. it doesn't make you special, and it is in now way "challenging" challenge would be getting your lazy *** together and pushing on the sunder.

If you want to discuss metagame tactics then start another thread, I do not want to derail this thread.

You get to enemy Sunderer by either overwhelming the enemy, using Gal drops or Wraith Flash with engineer sitting on the back. All these methods however aren't as time efficient as simply having your agent amidst enemy ranks.

That you think this is in any way meta gaming shows how ignorant you are. you talk about bringing challenge when in reality you are removing challenge from the game. of corse its more time efficient to abuse the trust of the other team, the problem is you think its a valid tactic and not an underhanded one.