Shard Chats = cheating

Cheaters gonna cheat. To be fair though they're just exploiting one of the few graces you get in the game.

Whatever system CG put in place the saltiest of "winners" like that *less than complimentary language exempted* up there would find a new way of exploiting it, as he pretty much states.

PvP is generally terrible in everything and this game is no different.

"Bigbearxba;c-1579228" wrote:
In spirit, I’d love for you to be correct. But legally you are incorrect. To violate the “sell, buy or trade” clause there has to actually be transfer of the “Virtual Currency or Entitlements” between those involved. Player A isn’t transfering the crystals to player B. He is just helping player B “earn” those crystals more easily. Also, Discord in this example would not qualify as a “third party website” in terms of precedent in enforcing this kind of clause in contract. The website has to actually be transfering the “Virtual Currency...” to the players for it to fall under this clause. (As an example, websites that sell gear to players for MMOs like World of Warcraft)

I don't know. I think the language is left somewhat ambiguous for a reason. Lawyer-speak to cover as much ground as possible. Gives them room to take action or not take action, depending on different circumstances.
Every MMO with PVP that I've ever played will ban win-traders, and they have similar language in their TOS. For example, in WoW Arena, people would wait until slow hours and then team into each other in Arena, taking turns to win and lose. This let them gain rank and rewards more easily and quickly ... and they would absolutely get banned.

Battle Royale games also ban people for teaming -- i.e. people NOT on the same team actively ganging up on others.

I don't think the transfer of rewards/currencies/entitlements has to be an actual transfer from player to player... as the rewards in these games often aren't even able to be transferred from player to player. The rewards can only be earned individually or in a team.

As I said... with this game, the problem would be proving it. Those other games have extensive gameplay logs and replays that devs can investigate.

The ambiguity also serves in line items like this: "Engage in any other activity that significantly disturbs the peaceful, fair and respectful gaming environment of an EA Service." (Keyword here being "significant" -- how significant does EA consider shard chatting? Probably not very significant, considering most of their biggest spenders do it.)

And also this one:

"Use exploits, cheats, undocumented features, design errors or problems in an EA Service."

Or this one:

"Interfere with or disrupt another player's use of an EA Service. This includes disrupting the normal flow of game play, chat or dialogue within an EA Service by, for example, using vulgar or harassing language, being abusive, excessive shouting (all caps), spamming, flooding or hitting the return key repeatedly."

A EA rep could easily fit shard chats into any of those if they cared enough to crack down.

"Graives;c-1579605" wrote:

"Bigbearxba;c-1579228" wrote:
In spirit, I’d love for you to be correct. But legally you are incorrect. To violate the “sell, buy or trade” clause there has to actually be transfer of the “Virtual Currency or Entitlements” between those involved. Player A isn’t transfering the crystals to player B. He is just helping player B “earn” those crystals more easily. Also, Discord in this example would not qualify as a “third party website” in terms of precedent in enforcing this kind of clause in contract. The website has to actually be transfering the “Virtual Currency...” to the players for it to fall under this clause. (As an example, websites that sell gear to players for MMOs like World of Warcraft)

I don't know. I think the language is left somewhat ambiguous for a reason. Lawyer-speak to cover as much ground as possible. Gives them room to take action or not take action, depending on different circumstances.
Every MMO with PVP that I've ever played will ban win-traders, and they have similar language in their TOS. For example, in WoW Arena, people would wait until slow hours and then team into each other in Arena, taking turns to win and lose. This let them gain rank and rewards more easily and quickly ... and they would absolutely get banned.

Battle Royale games also ban people for teaming -- i.e. people NOT on the same team actively ganging up on others.

I don't think the transfer of rewards/currencies/entitlements has to be an actual transfer from player to player... as the rewards in these games often aren't even able to be transferred from player to player. The rewards can only be earned individually or in a team.

As I said... with this game, the problem would be proving it. Those other games have extensive gameplay logs and replays that devs can investigate.

The ambiguity also serves in line items like this: "Engage in any other activity that significantly disturbs the peaceful, fair and respectful gaming environment of an EA Service." (Keyword here being "significant" -- how significant does EA consider shard chatting? Probably not very significant, considering most of their biggest spenders do it.)

And also this one:

"Use exploits, cheats, undocumented features, design errors or problems in an EA Service."

Or this one:

"Interfere with or disrupt another player's use of an EA Service. This includes disrupting the normal flow of game play, chat or dialogue within an EA Service by, for example, using vulgar or harassing language, being abusive, excessive shouting (all caps), spamming, flooding or hitting the return key repeatedly."

A EA rep could easily fit shard chats into any of those if they cared enough to crack down.

Sadly, I do know. I won’t go into detail how. Most of what you are saying won’t hold up in litigation. A dirty secret that all developers/publishers love to keep is that ToS agreements aren’t all that strong. They rarely stand up in court when properly challenged. And when they do, they receive extraordinarily narrow interpretation. Cases like these often end up in appellate court or higher and judges there tend to be pedantically literal in their interpretations of contract and contract law. Especially in situations where the contract does not have an “affirmative action” by the user. Which many games do not have (I can’t remember if this game did but a simple “I agree” button before use usually counts)

I'm not talking about court litigation. I'm talking about being banned from a game, which has been going on since the beginning of multiplayer online games -- without any litigation that I've ever heard of.

"EA may terminate your access and use of any EA Services or your EA Account if EA determines that you have violated this Agreement"

Pretty sure none of us have the "right" to play a mobile game if we breach said game's terms of service, and I doubt anyone would try to take that to court. And these terms of service are written as expansively (and as ambiguously) as possible to give the game entity all the leeway they want to get rid of problematic players or even to overlook breaches in terms of service. (For example, you might see game devs conspicuously overlook a video of a popular YouTube streamer cheating in some way because that streamer is providing lots of free ad space for the game ... whereas a no-name player gets banned immediately for doing the same thing.)

I mean... I've seen in other online games where someone would get suspended or banned for mouthing off to a developer on a public forum. Or standing in front of a doorway in-game. Or saying something rude in a General chat. It honestly doesn't take much. But if they decide you are costing them $$ by doing something disruptive, then you're going to get banned very quickly.

But in the case of this game, the players causing the controversy are also the biggest spenders. So unless people start leaving the game in droves expressly due to Arena exploit, I doubt EA will publicly rock the boat. I wish they would, but realistically... I have to assume they've done the math. If they re-worked Arena to make shard-chatting completely non-viable (i.e. every single player had to camp and protect their own payout every day if they wanted max rewards), a lot of entitled whales would cry-baby all over the forums and take their $1000s to another game. Muh crystals. Muh rank. Boohoo. That sort of thing.

But that would only leave the whales, krakens, dolphins, and other spenders, thus most of their money being made and if 10000 people who rarely spend quit the game, it doesnt hurt their sales.

"BubbaFett;c-1579169" wrote:

Contribute UGC or organize or participate in any activity, group or guild that is inappropriate, abusive, harassing, profane, threatening, hateful, offensive, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, defamatory, infringing, invades another's privacy, or is otherwise reasonably objectionable.

An aggrieved party would need to prove that the content of a 'shard chat' is “inappropriate, abusive, harassing, profane, threatening, hateful, offensive, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, defamatory, infringing, invades another's privacy, or is otherwise reasonably objectionable.” These actions potentially infringe on criminal and/or civil rights grounds. To heap in gentlemen's agreements between certain parties are not the same context. Additionally, your definition of objectionable may not meet another person's definition of objectionable - or more importantly, the legal definition of it.

Mr. Legal Eagle has drawn up this condition as a catchall; but Mr. Finance Manager knows that if players were banned en masse and went back to Google Play and/or iTunes claiming refunds, this game would die within weeks.

"BubbaFett;c-1579169" wrote:

I would say the fact that you are organizing and participating in an activity that colludes to make the playing field less than level is objectionable......

“Engage in any other activity that significantly disturbs the peaceful, fair and respectful gaming environment of an EA Service”

If a third party carriage service were used that was not governed by or enforceable by EA, they have no ability to act. On the other hand, were using this very forum and/or in-game chat as the carriage service to conduct any 'objectionable' actions, you might have a case. Otherwise, the accused could just as easily say that their attacks are driven by the horoscope they read in the newspaper that day or that some deity to spoke them in a vision directing them to act in a certain way.

My interpretation of 'Fair and respectful gaming' refers to the use of hacks, cheat codes, intercepting and adjusting communications from the device to the server to unfairly gain an advantage in the game.

"BubbaFett;c-1579169" wrote:

I would say that your shard chat groups significantly make it unfair for those that are not in it, and would also say they are disrespectful to other gamers not included in your little chat group.....

Speaking about the chats I participate in, there is every attempt made to include players, not exclude them. This involves attempting to make direct communications with players either in game, or using third-party platforms where necessary. When direct communications are not possible, I/we attempt to make contact through their guildmates or other associates. It's not easy with players that don't speak English or have in games names using non-English alphabet characters, but we've made it happen. Google Translator is used on occasion to establish understanding where there are language barriers. I've had so many positive comments from these new players thanking us that we've made the effort to involve them in the chat. These chats are generally supportive environments where players share social and family experiences and where players provide assistance to each other regarding the make-up of rosters or provide advice regarding gameplay.

I'm sorry that your experience has not been so positive. Humans are generally social creatures that experience positive outcomes from sharing companionship. This extends to gaming. I've experienced this myself in the shard chats that you decry.

It is also unfortunate that not all people are wired this way and narcissism and ego drive negative behaviours towards those around them.

"Wrotton;c-1580098" wrote:
But that would only leave the whales, krakens, dolphins, and other spenders, thus most of their money being made and if 10000 people who rarely spend quit the game, it doesnt hurt their sales.

There's a tipping point. I witnessed the same sort of thing in WoW a while back. Rampant cheating that got overlooked until huge swathes of the PVP community began quitting. Then they cracked down super hard.

I mean... no game wants to ban paying players. They probably look at all other alternatives first. But when a tipping point is reached, they're sorta forced to act.

In this game, the tipping point would be if huge droves of the occasional $9.99 marquee crowd left. There are probably a thousand of those types of players for every uber whale. And there's also the Brand to consider. Damage to a game's brand is hard to measure and leaves much longer lasting damage. No developer wants their game to be widely known as a haven of rampant cheaters/wintraders/exploiters/etc. If honest players get the impression they have to "cheat" to get ahead, they'll find another game.

"BubbaFett;c-1580155" wrote:

"Jedi_of_Oz;c-1580148" wrote:

"BubbaFett;c-1579169" wrote:

Contribute UGC or organize or participate in any activity, group or guild that is inappropriate, abusive, harassing, profane, threatening, hateful, offensive, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, defamatory, infringing, invades another's privacy, or is otherwise reasonably objectionable.

An aggrieved party would need to prove that the content of a 'shard chat' is “inappropriate, abusive, harassing, profane, threatening, hateful, offensive, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, defamatory, infringing, invades another's privacy, or is otherwise reasonably objectionable.” These actions potentially infringe on criminal and/or civil rights grounds. To heap in gentlemen's agreements between certain parties are not the same context. Additionally, your definition of objectionable may not meet another person's definition of objectionable - or more importantly, the legal definition of it.

Mr. Legal Eagle has drawn up this condition as a catchall; but Mr. Finance Manager knows that if players were banned en masse and went back to Google Play and/or iTunes claiming refunds, this game would die within weeks.

"BubbaFett;c-1579169" wrote:

I would say the fact that you are organizing and participating in an activity that colludes to make the playing field less than level is objectionable......

“Engage in any other activity that significantly disturbs the peaceful, fair and respectful gaming environment of an EA Service”

If a third party carriage service were used that was not governed by or enforceable by EA, they have no ability to act. On the other hand, were using this very forum and/or in-game chat as the carriage service to conduct any 'objectionable' actions, you might have a case. Otherwise, the accused could just as easily say that their attacks are driven by the horoscope they read in the newspaper that day or that some deity to spoke them in a vision directing them to act in a certain way.

My interpretation of 'Fair and respectful gaming' refers to the use of hacks, cheat codes, intercepting and adjusting communications from the device to the server to unfairly gain an advantage in the game.

"BubbaFett;c-1579169" wrote:

I would say that your shard chat groups significantly make it unfair for those that are not in it, and would also say they are disrespectful to other gamers not included in your little chat group.....

Speaking about the chats I participate in, there is every attempt made to include players, not exclude them. This involves attempting to make direct communications with players either in game, or using third-party platforms where necessary. When direct communications are not possible, I/we attempt to make contact through their guildmates or other associates. It's not easy with players that don't speak English or have in games names using non-English alphabet characters, but we've made it happen. Google Translator is used on occasion to establish understanding where there are language barriers. I've had so many positive comments from these new players thanking us that we've made the effort to involve them in the chat. These chats are generally supportive environments where players share social and family experiences and where players provide assistance to each other regarding the make-up of rosters or provide advice regarding gameplay.

I'm sorry that your experience has not been so positive. Humans are generally social creatures that experience positive outcomes from sharing companionship. This extends to gaming. I've experienced this myself in the shard chats that you decry.

It is also unfortunate that not all people are wired this way and narcissism and ego drive negative behaviours towards those around them.

That's a lot of spewing, gargling and hypothesizing just to get around cheating....maybe something you need to think about.....

Let's agree to disagree. I'll sleep straight in bed at night.

Hey, I wonder if being branded a cheat by you several times in this forum constitutes as, " inappropriate, abusive, harassing, profane, threatening, hateful, offensive, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, defamatory, infringing, invades another's privacy, or is otherwise reasonably objectionable".

"....maybe something you need to think about....."

Considering that we're able to use the official forums to organise and recruit for these shard chats (which is how I found mine) I don't see how there can be any question of them being considered cheating. Even under what can only be called creative interpretation of the ToS

This discussion here has become unproductive and devolved into some namecalling and baiting. I've closed the thread as a result.