Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Henry d'Esterre Darby

WARNING - Green on Green (Friendly) Damage is no longer allowed.

Recommended Posts

Based on ongoing abuse of the automated damage system, and due to recent changes in mechanics on who may attack whom, the following rule is now adopted:

 

Green on Green Damage Rules

Be it known that in response to numerous reports of traitorous and dastardly attacks being perpetrated by miscreants upon their fellow allied Captains, the Admiralty hereby announces that it will no longer tolerate these dishonourable, despicable depradations upon its ships.  You have been warned.  Damaging a friendly shall imperil your rank, and possibly even your commission!
 
Due to the number of green on green incidents reported by Captains in the Tribunal, the following rule is now adopted by the Admiralty.  This rule supersedes (replaces) all previous green on green rules:
 
Effective Immediately
 
Intentional Green on Green Damage is no longer permitted in Naval Action.
 
This rule is now in effect for everyone in the game, regardless of nation.  
 
If you are in battle, and a green player in that battle begins to intentionally damage you, put it into Tribunal.  The Tribunal case must have evidence attached with it - a verbal only accusation will not result in any action taken.  Video is preferred - conclusive video will result in the highest chance of the person being punished.  Screen shots may be accepted, if they are numerous enough and complete enough to show conclusively, at the discretion of the Admiralty, that you were being intentionally damaged by a friendly.  Do not, under any circumstances, return fire or damage the offending player yourself.  "Self Defense" may not excuse you from being found guilty of green on green damage.
 
Unlike previous rules, it is no longer required that the offender get credit for sinking the player.  Doing any kind of damage (the amount of damage done will vary based on the case) intentionally to a fellow green ship in a battle may be punishable.  Obviously, there are times when accidental friendly fire happens - the Admiralty will work to ensure the evidence presented conclusively proves the intent to damage the friendly, and not an accidental damage situation.
 
Upon a Guilty finding by the Admiralty, the following actions will be taken against the offender:
1st Offense: The offender will receive a warning.
2nd Offense: The offender will be demoted to the first rank.
3rd Offense: The offender's account will be banned on all servers.
 
The Admiralty reserves the right to bypass one or more levels of punishment at its discretion - do NOT assume that you can get away with it once and get off with just a warning.
 
Ships marked as smuggler, if they are green inside your battle, are included in this rule.  You can not, under any circumstances, intentionally damage a green ship in your battle, or you will be subject to the sanctions in this post.

 

This rule has been posted in the official rules thread:

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/2346-forum-and-sea-trials-rules

 

All Captains are required to follow the posted rules at all times in game.

 

Thank you.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have unlocked the thread for discussion of this rule change.  

 

Currently, the lead complaint I've heard is the act of attacking a smuggler to prevent people from attacking you.  Please add additional comments/concerns to this thread.

 

Thank you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know the stance of the devs about green on green in PVE (eg: if I'm alone trying to cap an AI trader and I pulled a friendly AI with me can I shoot it?)

 

and also why are national smugglers considered the same faction as pirates?

Edited by Tenakha Kan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I can understand why you don't want people returning fire when they're attacked by a friendly (because if both players report each other, how will you know who fired first?), I think some solution or loophole needs to be made in order to allow people to defend themselves. This is for two reasons: 1.) It's an instinctive reaction to fight back when you're attacked. People are going to do it, especially if they haven't been on the forum and haven't read this rule, or even if they have and just forgot in the heat of the moment. I don't believe these people should be punished for a situation that was caused by another player. 2.) Ships, and their durabilities, are valuable. People don't want to lose them. If I'm in my exceptional-quality, live oak Essex that I paid a clan-mate quite a lot of gold for, I don't want to lose a durability if I can avoid it. Now, if I'm in a battle in that ship, some "friendly" attacks me, and I'm unable to get away, I may have two options: give up and lose a durability to this jackass, or fight back and try and save my ship. I don't think I should be penalized for picking the second option. If I didn't start the fight, and I was just attacked without provocation, I shouldn't be risking a demotion or ban by shooting back in order to defend my ship.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"3rd Offense: The offender's account will be banned on all servers."

 

Does this mean, he can't play anymore or just can't use this one character? If it is the first one I think it is too harsh.

 

And I also think it would be useful to show the rules somewhere in the game since not everybody is on the forum and maybe will be surprised by a punished because of breaking a rule he didn't know and also didn't know the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"3rd Offense: The offender's account will be banned on all servers."

 

Does this mean, he can't play anymore or just can't use this one character? If it is the first one I think it is too harsh.

 

And I also think it would be useful to show the rules somewhere in the game since not everybody is on the forum and maybe will be surprised by a punished because of breaking a rule he didn't know and also didn't know the consequences.

 

That means he can't play any more.  It will be pretty much impossible to reach that point without having received at least a warning prior to that action being taken.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about greyzones? When a player is close to a target or a broadside fired by mistake in the heat of battle? I once targeted a small lynx with guns set on front fire. The first balls hit the target but the other ones stern raked a teammate as I didnt timed the broadside properly. I also once tried to fire versus a fort when another player where hit becorse he was coming from the side and where going behind my line of fire with some balls missing the target. Green on green happens in almost all close engagements like that...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox, that is where the evidence and establishment of "intent" comes in.  If a screenshot were to show that it was pretty plausible that the offender was shooting at an enemy and accidentally hit you, it's very likely they're not going to be found guilty.  The Admiralty understands that sometimes a broadside finishes going off a little late, some rounds fly long and hit a friendly behind an enemy, in short, accidents happen.  The evidence provided will need to conclusively prove that the offender intended to cause harm to a friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...if you want help a French or other nation against a smuggler of other nation ....you can t if you are pirates ....Because smuggler becomes pirates......Don t sure your rules is very fair....But you are the master....when ever...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That means he can't play any more.  It will be pretty much impossible to reach that point without having received at least a warning prior to that action being taken.

And how will be the refund money process?  :wub: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how will be the refund money process?  :wub:

 

There won't be one.

 

One of the terms of purchasing the game is that you will follow the rules when utilizing the shared servers.  Failure to honor the terms by which you purchased the game does not entitle you to a refund.

 

This is covered in the EULA and TOS.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    As I wrote in the other thread, I am absolutely baffled to have been prevented -as a pirate- from joining one side (French National) and not the other (Brit smuggler).

Surely all this kerfuffle would have been avoided if it wasn't for this flawed game mechanic. I still view it as an undesirable side effect, but at least you should recognize that Desmoines did not have any other choice if he were to rescue his friend. He choosed to forfeit his adherence to a rule that is essentially flawed.

 

Now as Tenakha asked : what is the developer's stance on this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How will intentional scuttling of two ships be handled? - In the past it was only an offense should one of the two ships complain via tribunal but it was technically allowed to sink one another to rpevent ending up in enemy hands. Will this continue to be handled that way?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many nuances that give both troll and counter-troll hooks to ruin it for casual players.

In the case of Black Spawn vs DesMoines, both are experienced enough players though to know the nuances and could equally have established a trolling position.

There is no way I can see how to judge such a thing fairly. If I were to judge, I would say, both are wasting my time and should lose 1 or 2 levels to learn things again.

We really want the game to be able to judge it properly, but then anything that is enemy on OW should be enemy in Battle, same for friends.

I think we should give admin time to ponder the issue. I'm still hopeful it can be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of intentional scuttling, both parties have agreed to the scuttle, so nobody will be reporting anybody else to Tribunal, right?

 

As with the prior rules, if you're going to both agree to do something like this, you had best have proof that the other person asked you to do so.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...if you want help a French or other nation against a smuggler of other nation ....you can t if you are pirates ....Because smuggler becomes pirates......Don t sure your rules is very fair....But you are the master....when ever...

 

Yes, this smuggler subject is a current problem in the game mechanics and need to be fixed. But this still doesn't give you the right to join the brits side as a "friendly" and start shooting his sails. You circumvent the need of a good tag to be in a position of intercepting your foe. By joining his side you spawn right next to him and deny him his good position or, if he did, his good defensive tag.

And in the end it is still green on green. Why don't you get it?

 

Especially when you have been confronted with this before.

Edited by Cecil Selous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only concerns are how this affects fire ships? Does it mean its against the rules for a pre arranged green on green with the intent to start off a fire to then go and explode in the enemy fleet?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have unlocked the thread for discussion of this rule change.  

 

Currently, the lead complaint I've heard is the act of attacking a smuggler to prevent people from attacking you.  Please add additional comments/concerns to this thread.

 

Thank you.

 

Thank you for your time, really apprechiate it. As far as I can see it the problem occours only if a pirate wants to join an already started battle with a national-smuggler involved. I got two proposals to this issue:

1) Disable the Smugglerflag for Warships and only make it only available if you are rocking a trader ( for not switching to warships in enemy port, the flag has to be disabled prior selling the trader you are on or switching to warships)

2) Dont handle the smugglers in battle same as the pirate nation. Allies should be able to join allies, "not at war/not at peace" should be able to join each other, factions at war should not be able to join each other, pirates should be able to join anyone

 

There is no way I can see how to judge such a thing fairly. If I were to judge, I would say, both are wasting my time and should lose 1 or 2 levels to learn things again.

We really want the game to be able to judge it properly, but then anything that is enemy on OW should be enemy in Battle, same for friends.

 

Good thing you arent, because i really dont think this is a "waste of time" and dont think you really get the key point - same rules for everyone. The tribunal uncovered two issues: Intentional green on green and the smuggler issue. The latter i wasnt aware of myself till this encounter. Imo we have comparative "easy" solutions for this as for the smuggler issue see the above. But agreed give the devs some time to figure this out.

 

My only concerns are how this affects fire ships? Does it mean its against the rules for a pre arranged green on green with the intent to start off a fire to then go and explode in the enemy fleet?

 

"If you are in battle, and a green player in that battle begins to intentionally damage you, put it into Tribunal.[...]" The key word is intentional. Exploding in the enemy fleet is not even green on green, sinking your ship intentionally is not green on green either. Only if you intentionally explode in your own fleet that would be considered green on green and could be brought to tribunal.

 

Edit: I actually misunderstood you there. But as Henry states later on its all about whether somebody brings it to tribunal or not. No plaintiff, no judge.

Edited by Black Spawn
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There won't be one.

 

One of the terms of purchasing the game is that you will follow the rules when utilizing the shared servers.  Failure to honor the terms by which you purchased the game does not entitle you to a refund.

 

This is covered in the EULA and TOS.

The rules when I signed the contract between you and me. If you change the rules in a dinamyc way, I think you must offer to me the refund, not now in Beta, but when it´ll on final desing...

 

I had read the EULA & TOS in bot languages (English & Spanish) and cant find it. It only speaks about cheating and similar, or common sense...

Edited by deltonos
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules when I signed the contract between you and me. If you change the rules in a dinamyc way, I think you must offer to me the refund, not now in Beta, but when it´ll on final desing...

 

I had read the EULA & TOS in bot languages (English & Spanish) and cant find it. It only speaks about cheating and similar, or common sense...

If you had read them carefully you would have stumbled across this:

"Rule set will be updated regularly. If a situation is not covered here, post the case in the Tribunal forum"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic is discussion of the new rule, not the theory of tribunal or who asked for what.  You're skating on extremely thin ice with me with numerous off topic posts.  Final friendly warning.  - H. Darby

Edited by Henry d'Esterre Darby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules when I signed the contract between you and me. If you change the rules in a dinamyc way, I think you must offer to me the refund, not now in Beta, but when it´ll on final desing...

 

I had read the EULA & TOS in bot languages (English & Spanish) and cant find it. It only speaks about cheating and similar, or common sense...

Denying access of an EU customer to your service based on a Code of Conduct that was neither in place on date of purchase or adheres to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, is shaky grounds.

I highly recommend seeking professional legal advice before entering this domain.

(edit: I think we may need a separate topic here, lets not try to cover legal aspects here.)

Edited by Skully
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While i think declaring straight rules is good. I fail to see how it is fair to  punish DesMoines with a ruleset which didnt exist at the time of the offense.

 

Also you should really look into this smuggler exploit. Pirates should be free to join whatever nation they like, if the engine doesnt support 3rd parties like Bougain suggested, than leave the choice of side to the pirate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While i think declaring straight rules is good. I fail to see how it is fair to  punish DesMoines with a ruleset which didnt exist at the time of the offense.

 

Also you should really look into this smuggler exploit. Pirates should be free to join whatever nation they like, if the engine doesnt support 3rd parties like Bougain suggested, than leave the choice of side to the pirate.

I agree in principal, but it is impossible to uphold for new and casual players. (Not you veterans! :P)

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14983-flag-purchased-from-ally-to-avoid-enemy-attack/?p=278000

You could put in all sort of exceptions, but that just leads to more trouble and Tribunal cases.

PS. I don't agree with punishing on hindsight.

Edited by Skully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×