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

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

Recommended Posts

What exceptions, how can u be judged by a law which wasn't in place at the time of the offence, if veteran or not. Here was the response of the admin to his first offense:

 

We are aware of issues like this and such incidents will be solved in the forthcoming patch or a hot fix by design.

We will disable entry of unrelated nations (which has already became an outdated feature).

 

 

Nothing about a 3 Strike system. They implemented it after the second offense which is all fair and square, if he didnt had gotten his first strike already.

 

So I stand by what i said it's just unfair towards DesMoines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prior rule was that, unless they were the same nation and intentionally hindering you in your fight, it STILL WAS NOT LEGAL TO FIRE ON A GREEN SHIP INTENTIONALLY.

 

DesMoines has been warned under the new rule because, after his first intentional violation, he did it again just a short time later.  We were originally discussing an immediate XP reset for him for his inability to follow the rules - Admin chose to warn him under the new system instead.

 

DesMoines may choose - take his warning under the new rule, or take his XP reset under the old rules.  I'll be waiting for his decision.

 

GET BACK ON TOPIC.  The constant Off Topic chatter will not be tolerated further.


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?

 

 

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.

 

Falls under the same approach - both parties agreed to the damage to further their fight.  As with scuttling, get proof prior to opening fire.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exceptions, how can u be judged by a law which wasn't in place at the time of the offence, if veteran or not. Here was the response of the admin to his first offense:

 

 

Nothing about a 3 Strike system. They implemented it after the second offense which is all fair and square, if he didnt had gotten his first strike already.

 

So I stand by what i said it's just unfair towards DesMoines.

Please read and try again.

1. Admin clearly stated punishment: "desmoines will be warned and if repeats transferred to pirates which side he just loves to join". Which was already self-administered. :)

2. I agree that punishing DesMoines on hindsight is unfair.

3. The rules can not contain exceptions like: "if the player is a veteran...", because I would/could argue the case with "same old. same old."

4. "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.

So once again, I hope devs can implement multi-sided battles, so we can leave this case behind.

Once we have multi-sided battles, nobody should have an excuse anymore to fire upon the wrong ship and that can be handled automatically by the game. No Tribunal needed (/wanted ;)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should look at the engine room instead. What causes Desmoines to shoot at a blue? 

 

Some clan-members behave really harsh towards players not following their lead or their self-made rules.

 

It causes a lot of frustration at the players that are being bashed and isolated. And the whole thing gets self-escalating. Most likely its not only the lonely wolf that is guilty but he is the most likely to get provoked or isolated in bad ways. Been there, done that.

 

The admin should really look to the language used and the mechanics that some clans are making. I have been reporting a guy calling me idiot almost every night in a period. Even if I politely tried to say to him that I didnt like that. Did he ever get banned? Hardly. I saw him online yesterday. 

 

But when I get frustrated by his faulty language and fire a salvo in the heat of battle by mere frustration - I get kicked. This seems a bit... unfair... dont you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't. There is an "Ignore" function, you can use it.

 

"But officer, he called me a bad name so I shot him in the face!!!"  This is not a defense to attacking someone anywhere.

 

Follow the rules, or face the consequences.  Violating the rules because you have problems with the "engine room" isn't going to fly here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should remove green vs green damage because lots of  veterans can find solutions to make an Intentional situation looks like unintended.

after that they will find an other solution to do the same thing without doing damage (by blocking the ship for example) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should remove green vs green damage [...]

Strongly disagree. Friendly fire is essential for this game and especially in bigger battles and the ongoing brawls an important factor to pay attention to.

Edited by Black Spawn
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

I´m not lawer, only non-EU customer. Question closed for me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I'm pleased to raise time and again the issue of the half-baked OW RoE that led to this appalling situation, but are we eventually going to adress the elephant in the room, or is it intentionally falling on deaf ears? It's the third or fourth time I do...

Or do I need to green-on-green just to see it raised in a tribunal thread of my own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing of significance ever falls on deaf ears.

  • Does it get discussed behind the scenes when it's a serious problem?  It most certainly does.
  • Do changes get proposed to fix it? They do - both suggestions from the forums and suggestions from chosen testers and moderating staff, and they are heard, evaluated, and reviewed by the Lead Producer.
  • Do those proposals always get added to the feature list?  They do not.  Sometimes they conflict with the core game vision, sometimes they just don't make for good/fun gameplay, sometimes they have been tried before and failed, and sometimes they just aren't technologically possible given the existing code base.
  • Do proposals that end up on the feature list get added to the game in a near-future time period?  Not always.  Sometimes we have to implement rules and ask players not to do something that is game breaking while a potential feature is waiting for development time so that it can be implemented.

 

And no, I do not know where RoE changes fit in the list above.

 

In the mean time, you have a rule that must be followed, with penalties that are clearly outlined.  Violate that rule at your own risk.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prior rule was that, unless they were the same nation and intentionally hindering you in your fight, it STILL WAS NOT LEGAL TO FIRE ON A GREEN SHIP INTENTIONALLY.

 

DesMoines has been warned under the new rule because, after his first intentional violation, he did it again just a short time later.  We were originally discussing an immediate XP reset for him for his inability to follow the rules - Admin chose to warn him under the new system instead.

 

DesMoines may choose - take his warning under the new rule, or take his XP reset under the old rules.  I'll be waiting for his decision.

 

GET BACK ON TOPIC.  The constant Off Topic chatter will not be tolerated further.

 

 

 

Falls under the same approach - both parties agreed to the damage to further their fight.  As with scuttling, get proof prior to opening fire.

 

Hi, i will no post what i think....because after i will don t have choice between lost XP or just a warning...

 

Now i take warning.

 

Thx gl hf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it makes sense to add an extra screen on startup which either brings up a browser window on the Tribunal rules or a clickable link.

 

With the checkbox option: "Show on Startup" and the buttons "I Agree" vs "Quit".

 

Whenever a new rule gets instated, then the screen will show up again regardless of whether "Show on Startup" is selected or not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand the meaning of being "forced" to do something. DesMoines made a choice.

 

Desmoines (pirate):

-join France (denied)

-join Brit/smuggler (allowed)

A choice indeed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That this even has to be debated is absurd.  There are ultimately two kinds of players when confronted with a rule or mechanic that they do not like:

 

1.  Make note of it, follow it, and attempt to change it.

2.  Break it, and claim it was invalid.

 

You decided upon the second option.  I would strongly caution anyone against following that path.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely not. I, myself, was prevented under the same rules to enter the same battle. Far from breaking the rule, I've raised the point several times already that the mechanic is flawed and eventually I'm being told that:

And no, I do not know where RoE changes fit in the list above.

You'd better lock the thread because this is going nowhere.

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...

 

Yes these mistake happen in all engagements but usually with it comes an apology or some kind of acknowledgement to your team mate that it was unintentional. In most instance this event is not repeated over and over until you sink. If it occurs, it's hard to justify an honest mistake. 

I have seen full broadside sent to a friendly by accident as the captain was disoriented and could not see the icon above the ship because he was too close. But it happened only once in the battle and came with loads of apologies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest the game developers an alternative to allow for real life situations that occurred on the seas, more specifically with pirates.

It was not uncommon for pirates to either fly a false flag and switch at the last moment or not uncover their intention until it was too late to escape them.

Yet the game needs to work for everyone. I would suggest a change to the mechanics as such and this for pirates only:

 


1) -If a pirate captain joins and ongoing battle between two parties and one of these parties has political ties with the pirate nation he must join the allied nation by default with the green icon showing for that nation.

If he breaks that alliance and shoots the green icon he also breaks the game rules and is facing the dire consequences.

 

2) -If a pirate captain joins an ongoing battle between two nations who have NO political ties with the pirate nation, the pirate spawns in the battle in a neutral area with a neutral flag of some kind and at least no icon colour to be sided with (white?).

Once he fires the first shot at one nation's boat his icon turns green for the other party. He is now bound to this new temporary alliance until the end of the engagement.

If he breaks this temporary alliance during the engagement he also breaks the game rules and is facing the dire consequences.

 

The pirate might delay his first shot till he's closer but at least all parties are warned that they're dealing with a pirate and he can play either side. Provisions might be needed for the case when the pirate is being shot at first rather than shoot first. My inclination would be that he stays neutral even if shot at until he has picked a side by shooting at the other. 

 


This would not affect the rest of the game but allow for this realistic event to take place as it did in history and without exploiting the game mechanism to create an unwelcome backstabbing trick.

 

Edited by Tonnerre de Brest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest the game developers an alternative to allow for real life situations that occurred on the seas, more specifically with pirates.

It was not uncommon for pirates to either fly a false flag and switch at the last moment or not uncover their intention until it was too late to escape them.

Yet the game needs to work for everyone. I would suggest a change to the mechanics as such and this for pirates only:

Again, I agree in principal, but is impossible to uphold even for veterans. ;)

We skim over every agreement (and rule) we have when we encounter a potential enemy. :)

So far we have had little need for the game to track who we like or dislike within Pirates. Even when we encountered other Nation Clans.

It's actually funny to listen to the discussion over TS whether the ship spotted is hostile, friendly or neutral. Then after a 10 minute debate finally deciding it is indeed hostile and we have the forces to attack, to simply find that ship long gone and another ship approaching. Until left flank scout and right flank scout have had enough of the horsesh*t and decide to attack different targets... :P

I'm not even sure anymore, given current rules, whether we are allowed to discuss your potential rules. :)

As for real life, here is the paradox: the 1856 Treaty of Paris effectualized the modus verendi of 1854 between France and UK abolishing piracy, privateering and letters of marque. It was considered evil and therefore an act against humanity. Yet we play Pirates in the 18th century.

And secretly we love this. We don't want to be judged by Mrs J or our loved ones. For they will call shame upon us.

Instead we chuckle and quickly set sail again.

Do we want to play a game of conflict and strive or a game of care-bear porn?

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15676-x-files-the-pirate-corruption/?p=297126

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can only request the following if admin is absolutely certain multi-sided battles work after release.

Spoiler/Moderation: blasphemous suggestion (?)

The Green-on-Green Tribunal rule applies for everybody, except Pirates.

It is actually stated such that we would not even need multi-sided battles, but that is a killer for casual players. In battle everybody should must have very clear expectations of what is rewarded and what not (/is punished).

It is however a very simple rule and story wise we can expand upon: you join the forces of Law (Nationalists) or Chaos (Pirates/Independents/Whatever).

Leaving out the question whether you are Good or Evil. Those are defined by your actions in and out of game.

Edited by Skully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skully I understand what you're saying but just for the fact that "pirates" is part of the game, and we are allowed to play as pirates makes us follow some kind of rule of this game. If we want to have pirates in this game they need to be part of the game system in order for the game to be functional. 

 

If I barge in on a monopoly game and steal the pieces off the board, I'll be acting up as a real pirate (which might be satisfying to me), however because the game doesn't have parameters for that behavior it will essentially be a show stopper for everyone playing it.

 

If the game has enough freedom of action on one end to allow pirates to act in the game somewhat like pirates and the rest of the players are at least aware of possible pirate behaviors, then the game can be functional, and nobody will complain that they were jumped by a pirate posing as a friend.

We just need to list these possibilities and make them "legal" within the confine of what is expected of a pirate.

 

For instance in my previous post, if a pirate join temporarily a national during an engagement, as soon as the battle is over, if won by the pirate and allies, a real pirate might turn against his allies now that danger is manageable.

This behavior as disturbing as it might sound is not unlike what an actual pirate might have done in the days and could be easily implemented in the game as an option.

Instead of the end of battle screen assuming the pirate allies won you could just give back the pirate his "neutral" status again. He then can exit the battle or might decide of another action like taking a shot at his former ally and turn his icon red. This could also be true for the ally who might want to get rid of the pirate after he got some of his help.  When no shots are fired or both parties decide to click the exit button the battle is over.

 

All I'm saying is that since "pirates" is part of the game, pirate behavior needs to be part of the game rules. Otherwise if we act like pirates outside the rules of the game, it becomes unplayable for the rest of the game community.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another problem about to surface.

If you are in battle with other Clans on your side, can you trust everyone not to file a Tribunal against you should you unintentionally hit them?

Subsequently, can you trust the Tribunal and its process to judge you accordingly?

The game should not be trust provider, but neither can it be a mistrust generator. It must always remain neutral in terms of trust.

Moderation: off-topic

If you have ever seen divorcement cases, you can see how ugly these things can get...

Edited by Skully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intent, consent and context are the 3 major factors when judging a case.

Regarding tristing the tribunal: all nations havr moderators, when we internally discuss the tribunal all nations effectively share their view. Moderators who are indirectly involved or directly involved cannot participate in passing judgement due to potential bias. They can however try to explain the situation better if needed.

Amongst these are some of the longest playing people in the game, so i feel comfortable to say we are likely to recognize the difference between an accidental friendly fire and intended friendly fire.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

×