NPG Lionshaft from US and CKA, GB, exploiting Fake Battles to avoid Combat (Global Server)

[Tenet]

Lionshaft, Fearson from [NPG] and Francau and St0nkingByte [CKA] enagaged in multiple fake battles, tagging each other in a way to disperse the join tags and prevent Pirate chasers that were closing in from being able to tag them and keep them in battle. 

This happened multiple times. No sail shots were exchanged between the US and GB players - every battle was entirely fake.

Video courtesy of Wraith:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YcjmOYKYzA

Screenshots from the different battles:

Another battle with the same method:

In this screenshot Lionshaft is attempting to provoke Green on Green by exploiting tag system:

Next screenshot - Global Chat with Lionshaft trying to claim Green on Green and admitting guilt:

Notice the line:

22:04 Tenet: Lionshaft is exploiting green on green and will get banned

22:05 Tenet: Screenshot all Green on Green fake battles

22:05 Lionshaft: you mean how pirates are allowed to attack each other to get away?

This is admission of guilt.

1. This is proof that Lionshaft and the above mentioned NPG and CKA members engaged in fake battles, claiming they are the same as Pirate vs. Pirate, to "attack each other to get away".

2. They pretending to not know that Pirate vs. Pirate creates a single-join-circle with no teams, everyone red and joining within firing range - this is done to create a false-equivalence and moral superiority to justify exploiting

3. Lionshaft, NPG and CKA members oriented their ships in such a way that join circles were too far to catch anyone by joining either side. This further proves that they exploited the tagging mechanic specifically to prevent actual combat from occurring, and further proves intent.

4. Server logs should prove that each battle contained no shots fired between NPG (US) and CKA (GB), despite them being in range at start of fighting - confirming it was done to exploit mechanics to prevent combat. 

Past tribunal decisions showed that using different nations to engage in Fake Battles to prevent OW Combat is a bannable offence. 

I hope to see consistency in the application of that precedent - with punishments to discourage further use of this exploit in OW.

Lionshaft in particular admitted to those battles being fake and should be punished.

 

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Tenet

[Sir Texas Sir]

I'm a bit confused on this as to why didn''t the guys that joined on the US side kill the Brits and the guys that joined the Brit side kill the US?   GREEN on GREEN is still GREEN on GREEN if your on the same side no matter what side you where chasing.  I even talked about this the other day about joining both sides if the US and GB ever fought each other and both teams cleans up the other side.

If there was actual green on green you need to take a screen shot of the battle log that shows some one on your side fired at you and report that.  Just telling folks to do it isn't against the rules.  Tagging other nations and not firing at each other isn't against the rules.  It's the same thing as us pirates tagging each other.  It's not against the rules as any one can join that fight and still kill us.

Though I actually think all battles should be joined by all like pirates vs pirate and no sides but that just me....

I'll talk to clan [BLACK] members and make sure they know in this situation they can not do green on green and just needs to join one side or the other or both and kill them that way.  

[Lord Gud]

1 hour ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

I'm a bit confused on this as to why didn''t the guys that joined on the US side kill the Brits and the guys that joined the Brit side kill the US?   GREEN on GREEN is still GREEN on GREEN if your on the same side no matter what side you where chasing.  I even talked about this the other day about joining both sides if the US and GB ever fought each other and both teams cleans up the other side.

If there was actual green on green you need to take a screen shot of the battle log that shows some one on your side fired at you and report that.  Just telling folks to do it isn't against the rules.  Tagging other nations and not firing at each other isn't against the rules.  It's the same thing as us pirates tagging each other.  It's not against the rules as any one can join that fight and still kill us.

Though I actually think all battles should be joined by all like pirates vs pirate and no sides but that just me....

I'll talk to clan [BLACK] members and make sure they know in this situation they can not do green on green and just needs to join one side or the other or both and kill them that way.  

When the US/GB would tag each other they would be far away from everybody else and then escape the battle together and repeat. Then even if we did get to the players which are FAR away we would have to divide our forces to even kill both of the nations that are working together. This has to be fixed because it's an easily abused tactic that will stop players from attacking them again.

[JobaSet]

HAHAHA omg........... kettle  black.... You did this to me a few months ago.  With a US alt...   Get over it.

[JobaSet]

4 hours ago, Lord Gud said:

When the US/GB would tag each other they would be far away from everybody else and then escape the battle together and repeat. Then even if we did get to the players which are FAR away we would have to divide our forces to even kill both of the nations that are working together. This has to be fixed because it's an easily abused tactic that will stop players from attacking them again.

They have been doing this since 10.3 patch,  Devs don't care

[Lord Gud]

1 hour ago, JobaSet said:

They have been doing this since 10.3 patch,  Devs don't care

Well if it happens again I will be forced to green on green because it's unfair.

[JobaSet]

6 minutes ago, Lord Gud said:

Well if it happens again I will be forced to green on green because it's unfair.

O yea, Why not,  I Said when 10.3 came out all PVP should be free for all, Just like Pirate and open all the time.  And End this crap

[Tenet]

This is a case of Tenet & Chasers listed in Screenshots vs. Lionshaft and Fearson from [NPG] and Francau and St0nkingByte from [CKA].

People who are not accused, witnesses or participants must be excluded from the thread. Please move any debates to Suggestions.

Please Delete all posts not related to this case, starting from the one by Sir Texas Sir and ending with this one. Thank you.

--- 

7 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

I'm a bit confused on this as to why didn''t the guys that joined on the US side kill the Brits and the guys that joined the Brit side kill the US? 

This is not possible because the join circles can be oriented in such a way that the joining ships have no chance to maintain tags on ships on the other side.

Actually look at the video and screenshots - joining on the different sides and splitting forces does not maintain the chase distance that existed right before the tag, the exploit magically separates the forces and creates another cycle of invisibility and super speed.

7 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Tagging other nations and not firing at each other isn't against the rules. 

Please refresh your memory. Tribunal banned the account that kept a PB fleet out of OW Combat. Not-firing is just further evidence of collusion in this case. 

This is also not a case with a single battle - there were multiple battles with the same participants exploiting the same method. 

7 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

It's the same thing as us pirates tagging each other.  It's not against the rules as any one can join that fight and still kill us.

It is absolutely NOT the same as Pirate vs. Pirate. Everyone involved should know that Pirate vs. Pirate creates a MUCH DIFFERENT BATTLE INSTANCE with ONE join circle and ships joining shortly after it's creation (chasers) will spawn positionally, much closer to their target, with everyone Red / Free for All. 

Pirate vs. Pirate (Free for All) instance would have resulted in this chase ending on the first tag, and would not delay or provide magical spawn distance increase like a Nation1 vs Nation2 instance.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Tenet

[St0nkingByte]

I did this thing, I freely admit, so if I need to get demoted or banned I'm fine with that. Ultimately, while it delayed my being sunk it did not result in my escaping, I was simply destroyed by three players, instead of the larger number that was present, and wasted their time chasing me longer than they would have otherwise. My apologies to those I may have frustrated.

I've never played as a pirate, aside from some minor poking around on the test server, so I wasn't aware the way the battle was set up was different than other open world battles. If people who joined on my side had shot me I wouldn't have complained about green on green, I was actually baffled that they didn't shoot. I wasn't aware of any mechanisms that would have punished green on green and expected players to join on my side and sink me.

At no time did we "oriented their ships in such a way that join circles were too far to catch anyone by joining either side".  I wish I was that smart, I never even considered that.

[Aster]

So not only does this not break any rules I have seen plenty of people do this. Pre safe zone pirates would tag a us alt outside ctown and use it to hide in battle and just wait for people to sail out into a mission. Also the only time I have been made aware of an account being banned was the pirate alt at savannah port battle that was used to get through the screening fleet and that was just a temp ban on a alt account. The only rules that seem to have been broken was green on green which is well know to not be ok. Anyway lets not get into the great alt debate. I don't think it would be fair to punish a handful of people for something that tons of people abuse. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Aster

[Tenet]

14 hours ago, St0nkingByte said:

I did this thing, I freely admit, so if I need to get demoted or banned I'm fine with that. Ultimately, while it delayed my being sunk it did not result in my escaping, I was simply destroyed by three players, instead of the larger number that was present, and wasted their time chasing me longer than they would have otherwise. My apologies to those I may have frustrated.

I've never played as a pirate, aside from some minor poking around on the test server, so I wasn't aware the way the battle was set up was different than other open world battles. If people who joined on my side had shot me I wouldn't have complained about green on green, I was actually baffled that they didn't shoot. I wasn't aware of any mechanisms that would have punished green on green and expected players to join on my side and sink me.

At no time did we "oriented their ships in such a way that join circles were too far to catch anyone by joining either side".  I wish I was that smart, I never even considered that.

I will be satisfied with a warning in this case and a publication specifically removing this method from everyone's arsenal by the moderators as in other cases.

[Tenet]

On 10/2/2017 at 9:16 PM, Aster said:

Anyway lets not get into the great alt debate. I don't think it would be fair to punish a handful of people for something that tons of people abuse. 

1. You're not the judge, you don't decide what is against the rules. 

2. If you feel someone exploited in the past, you should have reported the exploit. People don't like to report exploits, it has a cost in reputation.

3. The punishment is necessary to provide a deterrent and stop the exploit from being used. It may be sufficient to warn on first offense, with a clear promise to ban on the next.

4. People who admit to the accusation and promise to refrain from further abuse clearly don't need to be punished.

If the moderators confirm that this is an exploit that needs to be removed from the game, you will see a quick shift towards "promise to refrain" among anyone who ever considered using this exploit. 

[Ink]

Under review