Proposed Rule: Don't join battle on your enemy's side.

[Farrago]

There is a thread in tribunal right now brought by the Dutch about a case where one enemy clan member joined a battle on the Dutch side and the Dutch accuser called Green-on-Green. I don't want this to be a deliberation on the merits/evidence of this particular case. I wasn't there and neither were you. Or if you were, you should join in the tribunal thread. I am not suggesting guilt or innocence. The whole situation was caused by a -- in my opinion -- failed mechanic. Anyway...

The accused explanation is that he was joining to just watch because the current mechanic sometimes (and unpredictably) doesn't allow you to join your own nation if one of the friendlies was flying the smuggler flag. We know this "flaw" exists and I believe the devs are working on a fix.

The accused says he never fired a shot.

@admin Anyway, in the future should we allow enemies to join just to watch or if they joined by mistake, to stay in the battle?

I suggest no.

Having a known enemy on your side in the battle is distracting even if the other guy just sits there. Since few of us are recording videos of all our battles, it is difficult to prove or disprove that nothing is done to hinder or influence the battle. If nothing else, you have an unfriendly monitor of your battle chat. Yes, the Devs can go back and check shot logs but I doubt they can recreate the battle without player provided video. Regardless, it takes valuable Dev time. Screenshots are limited in their information.

I say that while we have the funky mechanic where one can actually join the side of your enemy, we observe a rule against it. It causes too many cases requiring Dev investigation and our ability to prove or disprove green-on-green actions is too limited. If you want to simply observe your nation in battle, sorry. Get someone to stream or record or listen to it on TS. If you join a side by mistake, disengage and leave the battle. It seems like such a rule would be far easier for tribunals to investigate:

Accuser: Look, an enemy player joined on our side in the battle.
Dev: That's not allowed.
Accused: I joined to watch.
Dev: That's not allowed.

or

Accused: I joined by mistake. Check the logs, I left 2 minutes later.
Dev: Okay. Fair sails.

Obviously there would be an exception for tournament play when a judge or streamer is needed.

[Slim McSauce]

I do this to troll and sometimes avoid being tagged while trying to get to the dumb friendly circle. I say you shouldn't make it a rule, you should just fix the circle system.

[Teutonic]

2 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

I do this to troll and sometimes avoid being tagged while trying to get to the dumb friendly circle. I say you shouldn't make it a rule, you should just fix the circle system.

agree. just a fix of RoE and the circle system, making rules is the same as the PvP Mark abuse. Making a rule still hasn't changed people from doing it, you got to mechanically change it in the game to fix it.

[Sparkydog]

I was in a similar situation in the tribunal as well.  But now looking back on it- if someone has a smuggler flag on they are actually from a historical perspective, an enemy of your nation. British smugglers trading with France were actively hunted by the Royal Navy.  So joining on the other side is not actually green on green.  I am not sure if that's what the developers were thinking- but they have already ruled that it's not green on green when smuggler flags are involved.

[Tomasso il Fortunato]

This is a bad suggestion. 

If a player want to join the enemy part he will do it . For this case the forum have the topic named "TRIBUNAL" .

The rule can be set by the creator or officers of their clans .

Edited February 22, 2018 by CaptainSparckles

[Thonys]

1 hour ago, CaptainSparckles said:

This is a bad suggestion. 

If a player want to join the enemy part he will do it . For this case the forum have the topic named "TRIBUNAL" .

The rule can be set by the creator or officers of their clans .

yes i follow your thoughts. 

but it is to easy to think ,that officers of a clan will forbid to do so.

there seems to be no punishment in the tribunal for it , although is is a unwanted situation.

a default enemy joining the other side ,  can look in chat , and also can act as a "disturbing" factor in the fight,

it should be made punishable  even when making  a  mistake (what i don't believe)

the captains who are sailing under smuggler flag ( or at least some of the group) is a intended act of foul play, where the meaning of cheating in a deliberate way of playing 

they are cheating and using the bugs who are still in the game as a allowed game play

 

 it seems to be new in the game and Increasingly used more often

it should be addressed fast .or we will end up with more complains about this highly unwanted situations

Edited February 22, 2018 by Thonys

[Tomasso il Fortunato]

2 minutes ago, Thonys said:

yes i follow your thoughts. 

but it is to easy to think ,that officers of a clan will forbid to do so.

there seems to be no punishment in the tribunal for it , although is is a unwanted situation.

a default enemy joining the other side ,  can look in chat , and also can act as a "disturbing" factor in the fight,

it should be made punishable  even when making  a  mistake (what i don't believe)

the captains who are sailing under smuggler flag ( or at least some of the group) is a intended act of foul play, where the meaning of cheating in a deliberate way of playing 

they are cheating and using the bugs who are still in the game as a allowed game play

 

 it seems to be new in the game and Increasingly used more often

it should be addressed fast .or we will end up with more complains about this cheat

In fact they should make a method of punishing in tribunal for this think. This is the only one solution .

In the real life this case was named with "betrayal" and the captain was punished with death or prison .

When someone is using a smuggler flag and join in battle he should be considered a pirate . The smuggler flag is a trader flag and should have this in your description "Spanish Smuggler" or "English Smuggler".

[Tomasso il Fortunato]

The bugs should be solved then .

For chat I have for you a solution .

Just invite your friend in a Battle Group and talk in Battle Group Chat (simple).

Edited February 22, 2018 by CaptainSparckles

[Hethwill]

For me it is simple but people won't like it.

Remove smuggler from warships. Cannot join any nation that isn't yours.

Solomon's law at its best.

 

[Tomasso il Fortunato]

Nice suggestion. Only trader ships should have the option to put the smuggler flag .

[Hethwill]

*crickets*

[Tomasso il Fortunato]

1 minute ago, Banished Privateer said:

Why not remove smuggler flag from the game? Has no malus, only benefits, mechanic lost its value when attacking smugglers within nation was removed. 

Second part is very narrow-minded.

How you will go in enemy ports to trade ?

[Nelsons Barrel]

Just now, CaptainSparckles said:

How you will go in enemy ports to trade ?

alt accounts or conquer port.

[Tomasso il Fortunato]

Just think ! I am Spanish , I'm coming with a fleet of 4 Trade Brig with Spanish flag set on , what will do your friends ? Of course they will attack and loot me . With the smuggler flag of you attack me you become pirate . I don't thinks remove smuggler flag is a good idea . Maybe maka it only for trading vasles.

[Tomasso il Fortunato]

It's not a problem of docking on enemy port , but players what are there waiting for you or others . No one whos practice trade will not be at your favour. Because it's impossible to trade without smuggler flag .

Edited February 22, 2018 by CaptainSparckles

[Fletch]

AI ships need to attack people with a smuggler flag including ones from the same nation, then perhaps only smugglers will carry them.

[blubasso]

 But if i were, say, english and i wish to join a battle between for exemple Sweden vs US, can i join without problems? 

[Sir Lancelot Holland]

Smuggling has always been a high risk, high profit occupation, some of the UK's richest families made their money smuggling during the Napoleonic Wars, probably more than a few in Europe did so as well!  

Smugglers, like Pirates were in reality criminals, outlawed by every nation and should be treated as such, such was the amounts of money made by them that the Inland Revenue was formed in the UK to recover the losses to the state and bring to justice those who engaged in smuggling. 

In times of war smuggling reduced the taxable income needed to prosecute a war, and while there is a temptation to turn a blind eye to smuggling, possibly even a necessity to do so since rare materials are obtained both for clans and nations, those who smuggle high value cargos for profit do neither any good.

Perhaps there should be an option to stop, search, then release or confiscate the cargo's of smugglers, it would give the act of smuggling greater meaning in game, those smuggling for clan and nation could in those circumstances keep their cargos, those smuggling purely for profit or of combatant nations  would lose them.  

[Tomasso il Fortunato]

25 minutes ago, blubasso said:

 But if i were, say, english and i wish to join a battle between for exemple Sweden vs US, can i join without problems? 

Yes , but depends on one think . If you ally with one of them you can join for them . If you ally with bouth of them then better not to join :)) just because you can go in tribunal .

[Jake Newport]

I leave my smuggler flag on when sailing because otherwise when i want to go to an enemy port to get some resources and i forget to put it on i have to go back to a friendly port and turn it on.

The suggestion of alt accounts is utter nonsense

[_Masterviolin]

Broadly speaking, I don't like the idea of adding "rules" to Naval Action. Having all players subject to tribunals and such on the Forums only further increases the "dependence" of the game upon the forums, which I have never cared much for. If we have problems like this one, then an in-game mechanic should exist to stop it, one should not have to be drawn into a tribunal post on the forums, nor be expected to read up on rules that exist solely on the forums. Any player who is not used to the forums and ends up in a tribunal will immediately declare, either in the tribunal or in a negative steam review, that because it was possible in the game mechanics, it should not be illegal. 

An in-game mechanic that puts players on a "blacklist" for teamkill/team damage, and some decisive action on the issue of Green vs Green in the form of some game mechanic should be our answer to this. Not a rule that no one knows about lest they read the forums. I don't even know the "rules" and everything, though I now intend upon reading up on it. 

[Farrago]

1 hour ago, _Masterviolin said:

Broadly speaking, I don't like the idea of adding "rules" to Naval Action. Having all players subject to tribunals and such on the Forums only further increases the "dependence" of the game upon the forums

I get what you're saying. I agree that the number of rules needs to be few and that mechanics should be able to take care of undesirable and/or realistic situations. I proposed the rule because currently the mechanic is flawed in many opinion.

I'm Dutch, you're British (don't know what nation you play). You tag one of my countrymen or he tags you. You guys start the battle and either I cannot join on the Dutch side or don't want to. For whatever reason I -- and perhaps other Dutch -- join on the British side. Now we know I am not allowed to shoot green, the Brits. I am also not allowed to ram you or block you. How about if I sail parallel 200 meters to your starboard? How about if I follow closely behind you? I suggest that any action other than perhaps sitting with my sails down is at best an unfair and unrealistic distraction. And if you feel my actions hinder you in any way you can start a tribunal but unless you have video of my actions, it's going to come down to the testimonies of each side. Very difficult to investigate without the detailed video. This situation in tribunal could hurt the innocent as well as punish the guilty.

So Devs fix whatever the problem whether it's smuggler flag or something else that allows your battle opponent to join on your side. But until you do, have a rule. Stay off your opponents side in a battle. Simple rule. A simple to investigate and judge tribunal.

[Tomasso il Fortunato]

yes i know how it works

[Farrago]

3 hours ago, CaptainSparckles said:

Yes , but depends on one think . If you ally with one of them you can join for them . If you ally with bouth of them then better not to join :)) just because you can go in tribunal .

Actually no.

Formerly, with the allies mechanic we used to have, you could not join a battle against an official ally. They were green on your screen.

Now, there are only player agreed alliances. The game will not prevent you from fighting such allies and the devs don't care. Your nation might. Such a tribunal would be dismissed I'm sure.

Regarding smuggler tag. Some seem to think that it still works the way it used to. You are not able attack a smuggler within your nation. All it does is allow you to enter enemy port in trader. It only serves as a "gotcha" moment that you forgot to turn it on. It also screws up open water battles. #givesmugglertagapurposeorgetridofit

[VonVolks]

On 22/02/2018 at 11:59 AM, CaptainSparckles said:

How you will go in enemy ports to trade ?

In trade ships?