Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Grundgemunkey

Alt abuse gaining control of port

Recommended Posts

This tribunal has been started based on three sets of facts, firstly, the use of alts to disrupt GB Nation chat on a regular basis. Secondly, these alts removing all friendly clans from their friends list once the decision had been made to flip Bluefields Dutch so that the port battle was uncontested. Thirdly knowing that the port battle would be uncontested due to their exploitation of game mechanics; players from the Dutch nation entered the port battle to obtain risk free Lord Protector statuses. We would appreciate the devs clarifying their position on this for future reference as this may be the first time it has happened, but it won’t be the last.

For several days British players have tried to get these players to openly state their identity on their alts and British players have collected evidence of Mr. Pellew and Liam790 stating on GB Nation chat that they are alts. Unfortunately, we were unable to get such an explicit statement from NameTBA but we do have screens that show him speaking as though he were a different person which can be posted if that would be sufficient grounds.

Mr. Pellew –

https://imgur.com/a/YfvR5b2

Liam790

https://imgur.com/a/rtrZMwz

Ink has stated “that open admission to being a spy in a enemy chat can result in a partial or permanent chat ban” (http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/25456-alt-abuse-trolling-nation-chat-after-chat-ban/?page=3).

It is now widely known and accepted both in GB and throughout the server that the alts of Mr. Pellew (Glaedr), Liam790 (Master of the Fishes) and NameTBA (Pleb of the Sea) used game mechanic to “restrict” and “inhibit” users from the GB Nation from “enjoying Steam service, software or other content” by creating a “false identity for the purpose of misleading others” in breach of Section 4 of the Steam EULA (the Steam Online Conduct) by using alts to prevent British players from defending one of their ports. Mr. Pellew states here that he controls who gains entry to the port battle https://i.imgur.com/qntWckS.png

Admin has stated previously here (http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/17643-very-suspicious-behaviour-in-pb) that “the person who enters the battle should fight in it” and that by preventing the opposition from entering the port battle due to breaking game mechanics via alts, the Dutch players in the port battle (we don’t know who they are but you could check) breached this rule because they had absolutely no intention of fighting or risking anything by entering the port battle, only of obtaining a Lord Protector status. British players were willing to defend the port battle but were removed from the friends list of RIVAL to prevent entry. The intention of the friends list seems to be to determine which players enter the port battle, not whether players enter the port battle.

The GB clans argue that clans are not the owners of ports (since they cannot switch them to a different nation but can only turn it neutral) but that they simply hold the port in trust on behalf of the nation they play. It is the responsibility of players to use game mechanics to act in the best interests of the nation. As the players of RIVAL had only the interests of the United Provinces (or themselves) in mind they were in breach of this and should therefore have relinquished control of

the port to neutral when they switched to the Dutch rather than using alts to maintain control of the port, or by allowing the British to attempt to defend it in their absence.  As they refused to hand over Bluefields the situation arose whereby the decision was made to give away two ports (Ayamonte and Cabo Canaveral) in the best interests of the nation so that we could regain control of Bluefields. This was done in the hopes that the Americans could flip the port before the Dutch (but were prevented) as there is no in-game mechanism which allows other clans to prevent alt clans from abusing mechanics. The US players were happy to help GB players out as they were sympathetic to the plight we found ourselves in, having been in a situation where dead clans controlled ports.

Clans who leave the nation usually abandon ports, by either relinquishing the ports to the control of another clan (KBEAR to RSC via neutral) or by allowing them to go neutral or by allowing other clans to defend the port (RUBLI/TALER). These instances are not in breach of the Steam EULA as a chance was given to other players to contest the outcome. The Bluefields case is different however, because RIVAL/HAVOC had no intention whatsoever of fighting anyone (not even AI) and that they knew they wouldn’t have to “fight in it”. They controlled the friends list via alts and didn’t even risk losing to AI. They were not concerned with content or fighting; only obtaining control of the port through a truly uncontested port battle. The GB clans would like to request clarification on the rules regarding this and would like to know whether clans own the port or hold them in trust. If they own them, can systems be put in place so they can be handed to whoever and if the latter then control of the port should be turned to neutral (or GB (worth a try)) so that the port can be contested via the ordinary manner of a port battle against neutral therefore allowing all nations to contest it. Even if no action is taken in this case this tribunal will at least serve the community in establishing and clarifying the alts and port battles rules.

Edited by Grundgemunkey
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not the first time that it happened, it happened before on kidds island already when pirates changed to russia.

 

To clarify the situation why it went dutch:

Rival told the brits that the port stays neutral as long as GB doesnt try and take it away from them. That was tried with american help which was prevented. The port was handed over to the dutch nation by Rival because they can not protect their port from these attacks. So to say, the inhibitants of bluefields decided to change their port to the dutch. This also gave the chance for brits to take the port back again into british hands by fighting which they are not willing to do.

 

This whole situation is based of the problem that clans have no mechanic to give their port (it is theirs, or why should a clan be able to make the port neutral and not owned by GB anymore?) 

So by what you write here there should be a mechanic to hand over ports.

Also it is funny that yoh write this after the port changed from GB to VP 8(!!) dayw ago, probably becahse the port is generqting money now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason it has taken so long is because several GB guys approached the devs in private first rather than writing out anything in a rush. We have no intention of giving you content when you denied it to us.

Aye, if clans own the ports then there should be a mechanic to hand them over, if they're only held in trust, then Bluefields should be returned to GB (in my opinion).

Edited by Gregory Rainsborough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your screenshots of "disrupting GB nationchat" show both players helping other players with wanting to escort someone or helping with tips for one of the exams btw...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those screenshots are the ones where they're confessing to who they are. They've caused arguments on there as well. As Grundge says though, it's irrelevant what they're saying because they shouldn't be speaking at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rediii said:

Its not the first time that it happened, it happened before on kidds island already when pirates changed to russia.

 

To clarify the situation why it went dutch:

Rival told the brits that the port stays neutral as long as GB doesnt try and take it away from them. That was tried with american help which was prevented. The port was handed over to the dutch nation by Rival because they can not protect their port from these attacks. So to say, the inhibitants of bluefields decided to change their port to the dutch. This also gave the chance for brits to take the port back again into british hands by fighting which they are not willing to do.

 

This whole situation is based of the problem that clans have no mechanic to give their port (it is theirs, or why should a clan be able to make the port neutral and not owned by GB anymore?) 

So by what you write here there should be a mechanic to hand over ports.

Also it is funny that yoh write this after the port changed from GB to VP 8(!!) dayw ago, probably becahse the port is generqting money now.

Rival are dutch players using GB alts .... you say Rival handed over to dutch because they couldnt protect their port from attacks ... if they hadnt unfriended all british clans we could have defended the port .. GB players could not enter the port battle to defend a GB port

the whole problem is that the port made money ...and rival were using the profit from the port and its resources to fund Havoc .... these same players were then using ships built with profits  and resources  made as GB alts to raid GB players at Jamaica ...

 

Edited by Grundgemunkey
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add a bit of info in about RUBL doing it. They did as far as i'm aware arrange trade between Prussia and themselves before they moved over on one port.
And the other port they attacked expecting us to defend it and we didn't on purpose because we didn't have the BR to do it.  So the situation was a bit different.

Edited by Capt Jubal Early

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Grundgemunkey said:

Rival are dutch players using GB alts .... you say Rival handed over to dutch because they couldnt protect their port from attacks ... if they hadnt unfriended all british clans we could have defended the port .. GB players could not enter the port battle to defend a GB port

the whole problem is that the port made money ...and rival were using the profit from the port and its resources to fund Havoc .... these same players were then using ships built with profits  and resources  made as GB alts to raid GB players at Jamaica ...

 

You guys wanted to give the port to the US so they can give it to you. There was no chance for rival to defend vs the US. You betrayed that GB clan (consisting of alts from players that ard now dutch yes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Capt Jubal Early said:

Just to add a bit of info in about RUBL doing it. They did as far as i'm aware arrange trade between Prussia and themselves before they moved over on one port.
And the other port they attacked expecting us to defend it and we didn't on purpose because we didn't have the BR to do it.  So the situation was a bit different.

They didn't prevent you from defending though? I mean you were all still capable of defending the ports in both instances as you were on their friends list?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gregory Rainsborough said:

They didn't prevent you from defending though? I mean you were all still capable of defending the ports in both instances as you were on their friends list?

Yes exactly that as far as I remember it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rediii said:

You guys wanted to give the port to the US so they can give it to you. There was no chance for rival to defend vs the US. You betrayed that GB clan (consisting of alts from players that ard now dutch yes)

They could defend it as by your own admittance, they have alts.

They were Dutch, we can hardly betray them lol. If anyone betrayed anyone they betrayed us first by coming to KPR and killing GB players.

Edited by Gregory Rainsborough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Capt Jubal Early said:

Just to add a bit of info in about RUBL doing it. They did as far as i'm aware arrange trade between Prussia and themselves before they moved over on one port.
And the other port they attacked expecting us to defend it and we didn't on purpose because we didn't have the BR to do it.  So the situation was a bit different.

How was the situation when hidden island went russian?

And why exactly should GB do something with a port that a clan of alts did the most hostility to to flip the port?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

They could defend it as by your own admittance, they have alts.

They were Dutch, we can hardly betray them lol.

Then be happy now that you can attack the dutch port and take it back and dont have to do it with a deal via another nation.

You cant defend a port with 3 people and you know it ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rediii said:

How was the situation when hidden island went russian?

And why exactly should GB do something with a port that a clan of alts did the most hostility to to flip the port?

Except it wasn't just those three players that flipped it, STSS did as well and had their been a contested port battle, it would have been GB players defending them, not a 3 man clan holding off 25 ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rediii said:

Then be happy now that you can attack the dutch port and take it back and dont have to do it with a deal via another nation.

You cant defend a port with 3 people and you know it ;)

As I said before, I have no intention of rewarding bad behaviour. That's why when I see HAVOC, I sail away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rediii said:

How was the situation when hidden island went russian?

And why exactly should GB do something with a port that a clan of alts did the most hostility to to flip the port?

Cant comment don't know. I'm talking about a port on southern Haiti and the one next to blondel. Sorry the details are hazy but I remember it being all above board. The only bit that wasn't above board is RUBL never offering KOTO money for the TS we hosted for them but that's in the past now :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rediii said:

You guys wanted to give the port to the US so they can give it to you. There was no chance for rival to defend vs the US. You betrayed that GB clan (consisting of alts from players that ard now dutch yes)

we wanted to retain the port as GB ... we wanted its resources to belong to GB not dutch alts .... we asked Rival to set the port as neutral on several occasions ... so another Gb clan could take control they refused .... we had to ask another nation to help us out ... the US agreed ... Rivak are an ALT clan made up of dutch playes ..there is no betrayal

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rediii said:

 

And why exactly should GB do something with a port that a clan of alts did the most hostility to to flip the port?

Alts of RIVAL delibaretly removed every clan from friendlist so that GB could not defend the ports of Bluefields and Ayamonte.

https://i.imgur.com/qntWckS.png

Edited by Batman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Grundgemunkey said:

we wanted to retain the port as GB ... we wanted its resources to belong to GB not dutch alts .... we asked Rival to set the port as neutral on several occasions ... so another Gb clan could take control they refused .... we had to ask another nation to help us out ... the US agreed ... Rivak are an ALT clan made up of dutch playes ..there is no betrayal

 

2 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Except it wasn't just those three players that flipped it, STSS did as well and had their been a contested port battle, it would have been GB players defending them, not a 3 man clan holding off 25 ships.

You wouldnt have defended it against US 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By Pellew's own admission the Dutch couldn't have taken it from GB without everyone being removed from their friends list. Has HAVOC ever won a contested port battle out of interest? AI don't count fyi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rediii said:

Then be happy now that you can attack the dutch port and take it back and dont have to do it with a deal via another nation.

You cant defend a port with 3 people and you know it ;)

so you dont have a deal with the french to take saint Louis ....hypocryte

your gb alts have loose lips

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Batman said:

Alts of RIVAL delibaretly removed every clan from friendlist so that GB could not defend the ports of Bluefields and Ayamonte.

https://i.imgur.com/qntWckS.png

If a durch clan is asking another nation to flip a havoc port I would delete them from friendslist aswell. You sold another clans port to the US because you were not able to take it by yourself but now you dont want to take it by yojrself becajse the port would have a proper defense

1 minute ago, Grundgemunkey said:

so you dont have a deal with the french to take saint Louis ....hypocryte

your gb alts have loose lips

 

We have a deal with the clan holding the port there is a nice little difference there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rediii said:

 you dont want to take it by yojrself becajse the port would have a proper defense

 

Please, rediii. Removing clans from friendlist so they are not able to defend a port while talking about properly defending a port.

We could have had a nice fight over the port, but you choose the easy way.

Share this post


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

×