Enemy players taking up spots on defending side of Hostility Mission

[Beeekonda]

This was during Portillo hostility raid by Spanish and Russian players. While Russians were doing the mission, Spanish players were taking spots on defending side in case if anybody will show up to disrupt the hostility. 

As I left the port I saw fleet going into another mission and as soon as all Russians disappeared I saw Spanish players. 3 first rates, bellona and endymion. 2 First rates and Bellona went into the cirlce and joined the mission. Ocean and Endymion spotted me and Endymion hit the ATTACK button. That's what happened next: 

Christoph joined first, then Graf, and only then Tiedemann.

Last screenshot: 

7 original Russians in mission + 1 Spanish player. 1 Spanish player in the circle + 2 in the middle cuddling + endymion on the right.

 

 

Edited September 9, 2018 by Beeekonda

[Christendom]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the order in which they joined listed on the tab screen in descending order.  This would backup Cheeky's claim that Christoph, Graf and then Tiedemann joined and contradict Graf's claim that Teide messed up?  Pirates were unable to counter Russian hostility as a result of this move.

Spain directly blocking pirates players from defending their port and restricting their gameplay experience from taking up slots with no intention of fighting the opposing side is no bueno I would think huh @admin?  

I guess without JAGs around 7up's standards seem to have dropped a bit.   

Edited September 9, 2018 by Christendom

[Delfigrey]

If we did that Spain would be crying all over the forums.

[Anolytic]

I wasn't online at the time. However I inquired about this after I saw the screenshot, so I can provide some details.

To my knowledge, in each one of the other hostility missions apart from this one, the 3 Spanish joined the Russian side. This mission was an anomaly, and I can only take their word for it that it was an accident (by Christoph, as he seems to have joined first). Intent is hard to determine. However, some surrounding circumstances can help to illuminate the case: 

At least one F11 report was made from the mission - as it was first understood as a bug that the Spanish players would even be able to join the defending side in a hostility mission when Spain themselves had hostility on the port at a time (from joining the right side/Russian side in the preceding mission). I do not think that it actually is a bug, as it must be possible for third parties to jump hostility missions - otherwise, amongst other things, we would open up the possibility of hiding from chasing enemies by jumping into hostility missions.

If this would have been intentional as a tactic to block spots from the enemy in battle, I would consider it griefing.

However, if devs can corroborate that an F11 report was sent about it, I would take their word that it was not an intentional act.

The fact that they are only 3, and in big ships tends to reinforce this explanation. With those 3 spots taken defenders could have still brought in 7 ships and matched the number of Russian attackers, and also had the AI on their side. If this was an intentional tactic, the Spanish could have easily taken more and smaller ships to block out most or all ten of the slots. Instead they are only 3, which is just enough to fill out the spots on the Russian fleet as was their stated intention. 

Also - while this is no excuse - to my knowledge there was no pirate fleet outside of any significance that could have been blocked from defending. I'm guessing this was the second mission out of three, and they were able to finish the third mission.

As a last note, I would add that although I would hope that we could have a ruling that blocking slots in a battle on purpose is griefing and sanctionable behaviour, the current precedent in the tribunal is that it isn't. In the Somerset tribunal it was specifically requested that the issue of blocking of slots from enemies was addressed and clarified. However it was not addressed or deemed illegal to do so.

[vazco]

(deleted - mistake)

Edited September 9, 2018 by vazco

[Beeekonda]

11 minutes ago, Anolytic said:

To my knowledge, in each one of the other hostility missions apart from this one, the 3 Spanish joined the Russian side. This mission was an anomaly, and I can only take their word for it that it was an accident (by Christoph, as he seems to have joined first).

Lets go over it again. There was 7 Russian players, which means 3 empty slots for other players on their side.

There were also 5 Spanish player: 3 Oceans, Bellona and Endymion. There is no reason to join as 2 Oceans + Bellona and leave one ocean and endymion to "sit outside without protection". They also didn't joined that mission only because they spotted me

16 minutes ago, Anolytic said:

The fact that they are only 3, and in big ships tends to reinforce this explanation. With those 3 spots taken defenders could have still brought in 7 ships and matched the number of Russian attackers, and also had the AI on their side. If this was an intentional tactic, the Spanish could have easily taken more and smaller ships to block out most or all ten of the slots. Instead they are only 3, which is just enough to fill out the spots on the Russian fleet as was their stated intention. 

Also - while this is no excuse - to my knowledge there was no pirate fleet outside of any significance that could have been blocked from defending. I'm guessing this was the second mission out of three, and they were able to finish the third mission.

We want to bring as many ships as we want and take every single spot possible.

Spanish players would just take up 5 spots and leave the mission, which makes only 5 spots open for Pirate players to enter. They would tag everything coming toward the hostility mission and even if anybody would sneak through it would be only 5 slots open.

 

20 minutes ago, Anolytic said:

I I do not think that it actually is a bug, as it must be possible for third parties to jump hostility missions - otherwise, amongst other things, we would open up the possibility of hiding from chasing enemies by jumping into hostility missions.

If this would have been intentional as a tactic to block spots from the enemy in battle, I would consider it griefing.

 

It is a well known fact that other nations can join the defending side. 

Great effort defending spaniards, but that just another "dindu noting wong" style silly excuses

[Christoph]

8 hours ago, Christendom said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the order in which they joined listed on the tab screen in descending order.  This would backup Cheeky's claim that Christoph, Graf and then Tiedemann joined and contradict Graf's claim that Teide messed up?  Pirates were unable to counter Russian hostility as a result of this move.

Spain directly blocking pirates players from defending their port and restricting their gameplay experience from taking up slots with no intention of fighting the opposing side is no bueno I would think huh @admin?  

I guess without JAGs around 7up's standards seem to have dropped a bit.   

sorry dude but you joined with your spanish alt few months ago on the pirates side. 2 accounts on the same side. we could not join on the french side. Jags has told you before that we help the French. you are then just joined with your spanish alt on pirate side. After that we could not join on the French side and sink you

 

Edited September 9, 2018 by Christoph

[Tiedemann]

We where there helping out. 1. mission we joined Russians side and shot AI and generating hostility for Spain. This was not ideal so the next mission we joined pirate side, but realizing there is not much to do there other than shot the guys your there to help we left. 3. mission we all stayed outside. Consider it an learning curve.  

I was not aware other nations could join these hostility missions until yesterday and yes I think is has the potential of being an exploit, but there where no Pirate fleet present at Portilo. So no real harm was done.  

I wrote a bug report in game after the 1. and 2. mission that should backup my statements.

[Palatinose]

Pirates why didn't you just attack them on open sea? 

On the other hand I will never understand why it is obviously necessary to avoid pvp in hostility missions. Seven russian 1sts + 2 spanish. I would like to see the spontaneously asembled Pirate fleet you guys wouldn't be able to defeat.

But RvR vs PvP will probably always be apples and oranges.

Edit: not tribunal worthy imo

Edited September 9, 2018 by Palatinose

[do not say dlc]

If its done by 'BF' , its not an exploit, its only testing!

[do not say dlc]

Were is that rule @Graf Bernadotte?

Edited September 9, 2018 by do not say dlc
BF wins... again!

[Hethwill]

 

[Hethwill]

Quote

 

Exploits and game breaking bugs.

 

It is the responsibility of captains to report exploits and game breaking bugs.

If you found something that allows you to receive abnormal amounts of XP, money or goods - please report this by using F11 or on the forum. 

Its ok if you used that bug for testing reasons and reported all cases to us. It is not ok to use the exploits consistently.

Captains with abnormal net wealth will have all their assets removed and in subsequent cases their accounts deleted. 

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

5. A while ago Christendom joined a screening battle of Pirates against French with his Spanish account on Pirate side, to deny Spanish screeners to join French side, which was their allied back then. Isn't that behaviour a clear statement of Pirates that denying entry on the side of choice will be considered as proper game play and not as griefing?

6. Should denying entry in a battle be a privilege of Pirates only?

7. Why didn't Pirates clearify this question with  a self accusation to avoid future cases and took advantage of this behaviour until they became victim?

8. Isn't it the duty of players to clearify such controversial behaviour that players know in future what is allowed and what is not. How can we be blamed for bringing this case up again?

 

this topic isnt about something  that happened many months ago. It doesent give you the right to exploit a obviously broken mechanic, it would be the same as in football, oh so you punch a player? ill punch you back then and then expect no action to be taken. It is the same now as the US used basic cutter vs us in a PB, yes we could do it towards them to be hello kittytards, but we dont retaliate that way when we know about something that obviously dont work as intended.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Guest

[Hethwill]

There's a simple solution.

Allow only Port owners to enter hostility. Allow only hostility takers Nation to enter.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Hethwill the Harmless said:

There's a simple solution.

Allow only Port owners to enter hostility. Allow only hostility takers Nation to enter.

Port owner + friendly clans. That would rule out the possibility of alt exploits while still allow nation wide efforts in both defence and offence.

[Christendom]

1 hour ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

You don't get the point. The question is if there is a wrong doing. We didn't bring Christendoms case to tribunal because we didn't think that he exploited game mechanic. And he didn't report it as well, because he also claimed that this was proper game play. I still think that's the right decission, since it is impossible to divide joining the wrong side by mistake and by intention or by changing the mind. Result would be that only the honest player would be punished, while a player who claims for mistake or changing his mind after he saw the strengh or the skills of enemy players could never be proofed wrong.

To proof our point it is our good right to point out that Pirates have the opposite opinion in this matter when it comes to their game play. And that they are so sure in their opinion that they did not report it to get a decission of devs how to behave in future.

Reason for this tribunal is to deny other nations a right they claim as a Pirate privilege.

Please bring me up on tribunal in a separate post if you so desire as I directed you to a couple of months ago.  In the aforementioned screening fight I was merely fighting French players, successfully might I add, on 2 characters in the same battle that did not involve Spanish players as we were screened out from attacking a Russian port.  One cannot expect pirate players to know the intricacies of Spanish politics and who their allies are or are not.  Spain showed up to a port battle that did not involve them.  We saw a French fleet ahead of us and attacked.  The 3 Spanish players outside were not our concern nor was their involvement necessary.  You also were still able to join the battle, just on the pirate side.    

So either tribunal me or don’t.  It does not forgive your transgressions above.

------------ 

This tribunal is about you guys denying slots to a defending nation in a hostility mission by joining your allies side and restricting our ability to get more guns to bear on the enemy.  Portillo was directly flipped due to your unfair preventative actions and we would like clarification as to if what you did was legal or not.  

Per @admin in a previous tribunal thread, below is against Steam EULA.

"Restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying Steam services, software or other content.
https://store.steampowered.com/online_conduct/"

These Spanish players directly restricted pirates from joining their defending side of a hostility mission by blocking available slots in the battle.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Christendom

[Beeekonda]

4 hours ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

I appreciate this tribunal. It allows us to clearify what behaviour is requested when it comes to deny other nations entry in a battle on the side of their choice.

To judge this case and to give clear advices for players in future we have to answer some questions.

1. What is the difference between joining the wrong side in a hostility mission and an OW battle. Both battles have limited numbers. Joining the wrong side gives always a disadvantage to the nation which loses a slot for an additional player.

2. Why do we need rulings for blocking and green on green, if already joining the wrong side is forbidden? Doesn't those rules implement that joining the wrong side is proper game play?

3. If joining the wrong side is forbidden, who decides what is the wrong side? There is no alliance system in the game. Spain doesn't have an alliance with Russia. Does a nation has to announce in advance which side it will support in a battle? How long has this nation to wait until it can change this choice? Do they have to wait for a second, an hour, a day or a month before the nation will be allowed to attack players of a nation again they helped before?

4. Who has to proof that joining the wrong side was intentional? I stated in battle chat that we joined accidently the wrong side. The rest of us entered battle for better protection. This claim is not disproved by the fact that in the first battle only five of seven Spaniards entered the battle. One Endymion stayed outside because it is fast enough to outrun alone a stronger enemy fleet. I joined the fleet later and arrived only minutes before the first battle was over.

5. A while ago Christendom joined a screening battle of Pirates against French with his Spanish account on Pirate side, to deny Spanish screeners to join French side, which was their allied back then. Isn't that behaviour a clear statement of Pirates that denying entry on the side of choice will be considered as proper game play and not as griefing?

6. Should denying entry in a battle be a privilege of Pirates only?

7. Why didn't Pirates clearify this question with  a self accusation to avoid future cases and took advantage of this behaviour until they became victim?

8. Isn't it the duty of players to clearify such controversial behaviour that players know in future what is allowed and what is not. How can we be blamed for bringing this case up again?

 

1. You took 30% of joining space and that's huge

3. You do have alliance with BETEP clan. Every Russian player in that hostility mission was BETEP clan member

4. Five of Seven Spaniards? You clearly mixing stuff up. Also you left Ocean outside but let Bellona enter, which does not fit your "we didn't wanted to sit outside unprotected" claim

5-7 In this Tribunal post we talking about your actions and deeds.If you have Tribunal worth situation and you can back it up with the evidences you can open another post.  No need to point on everyone else and tell what they supposedly did  right after we caught you doing dirty.

[Beeekonda]

3 hours ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

There is a very clear rule in Naval action. If you find a possibility to exploit the game mechanic you're allowed to test it and find out if it really works, as long as you inform Devs after with F 11. That's what happened here.

And now we need a decission of Devs rather this is a game feature, will be removed or will be punished as exploit in future.

You were testing what?

My guess is you just gonna keep plaing dummy/noob who does not know game mechanics just to avoid tribunal

[Christendom]

4 hours ago, Tiedemann said:

We where there helping out. 1. mission we joined Russians side and shot AI and generating hostility for Spain. This was not ideal so the next mission we joined pirate side, but realizing there is not much to do there other than shot the guys your there to help we left. 3. mission we all stayed outside. Consider it an learning curve.  

I was not aware other nations could join these hostility missions until yesterday and yes I think is has the potential of being an exploit, but there where no Pirate fleet present at Portilo. So no real harm was done.  

I wrote a bug report in game after the 1. and 2. mission that should backup my statements.

I've jumped other nation's hostility missions with you personally......

[Beeekonda]

He never wondered why there was a lone snow. He was too shook up by the fact of my presence. Even his smile in chat was cringy.

[Christendom]

ya know  now that I'm thinking about this a bit more.  I hope nothing happens.  '

Pirates will then start selling their services to go sit in hostility missions with fast frigates or maybe bellonas and take up the opposing side's slots.  We'll be sure to F11 it every time though of course.  @Batman having problems grinding up little cayman?  Let us know, we'll come help out.  Maybe WO would like to grind up Batabano without having to fight all of Spain.  

This could be very profitable.  

Edited September 9, 2018 by Christendom

[Ink]

Under review

[Tiedemann]

18 hours ago, Christendom said:

ya know  now that I'm thinking about this a bit more.  I hope nothing happens.  '

Pirates will then start selling their services to go sit in hostility missions with fast frigates or maybe bellonas and take up the opposing side's slots.  We'll be sure to F11 it every time though of course.  @Batman having problems grinding up little cayman?  Let us know, we'll come help out.  Maybe WO would like to grind up Batabano without having to fight all of Spain.  

This could be very profitable.  

Funny.. If we are a bit lucky, this might get fixed before you guys go on another campaign to brake the game for every one..! 😝  

18 hours ago, Spikes said:

How do you know? I personally was there but did not leave port since I heard the mission was filled with Spanish and the battle was camped outside.

We only encountered one pirate player that I remember and he join us in the 2. mission. The 3. mission the Russians did alone, all spanish stayed in open world. We sat right outside your port for for 30 - 45 minutes semi afk. So if a pirate fleet where present why did you guys not attack us!? Or sail past us and join the hostility mission?

Logic dictates that you where not there in force, because if pirates had the numbers you would have attacked the spanish fleet of 4 ships sitting afk in front of your port. 

Edited September 10, 2018 by Tiedemann

[admin]

We confirm that report with apology happened as @Anolytic describes. Right after it happened report was received claiming that they entered the battle by mistake.

We encourage all players involved in hostility missions to avoid such situations in the future. Entering the battle with the purpose of griefing is not allowed and warnings will be sent out if this happens again. Subsequent cases will cause stronger punishments that can include full account resets. 

We do not want this feature to be switched off, but If this continues the feature allowing enter allied hostility missions to help will be removed.