admin Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 To lower boarding stealing opportunities by friendly players NPC Disengage will be disabled. Breaking boarding by ramming is extremely useful in pvp and it saves lives - it will be kept. We will have to find another way to solve the breaking boarding by so called friendly players. Perhaps by banning? ps. to reduce such cases until we find out the solution players are advised to move out from capitals further to other areas. Map is huge and there is place for everyone. 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Rice Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 But we can still disengage if we want right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted February 1, 2016 Author Share Posted February 1, 2016 But we can still disengage if we want right? of course this is only for NPCs - they already hate players for non stop aggression so probably they can survive without disengage. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Rice Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 lol thank you this will help those who are having trouble with trolling. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limey McLimerton Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Perhaps by banning? This would be disastrous. While I understand how frustrating it is to have a ship ninja-capped out from under you when you did all the work to make it cappable in the first place by somebody who entered the battle late and ignore your polite and courteous requests that they let you have your prize, there are also many other time where you get dragged into a battle as you were just passing through by some player who would never have had a chance to cap the ship, and you take it for yourself. If somebody pulls me into a trader battle by mistake and apologizes, I'll happily stay there and do everything I can to help them cap it. On the other hand, when I get pulled into a battle by somebody who curses at me, and threatens to shoot me, you bet I'm going to take that trader. The potential for players to abuse bans for ninja-capping is worse that the ninja-capping itself. The same thing has been happening in MMORPGs since the genre was formed. People fight over resources. Traders are the ore deposits of NA. Just because you see one first, and yell dibs in chat doesn't mean you get to have it. While it's rude to run in there and take it when somebody kindly asks you not to, it should NEVER be a punishable offense. Seeing as we're playing a game with open world PVP where ganking and seal clubbing is considered a game mechanic, why would this be a problem? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tief N Tote Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 There are also cases where people (coming to your battle already started) board the ship you intend to board just before you even after you tell them about your plans... What do you do there? sink them for being rude 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bart Smith Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 I like this changes will stop loot stealing from "friendly" guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcmb Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 This makes rage capping so easy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted February 1, 2016 Author Share Posted February 1, 2016 While it's rude to run in there and take it when somebody kindly asks you not to, it should NEVER be a punishable offense. Seeing as we're playing a game with open world PVP where ganking and seal clubbing is considered a game mechanic, why would this be a problem? This is not DayZ Interfering with friendly Navy in history could cause court martial and punishment and sometimes death. For example not delivering bottles with messages to the division of Flotsam and Jetsam was punishable by death. Stealing something from a fellow sailor was punishable by flogging and if repeated by death. Its in the Naval Fighting instructions. If the player is green its a friendly. And he should be helped. This is our position. Want to fight or do something bad? Attack normally from the open world - he is your enemy then - your hands are clean now. PS we are ok deleting hanging 10-20 captains for griefing of their Navy compatriots as an example to others. 18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Quertier Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Is it perhaps possible to implement a mechanic where which ever player has inflicted the most amount of damage to an enemy ship is the only one able to capture it. Perhaps there can be an option where he makes it available for every one if he/ she wishes. I'm sure there are some set backs to this idea but it's just a thought. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Breaking boarding by ramming is extremely useful in pvp and it saves lives - it will be kept. We will have to find another way to solve the breaking boarding by so called friendly players. It is useful, but it is it appropriate? What would actually happen if this was attempted in reality? Ramming either the friendly or enemy ship would be more likely to entangle the rammer and add them to the ongoing boarding action. If coming to the aid of someone locked in boarding, a ship would be more likely to counter-board the enemy, reinforce the defender, or just fire on the attacker as we already can. Ramming seems like zero risk option in game that would be hugely risky in reality. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Fishy Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 This makes me happy, I put it in the hate post and within a week suddenly its a thing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolaas Bosch Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 This is not DayZ Interfering with friendly Navy in history could cause court martial and punishment and sometimes death. For example not delivering bottles with messages to the division of Flotsam and Jetsam was punishable by death. Stealing something from a fellow sailor was punishable by flogging and if repeated by death. Its in the Naval Fighting instructions. If the player is green its a friendly. And he should be helped. This is our position. Want to fight or do something bad? Attack normally from the open world - he is your enemy then - your hands are clean now. PS we are ok deleting hanging 10-20 captains for griefing of their Navy compatriots as an example to others. No offense, but this is still just a bad idea. In my opinion, an open world sandbox game should have room for griefers, even though they are annoying. Banning is not going to encourage any form of sandbox gameplay. The less interference from developers ingame, the better the sandbox. It is however a devs job to set the rules within the sandbox. Like making battles private or friends-only if a player choses to? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James T Skoll Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I think banning people, who paid $40 for a niche game, is a step in the wrong direction and sends a very wrong message. This kind of stuff must be dealt with I guess, especially because people like to whine over piracy like it's the return of the black plague, but flat out banning people from your game just because they saw the opportunity to get theirs is not how devs should deal with it. If you ask me, this shouldn't be an issue in the first place. I'll willingly admit I've done it to people, I've seen others do it a bunch. You put the mechanic in there and this is how people use it. At the very least if you're going to let people be hugboxing carebears, let pirates do it to each other. Everyone whines about how they have to be different from the other factions and here is the perfect chance. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJWolf Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) This is not DayZ Interfering with friendly Navy in history could cause court martial and punishment and sometimes death. For example not delivering bottles with messages to the division of Flotsam and Jetsam was punishable by death. Stealing something from a fellow sailor was punishable by flogging and if repeated by death. Its in the Naval Fighting instructions. If the player is green its a friendly. And he should be helped. This is our position. Want to fight or do something bad? Attack normally from the open world - he is your enemy then - your hands are clean now. PS we are ok deleting hanging 10-20 captains for griefing of their Navy compatriots as an example to others. I'm sorry but as a general rule of thumb - I DON'T want other people who are not in my group joining my OW battles on the PvE server. I would like the option to open up the battle if I so choose, or in the case of joining an NPCvNPC battle it is always unlocked. This is an excellent update and a step in the right direction to addressing the issue but it really needs a lockout system on PvE to allow the mission/instance starter to choose to lock out the battle and prevent non-group captains from joining if you so choose. Edited February 2, 2016 by JJWolf 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quineloe Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 No offense, but this is still just a bad idea. In my opinion, an open world sandbox game should have room for griefers, even though they are annoying. Banning is not going to encourage any form of sandbox gameplay. The less interference from developers ingame, the better the sandbox. It is however a devs job to set the rules within the sandbox. Like making battles private or friends-only if a player choses to?go grief the other 7 nations then. I fully agree with the explanation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hethwill Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I am sure this is a "mid phase" until the Developers put a better system in place. Get your grips together and take a step back. Given the combat potential of the Free Cutter is very high, especially in groups, the flogging and hangings must proceed until order is established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uzii Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I've got to say, banning is a step in the wrong direction. Have a 3 strikes system or something, but not an outright ban if they capture one ship. There is too much room for abuse of the system, unless the devs can re-watch the battle and decide who was in the right, but that could get very time consuming. If someone is repeatedly stealing other people's capture targets, then fine, ban them, but everyone should have more than one chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratline Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 How do you guys plan to determine whether a player deserves a ban? I have seen multiple instances in national chat of a player kicking off, swearing and abusing another for 'stealing my cap' or somehow interfering with boarding. The other player invariably then puts a totally different side to the story.. player A tried to cap but failed and was sinking, player A actually opened fire on a friendly, or rammed them off the target first... and so on. If you're not in the instance yourselves, what measures are in place to make sure you are not banning people unfairly? It would be disastrous for your reputation if you started banning people who then went to Steam (and other forums) to claim they had been banned unfairly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BramtheDutch Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Thank you for the change, It was really anoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaHawk123 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 While I understand the issue at hand here, I do not believe simply banning people is the solution. You have to remember people purchased this game and I can imagine it would cause many complications with Steam and cause an uproar on the community forums there. Banning should be a method which is used as a last resort and for very serious actions such as cheating or hacking. While breaking boarding by friendly players is very much a frowned upon action it is neither cheating or hacking; it's simply annoying. I mostly believe the best solution would be to give the player initiating the battle an opportunity to lock the battle to his friends/ group. This way you avoid getting into a battle with other players who might carry out such actions as breaking boarding or stealing your boarding action on another ship. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry d'Esterre Darby Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 While I understand the issue at hand here, I do not believe simply banning people is the solution. You have to remember people purchased this game and I can imagine it would cause many complications with Steam and cause an uproar on the community forums there. Banning should be a method which is used as a last resort and for very serious actions such as cheating or hacking. While breaking boarding by friendly players is very much a frowned upon action it is neither cheating or hacking; it's simply annoying. I mostly believe the best solution would be to give the player initiating the battle an opportunity to lock the battle to his friends/ group. This way you avoid getting into a battle with other players who might carry out such actions as breaking boarding or stealing your boarding action on another ship. Every multi-player online game has rules. When you buy the game and play the game, you agree to abide by those rules. You agree that should you not abide by those rules, you will no longer be able to play the game and you will not receive a refund - this is not hard to understand. Allowing toxic activities because you're scared of a griefer getting mad just means you lose dozens or hundreds of existing players, and hundreds or thousands of sales when people hear that the game is full of griefing jerks. Nobody wants to play in the sandbox with people who refuse to follow the rules and are treating everyone else like crap. This is a very easy action to prove - take a few screenshots with the boarding action window up, and a friendly ship in the background wedging its way in between you. Done, grief, rules violation. There will certainly be less obvious cases, and those can be dealt with by a simple warning to the player. Players that are making a habit of receiving warnings will be easy to spot. All have been warned - this game and community are run like the 18th Century British Navy. You are expected to comport yourself with a certain level of decency and honor, and an eye towards following the rules. Those who fail to do so and persist in their actions will find themselves on the beach with no command (banned). 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CompB Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 ps. to reduce such cases until we find out the solution players are advised to move out from capitals further to other areas. Map is huge and there is place for everyone. So this means you are going to set the cost to purchase Outposts lower? Otherwise this will have little effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macjimm Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Breaking boarding? Sounds like this is to prevent a friendly player from boarding. It would include "stealing boarding" when someone other than the player initiating the battle instance completes the boarding. Have I got that right? Can the Admin or Mr Darby please explain what "NPC Disengage" means? I may not be the only one who doesn't understand this clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quineloe Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 This timer right here. A really good example, too - because the boarding went really poorly for him, yet the timer just declares it over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts