Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) The act of intercepting a half captured prize surely in itself is an act of piracy? Perhaps those that want to do that should become so. Do you suggest that when an ally takes over another's boarding he is, in roleplay, stealing? Surely not. In reality any national ship PRESENT at the action would have shared in the prize, regardless of who actually undertook the boarding. That one's allies don't share directly in your prizes is a fault of the loot mechanics and nothing to do with gameplay surrounding boarding or ramming. No, I take your point but it does not apply well to the issue. I would welcome a change in loot mechanics to better consider allies. I think that the best solution to THIS problem is to allow players to lock their encounters to allies who aren't in their group. That would stop all the whining. Edited February 3, 2016 by Tryaz 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbcochran Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Yeah, you see it's people with exactly this attitude who end up rolling the wrong heads. Thanks for demonstrating precisely why banning based on hearsay and anecdotal evidence is bad. This isn't something clear cut such as exploiting, verbal abuse or racism. The reason most people are saying that banning is ill advised is not because we support griefing, or engage in this behaviour ourselves (I've never even entered another player's mission or battle, other than the furballs outside Port Royal pre-Steam)... it's because we have the experience and brains to know the shitstorm that overuse of bans can create unless you can clearly show the person punished was guilty. A far better solution is to fix the mechanics in game to make this harder, if not impossible, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) Yeah, you see it's people with exactly this attitude who end up rolling the wrong heads. Thanks for demonstrating precisely why banning based on hearsay and anecdotal evidence is bad. This isn't something clear cut such as exploiting, verbal abuse or racism. The reason most people are saying that banning is ill advised is not because we support griefing, or engage in this behaviour ourselves (I've never even entered another player's mission or battle, other than the furballs outside Port Royal pre-Steam)... it's because we have the experience and brains to know the shitstorm that overuse of bans can create unless you can clearly show the person punished was guilty. A far better solution is to fix the mechanics in game to make this harder, if not impossible, Ratline has the sense of it. I come from six years of EVE: a game famous for its encouragement of griefing. In six years I have NEVER griefed another player but I value the ability of players to freely use game mechanics as they see fit without the out-of-game whining of others resulting in a ban. I personally love the mechanic of ramming to disengage boarding. It has both good and griefing potential and I think it would be incredibly sad to see the game patched to somehow remove the mechanic. I hope against hope that the devs do not come down on the wrong side of the fence on this issue: it would set a dangerous precedent and bode ill for the future of this wonderful game. Edited February 3, 2016 by Tryaz 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanial Blackandecker Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) Do you suggest that when an ally takes over another's boarding he is, in roleplay, stealing? Surely not. In reality any national ship PRESENT at the action would have shared in the prize, regardless of who actually undertook the boarding. That one's ally's don't share directly in your prizes is a fault of the loot mechanics and nothing to do with gameplay surrounding boarding or ramming. No, I take your point but it does not apply well to the issue. I would welcome a change in loot mechanics to better consider allies. I think that the best solution to THIS problem is to allow players to lock their encounters to allies who aren't in their group. That would stop all the whining. Aye, but it could become problematic in terms of lending a hand, the idea that you can go into another players instance right now is quite pleasant as it opens up an honour attitude. Locking it would make it more difficult to interact. But I agree, I dont see any easy way to resolve it whilst keeping the feature. I simply suggest that allocating someone as a pirate is better than banning them, perhaps with the inclusion of appeal and a court session to "try" the pirate/boarder. It is another opportunity to create immersion whilst keeping the open seas policy. Edited February 3, 2016 by Nathanial Blackandecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbcochran Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Do you honestly thing the devs would swing the ban hammer based on hearsay alone? Do you honestly think they have no way of investigating the matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandzia Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Maybe "owner" of the battle should be able to decide who will take the prize? Or the prize should be shared between all partners + possibility to lockout the battle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Maybe "owner" of the battle should be able to decide who will take the prize? Or the prize should be shared between all partners + possibility to lockout the battle. Yep! I don't see how being able to reject your ally's help in the battle would be a bad thing. It's not immersion breaking either. Let's please just do that and not touch good game mechanics. Then if you still are "griefed" it'll only be by people in your group and you can just elect not to sail with them: simple. PS, where are these rules that people keep alluding to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 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. Wow so this IS the official position? Very troubling. It seems you're electing for a hard role-play stance (and not even one with any particularly strong grounding in fact, there are any number of ways to recreate the RL rules of engagment or articles of war in gameplay mechanics). Are you totally averse to allowing players to lock their engagements if they're certain that they don't want help? I'm afraid my gameplay response to this, frankly idiotic, handling of the situation will simply be NEVER to enter a random ally's engagement. At the moment my practise has been to enter the engagement if it's not out of my way and tell my ally that they are calling the shots and: "is there anything I can do to help?" If they tell me that they don't want my help I simply leave the engagement and go about my business. I have never yet rammed anyone off a boarding, to either save them or grief them. I only observed this mechanic in practise for the first time yesterday and it was my favourite gameplay moment to-date. Now I learn it is to be nullified? If you will pursue this course of action then it's simply never worth the risk of entering a stranger's engagement as you have no control over what they take offense at and no way to protect yourself if they go, crying and butthurt, to the admins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
true2form Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 to stop players from jumping into a match and stealing a board how about locking it to the first player that attacked the ship or entered the battle and give them and additional button to release the npc for all to capture like when commanding your fleet just click on an enemy ship and a button appears if its boarding is enabled for single player or open board to allow anyone to capture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 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. In reality, ships not only grappled one another but lashed their spars together to ensure that they didn't drift apart. It would be possible to ram one ship away from another but you'd almost certainly damage the rigging of one or both ships. I wouldn't object to rigging shock occurring when you're disengaged by a ram but I don't think that's the issue being debated here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 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. WOAH, you just stepped off the reservation. So you're advocating banning ONLY in the case of Basic Cutter swarm griefing? That's a different argument to the one proposed by the OP. Not that I've EVER seen one yet myself but I agree that a swarm of Basic Cutters has the taste of an exploit. Although it's besides the point of this thread - since you raised it - my suggestion would be to disallow captains from buying a Basic Cutter if they have another vessel in port. That makes it less easy to simply rage-pull infinite Basic Cutters. Back to the problem at hand. The voices speaking out loudly against this are mostly trying to emphasise the danger of the dev team pursuing this course of action with regards to griefers. I imagine many of them are experienced gamers who have first-hand or anecdotal experience of other MMOs that have been destroyed by this kind of ill-considered disciplinary action. So no I don't think it's reasonable to tell them to get a grip. As I see it, if these bans are enacted it will be a serious threat to the health of the sandbox and the community in NA. Although I am not one, griefers have their place in a sand-box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 [...] 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. This is the same response that I and other measured players are advocating. I sincerely hope that the devs choose this path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 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). Ok so once again I'm troubled by an official response on this thread. Nevermind though, the game's creators have the right to draw the line wherever they see fit. Henry can you PLEASE point me to these rules that people keep referring to, I don't know where to find them. Just so you know, my response to your current handling of this is simply going to be to NEVER enter a stranger's battle. And so the sandbox shrinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 [...] and about the sandbox excuse... i think its bs. rl is sandbox too, i could go out and hit someone or even kill someone. i COULD! but i would get punished! you CAN steal an allys ship too, but you will get punished! [...] Lol! Check out this guy! He calls bs and then goes right on to spout a mountain of his own. Your comparison makes NO sense. If life is a sandbox in the same way that NA is a sandbox then: the devs intervene to ban rammers and what: God intervenes to punish people who hit and kill others? Fine, I suppose?????? But I've got no interest in playing a game called Naval Divine Retribution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Aye, but it could become problematic in terms of lending a hand, the idea that you can go into another players instance right now is quite pleasant as it opens up an honour attitude. Locking it would make it more difficult to interact. But I agree, I dont see any easy way to resolve it whilst keeping the feature. I simply suggest that allocating someone as a pirate is better than banning them, perhaps with the inclusion of appeal and a court session to "try" the pirate/boarder. It is another opportunity to create immersion whilst keeping the open seas policy. Okay, cool. I could get on board with the idea of players being made pirate. I doubt that the devs have the resources to be holding "court sessions" but I don't know, we'd have to hear from them. Now we need a mechanic that can reliably assess when someone is "stealing" and not simply being bad at helping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 The latest patch 9.63 has a HUGE effect on this topic. Only group members can enter your mission!!!!! Problem nearly solved! I still would like to know where the rules are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanial Blackandecker Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Okay, cool. I could get on board with the idea of players being made pirate. I doubt that the devs have the resources to be holding "court sessions" but I don't know, we'd have to hear from them. Now we need a mechanic that can reliably assess when someone is "stealing" and not simply being bad at helping. well maybe that should fall to each nation to organise the "tribunal" system, dont know just seems a fair way of balancing off banning is bad, but we still want immersion. I don't think it neceserally falls to devs to do stuff like that. We have a reporting system that is down to gm's i assume, or could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 well maybe that should fall to each nation to organise the "tribunal" system, dont know just seems a fair way of balancing off banning is bad, but we still want immersion. I don't think it neceserally falls to devs to do stuff like that. We have a reporting system that is down to gm's i assume, or could be. That would definitely be immersive. Captains of the highest rank invited to attend or something??? Like the real court's martial system. I'm in favour in principle but I'd have to know more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanial Blackandecker Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 the clay is pretty wet tbh, thats the beauty of being in at an early stage of dev. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordBeer Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Ratline has the sense of it. I come from six years of EVE: a game famous for its encouragement of griefing. In six years I have NEVER griefed another player but I value the ability of players to freely use game mechanics as they see fit without the out-of-game whining of others resulting in a ban. I personally love the mechanic of ramming to disengage boarding. It has both good and griefing potential and I think it would be incredibly sad to see the game patched to somehow remove the mechanic. I hope against hope that the devs do not come down on the wrong side of the fence on this issue: it would set a dangerous precedent and bode ill for the future of this wonderful game. I never played Eve. I know it's very famous for its griefing. I'd rather Naval Action did not become anything like that. I'm sailing for the British Navy in this game. If you ran around breaking rules in the royal fleet, they'd beat your ass. Unfortunately whining about it on the forums is the only way to get some satisfaction since green on green is bad. All I get to do is watch as the the guy, who joined 3 minutes after the battle started, boards the trader's brig I just I spent the last few minutes softening up with chain and grapeshot. It's extra special when they ram you in the process. I agree that banning might be a bit much for it though. If people want to play like pirates, I say make them sail under a pirate flag. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booyaah Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Just give the player who starts the instance a modal popup window when another player tries to join on their side stating their name, ship, faction. Give them the option to accept or deny, problem solved, anyone who wants help can accept, everyone else can deny, no more same faction griefing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darmand Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I never played Eve. I know it's very famous for its griefing. I'd rather Naval Action did not become anything like that. I'm sailing for the British Navy in this game. If you ran around breaking rules in the royal fleet, they'd beat your ass. Unfortunately whining about it on the forums is the only way to get some satisfaction since green on green is bad. All I get to do is watch as the the guy, who joined 3 minutes after the battle started, boards the trader's brig I just I spent the last few minutes softening up with chain and grapeshot. It's extra special when they ram you in the process. I agree that banning might be a bit much for it though. If people want to play like pirates, I say make them sail under a pirate flag. Heh would be funny to hear the screams:) instead of ban people login to find they are pirates:) All this ohhh be careful you do not make people mad over bans.. so much nonsense. The way the admin explained this makes it so. You want to act like a jerk, (pirate) then be a pirate. Do not hide behind game mechanics to do what would not be allowed in the game time we are playing in. You stealing, others work and effort would be taken very seriously in those time periods. You were taking cash out of the pockets of not just captains, admirals, but whole ship's crews. It was called piracy:) It was treated by you being caught and hanged. The life of pirates were not easy. And for sure there was no hiding behind a nation's flag to get away with it. Trying to put it off as bad for game is just more straw arguments. Want to be good for game? Easy follow the admin's rules. They stated them pretty plainly here. Do not use green on green as excuse to do things that were not intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I never played Eve. I know it's very famous for its griefing. I'd rather Naval Action did not become anything like that. I'm sailing for the British Navy in this game. If you ran around breaking rules in the royal fleet, they'd beat your ass. Unfortunately whining about it on the forums is the only way to get some satisfaction since green on green is bad. All I get to do is watch as the the guy, who joined 3 minutes after the battle started, boards the trader's brig I just I spent the last few minutes softening up with chain and grapeshot. It's extra special when they ram you in the process. I agree that banning might be a bit much for it though. If people want to play like pirates, I say make them sail under a pirate flag. I'm glad we agree that banning is too much. Turning people Pirate if they steal others captures sounds like a great idea, I'd like that as a fix. How do you police it though? Let's not start talking about the "rules" of the British Navy in the early 19th c. Because this game doesn't accurately model them and this discussion has little to do with them. I am ALL in favour of mechanics that heighten immersion and encourage roleplay. Being part of the British Navy and wanting to roleplay has nothing to do with being annoyed that someone took your trader brig. Did you have orders to interdict enemy trade or run enforcement for customs? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) Heh would be funny to hear the screams:) instead of ban people login to find they are pirates:) All this ohhh be careful you do not make people mad over bans.. so much nonsense. The way the admin explained this makes it so. You want to act like a jerk, (pirate) then be a pirate. Do not hide behind game mechanics to do what would not be allowed in the game time we are playing in. You stealing, others work and effort would be taken very seriously in those time periods. You were taking cash out of the pockets of not just captains, admirals, but whole ship's crews. It was called piracy:) It was treated by you being caught and hanged. The life of pirates were not easy. And for sure there was no hiding behind a nation's flag to get away with it. Trying to put it off as bad for game is just more straw arguments. Want to be good for game? Easy follow the admin's rules. They stated them pretty plainly here. Do not use green on green as excuse to do things that were not intended. Dude stop talking about roleplaying and pirates in the same breath as banning players. This is a mechanical issue. Do a thought experiment for me and imagine that some mechanic which you wanted to use because it was authentic and used by Navy ships of the day annoys another player and so: YOU GET BANNED!? Banning players is not funny. Ban people for harassment, sure; for foul and offensive language; for making use of exploits and for hacking! But for using a mechanic in a way that other players don't like? You're just being unreasonable. ALSO: you're straight up inventing all this "back in the day" rubbish. I know you're not an historian or even a dedicated enthusiast. You're just using yours and others un-researched assumptions about the period to advance your cause. Edited February 3, 2016 by Tryaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darmand Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Dude stop talking about roleplaying and pirates in the same breath as banning players. This is a mechanical issue. Do a thought experiment for me and imagine that some mechanic which you wanted to use because it was authentic and used by Navy ships of the day annoys another player and so: YOU GET BANNED!? Banning players is not funny. Ban people for harassment, sure; for foul and offensive language; for making use of exploits and for hacking! But for using a mechanic in a way that other players don't like? You're just being unreasonable. ALSO: you're straight up inventing all this "back in the day" rubbish. I know you're not an historian or even a dedicated enthusiast. You're just using yours and others un-researched assumptions about the period to advance your cause. More nonsense, You do not know me or anyone else on-line:P nor do i know you or care. Why do you not take the dev at their word? They said play with honor or be a pirate? Do not use bad mechanic to try to hide. If you can not play by their rules..well expect a ban. And this IS harassment. Hiding behind game mechanics, good or bad, to harass others when they can not do anything about it is kind of the definition. How is that for a thought experiment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts