Archaos

At least I know I was not involved in either abuse of the mechanics, where as you as a member of HAVOC have to try and defend what happened at San Juan.

So where do you stop at realism when designing a game? Should we play the game in real time and take days to sail across the Caribbean? Should we have to load up food and water before we leave port? Does the food spoil on the journey? When we get killed in battle should we have to restart as a new character? You could choose any one of a million realistic things to complain about, but at the end of the day it is a game and certain things can be overlooked to make gameplay more enjoyable after all it is an escape from real life and not real life itself. If the OP was stating that having limited ammunition was a mechanic that would bring another dimension to gameplay and enhance the game, then I could possibly agree, but to say it should be in the game for sake of reality is a poor reason.

Same as San Juan would have been okay if all of HAVOC had changed to Sweden and the port had gone neutral before they recaptured it. But they could not risk that happening in case someone else took the port. The game mechanics in both cases were used to ensure the port went to who they wanted it to go to and both cases are an abuse of the game mechanics no matter how you try and justify it.

The proof is that HAVOC owned San Juan when they were Danish and when the clan moved to Sweden they left some clan members in Danish nation and removed all the other Danish clans from friend list. If the whole clan had moved then the port would have turned neutral. They claim that there were some players who were not playing that were still in Danish nation, but this does not cover the fact that there was a deliberate removal of clans from the friend list to prevent any sort of defense of the port. It is not exactly the same as the Truxillo incident, but is just as much an abuse of the game mechanics. You claim an alt was used at Truxillo, but what defines them as an alt? Would you say the Truxillo incident would have been okay if a player without an alt from BASTD clan had used forged papers to move to Sweden and raised hostility? You can see the similarity between the cases, in both not all the clan has changed nation and others were prevented from either attacking or defending a port by abuse of the game mechanics.

And what about a ruling regarding what happened at ports like San Juan where a clan who owns a port decides to change nation but leaves at least one player in the former nation to remove all other clans from friendlist so no other clans from the nation can defend the port? What happened at Truxillo was not against the game rules but it was an abuse of mechanics the same as what happened at San Juan was not against the rules but is also an abuse of the game mechanics. Are we going to get a hotfix for this abuse so it cannot happen again?

I agree that something needs to be done regarding the way that hostility was raised on Truxillo as it is an abuse of the game mechanics and this may solve that issue, but I do hope that you will also take a closer look at how ports are transferred when a clan changes nation. The removal of all other nation clans from the friend list to prevent them from defending a nation port is wrong and is just as much an abuse of the game mechanics as what happened at Truxillo. Even though ports are owned by a clan, in most cases many other clans have contributed to the development of the port and as such have a right to try and defend their investment when the owning clan decides to move nation.

So you are transmitting information that you should not have been party to, I think that calls for a BAN. 🙂

Wrong!! HAVOC were going to lose San Juan if they changed nation as you have to move all your stuff to neutral port before using forged papers and all possesions and buildings in nation would be lost. They knew this and took steps to keep the port.

I also fail to see how the fact that the clan that raised hostility may have been an alt has any bearing on the situation as I believed that this had previously been ruled on and as long as the alt did not deliberately let themselves be sunk or take other action to affect the hostility then it was allowed for a third nation to join in and assist in raising hostility. If the alt did nothing wrong then what does it matter if he is an alt. Your whole argument relies on the fact that it allegedly was an alt, but what if it was a clan that just wanted the port for themselves and were not friendly with HAVOC?

Are you in GB nation?

I thought it was not allowed to post private conversations.

But you knew there were players who had not changed nation and would not defend the port. If you really wanted you would have closed down the clan and let the port go neutral before you flipped it, but you choose not to do that as there was a risk that you may not be the ones to get it. You played lose with the rules to get the port and you know it but because someone else also plays loose with the rules you do not like it and choose to differentiate it by saying it was an alt. Both cases are bad and should not have been allowed.

And was it not a HAVOC alt still in the Danish nation that kept ownership of San Juan till HAVOC had captured it? Its not twisting the facts. So tell me which clan owned San Juan when HAVOC attacked and how many members were in that clan and was there any connection between HAVOC and the Danish clan that owned SJ when you captured it. Were other Danish clans prevented from defending the port? You selectively choose facts to justify your position by saying no alts were involved in the flipping of SJ, but you conveniently forget that some form of alt or player who had no intention of remaining Danish held the port and did not defend it as well as stopping other Danes from defending the port.

How do you know that they are not planning to do that? and anyway as someone pointed out HAVOC still have alt clans in Denmark, so they did not all move as you say.

You are missing the point, I feel what was done at Truxillo was wrong, but so too was what happened at San Juan. Both cases although slightly different relied on some form of alt to ensure the port was handed over to the person or clan that the owner wanted. There are probably many other cases the same.

Because they handed it over to Swedish HAVOC. This directly contradicts what you said about all HAVOC leaving Denmark before SJ was captured.

There is no consistency in rulings. If you look through all the tribunal posts majority just end with "will be investigated" and then you hear nothing more. Even tribunals where a ruling is given you find inconsistencies and contradictory rulings and levels of sanctions. Even the moderation leaves a lot to be desired, in the recent ongoing case of the Truxillo hostility a mod steps in and wipes all posts quoting the rules for tribunals, yet if you look through other tribunals there are still others open with many people commenting that have nothing to do with original post. The Truxillo case is quite important and has many ramifications for the gameplay, but it also comes about because there was never a proper ruling on the previous similar case regarding San Juan. I do not think it is an easy task to give rulings as people dissect what is said and twist it to suit themselves, but I do think the Dev team should address issues quicker and give their views on what they feel is acceptable game play as they are the ones who designed the game. Leaving these questions open to be debated among the community for so long just leads to bad feeling and bitterness and is not good for the overall game.

So to use your logic, Truxillo was a BASTD port, they got pissed off with HAVOC taking GB ports and decided to give the port to a small Swedish clan. It is their port and they can decide who they give it to. Your argument does not work. If San Juan was HAVOCs and all HAVOC changed nation, how come the port did not become neutral? Someone must have stayed in Danish nation to remove all other Danish clans from friendlist till HAVOC had raised hostility and taken port. Why did HAVOC not just let the port go neutral and join in the free for all to raise hostility on the port? Because the only way they could guarantee getting the port themselves was to play loosely with the rules. May not be exactly the same as Truxillo, but surely even you must see that it is a similar abuse of game mechanics.

This has not been fixed if it is a bug, Loki runes still put people into hostility missions. You can tell when an AI has been taken over by a Loki by looking at the rank. If it is a Loki then the rank will be cadet (or whatever the lowest rank of the nation concerned).

Because we are not all colour blind. In present day you would not be able to train up as a ships captain if you were colour blind.

You are not forced to be friendly to an enemy nation, when they join the battle they are flying the same flag as you so are the same nation as you. Its no different than saying why am I forced to be friendly with a person that has used prolific forger to join my nation. The person joining the battle has a choice to join you or not, but once they join you then they are your ally during that instance. If it worked as you suggest then instances would become free for all's with people joining on your side just to sink you and help out the person you are attacking. The only other option is to prevent a third nations players joining in an instance, but I am sure more players would dislike that, because it would allow exploits for people to escape being tagged by starting a battle with a friend from a different nation. Even if you allowed multiple nations in an instance for a free for all, you would have to have a complex RoE and how would you ensure it was a free for all and not just a gank of 2, 3 or more nations players against 1. Example: a Brit ship of 500 BR attacks a French ship of the same BR, in the first 2 minutes a Prussian and a Dane join the battle again with similar BR. You now have 4 nations in the instance, are they all forced to fight each other or will they gang up 3 against 1 then 2 against 1? and what happens if only two nations are left but they are friends, how does the battle end? It would just be a mess. Also how would the battle remain open if there were different BR's, you could have lower BR in a battle and another nation joins on your side 15 minutes into the battle with the only intent to kill you and not the bigger target you are facing. It just would not work.

The problem is it is trying to force him to leave a battle that is finished instead of waiting the 15 minutes for the instance to close just so he can tag him in OW to sink him. If he was low on repairs the additional damage taken could affect his ability to repair for the next battle.

Maybe its time that the player who gets Lokied is also anonymous. Some people do not like random people messaging them telling them what they should be doing or trolling them if they have played badly. The player who uses the Loki is anonymous, so maybe the Lokied player should just appear as "enemy Player". Or better still just remove Loki Runes from the game.

I was just using that as an example and the same could have happened to the Swedes at Saint John's, another nation clan with alts could have quickly jumped to Sweden and taken Saint John's especially considering the hostility window it had of 01:00 ~ 04:00. Anyway I look forward to your next issue, your reporting may be a bit biased but still worth the read.

Its content for you if you setup an alt clan in the other nation and quickly grab hostility on that port when it comes up. This way as owner of the port you can restrict access to the ports investment and even destroy all investment in the port. Basically what it means now is that a strong group of players have a bunch of alts ready with forged papers to move quickly to a nation that has lost a port to AI, so they can raise hostility as soon as the window opens.