Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Castello Haufniensis

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Castello Haufniensis

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

127 profile views
  1. Please explain how the playing field was not even from the beginning?
  2. Seems like you have a serious case of forum policeitis. Are you some kind of selfproclaimed judge of which opinions we are allowed to express? Where does it say that we have to find the positive in an idea even if we think that there are some serious issues with it? I am sure that the admin+moderators can tell me if I am overstepping any forum rules. If it is not ok to point out that you think an idea is bad, there is not much point in having a discussion. You see I am not a lapdog of the admin. I am a paying customer, and the changes proposed actually makes me feel like I have been fooled. And i think it is important for the game to point out that some players might feel fooled by proposed changes. Dont you think so?
  3. Your first post both state that this is INFO about the next patch and you write "discuss". That is a double bind topic starter. Is this info or a discussion? My opinion about accounts beeing able to build/craft in harbors, where they have good is as follows (i.e. this is part of a discussion not critque of info): I would feel like you have made a fool of me for using hours grinding HDF (time I could have used on more funny parts of the game) to upgrade my clans crafting port and then you want to make it possible for ANY alt to craft in it if the ALT stay within certain limits. That means that the hard work I (my clan and 5-7 other clans on our friends list) put into the game is trivially to the benefit of our ig-enmies (and is not even providing me and my clanmates+friends with an economic advantage of beeing able to sell ships from our harbor) And the fact that the upgrade system has just been implemented (we stopped grinding HDF when this news came....but the the hours spent are fresh in memory) just makes it worse.... My opinion on the subject (as part of the discussion) is that Karma should not give access to building and crafting...
  4. I tried 1234 but it did not work. I need pw to fix this @admin
  5. Ok...I need to make myself clear. I have said it a couple of times in this thread: This is not about the one case. The reason why I bring it up in the suggestion is because it is a question to the general function of the tribunal and the tools for discovering people using exploits...ok..clear..it is not about this one guy!!! And as I also stated: As players we do not posses the tools to investigate these things...we can take a screenshot that´s all: I cannot investigate because it is possible to delete a character and continue on with the same user. I tried to point out that if there are rules against sabotage via alternative accounts, there is no way we as players can prove anything, it is a surrogate solution to have moderators look at screenshots. But I got it cleared up: Sabotage is ok in this game. Then I suggest that: 1. Sabotage via alts is made illegal. (Reason: It is not a proper game if you can pay to win) 2. Devs. look into the possibility for logging and cross-referencing accounts (Reason: As a player you have NO WAY to investigate these things) I would like to say that I started this topic to suggest a change to the "juridical" system of the game to be dependent on data rather than the forum moderators (with an impossible task). Right now I feel insulted.....I really like the game and I think that it should not be ruined/made unplayable by people exploiting it. I will not press the issue further but I think it is a shame and sad that you cannot see the distinction between the singular case (it is a minor particular detail) and my questions to the function of the tribunal (which is part of the game).
  6. 1. You are agreeing that it is ok and not damaging to the spirit of the game, if I get my alt and the alts of 5 other in my clan to "sabotage" the PB of our competitors? The idea is hereby passed on to anyone who wants to pay a little extra to win. 2. What I am raising is a problem for the game. Instead of making a ridiculous insult you should consider that other games have been ruined by people being able to use exploits. When I am asking if there is a problem it is because I am asking for a fix. If you have no fix- fine! I would suggest however that you looked at how you could log info and check simple correlations between characters instead of legitimizing "sabotage" which might give you a short-term profit from the ones who will pay a little extra to win but long term will ruin your game. I can at least conclude that the tribunal is there to give a false sense of justice and that the admin do not think that it is a problem that people with more than one account "sabotage" the game for other players (as long as they pay good money for the extra account). In short: Sorry I see it now: There is no problem at all.
  7. Yes. But it is a question what is considered a proof that can lead to further investigation. Apparently a screenshot of "something happened" is not considered cause for a further investigation. Since a screenshot does not give an image of the intentions of the players I suggest, with all respect, that the moderators are not given the hard task of deciding this on their own, because if the corpus delicti can not be given via a screenshot, then the moderators quite frankly have no business playing judges. If however the ones given the task of judging in these cases have access to something besides the screenshot or can pass suspicious cases on to someone who has. It is just a matter of what the game logs: A tool that cross references the names of the players trading partners with players on "the other side of the battle" A log of how many times the user have changed names of the character. And an ip log. Might at least make it harder to cheat. But may also give us some sense that exploits are being punished.
  8. I respect that. But a lot of the tribunal cases I have seen so far has been like this: 1. A player provides a screenshot stating that "something happened" 2. A moderator dismisses the case because the screenshot does not prove beyond any doubt that "something happened intentionally" Since "2" calls for a investigation into the subjective intention of the player that made "something happen" any case can be dismissed on the grounds of lacking evidence. If that is the case the tribunal is really just a thing that gives a false sense of justice and there is a deep problem if the devs. have no easy way to check if someone are cheating. Sorry for not being naive.
  9. There is no way to tell if it is one guy once (because you can just change the name of your alt). Your exaggerated metaphor is not what I am asking for. A simple history check or ip check if it is possible would not be hard to make. I have seen games destroyed my multiaccounting. This is not about this one case. It is about a general problem that could destroy the game, especially if PBs are going to have more impact as it has been advertised. You are not mistaken. But it has nothing to do with the problem. No matter what rate the ships are of you can destroy the enemy by joining them and surrendering (and it is getting a little nastier if you are actually able to join the PBs of your allies (BC your alt will be able to join the PBs of multiple nations)
  10. I think the developers should take possible exploits of possible multiaccounting players more serious than right now. I just asked a question about a possible multiaccount in the tribunal: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/13718-ilay-gb-multi-or-newb/ I am sure that OlavDeng is just answering according to the directions of the developers. But if this is the way cases are handled the game has a problem. The reason why I am asking the tribunal to take a look at a case is because I want someone to look into the history of an account and see if a suspicion is founded or unfounded, not to have a FORUM MODERATOR decide if my screenshot constitute a conclusive evidence against a player. It is clear from my post that what I am raising is a suspicion, not providing final evidence. Final evidence is not accessible to me in this case and if you can provide an example of what constitutes irrefutilble evidence for exploiting multi-accounting I will be happy to learn. * If this game has no way of dealing with toxic multi-accounting players it is a disaster, because cheating will eventually become an integrated part of the gameplay (I am not talking about players who has alts to hold stuff and help crafting.....that is perhaps a stretch of the spirit of the game, but it is at least not destructive and I guess the developers are happy with the extra income?) If cases are handled as in the above case, nothing pervent me and 5 guys from my alliance to start alternative accounts and join the port combat of our competitors nation. We just need to delete our player and create a new (and get a new ship in a freetown) each time we have performed our little stunt. 5 spots taken in a full PB by cerbs instead of 1st rates is a serious game changer, it is a winning tactic, is it cheating? Is there anyway to deal with it? Not right now it seems.
  11. Yesterday [RUS] clan bought a flag for Aves. We were 25 1st rates in the attack fleet. It is a bugger if a 1st rate is left outside for obvious reasons. After we had shampooed our herrings (entered combat) we realized that a player ILAY had joined the combat in a Cerb and a 1st rate was left outside. While it is possible that ILAY is just a eager newbie who did not know that he was taking up a spot in the PB it is suspicious that he surrendered after a few minutes without setting sails, so his only function in the combat was to take up a spot. Here is a screenshot of the combatant list after a few minutes after he surrendered: http://imgur.com/K6qT6aJ
  12. I think you need more contingency in the "who can vote" arena. Reason: The ports closes to the capital will be taken first. The participants in the conquests near the capital has more "secure" holdings than the subsequent and thus have "safer" votes. At the same time the turnover of "old" players should be grater than the turnover of new players provided the game is able to fix the interest of players for a period of time (: players who have "been there-done that" are more prone to stop than new players who find everything new and exciting. Another effect of the conquest close to the capital providing safer votes will be that a number of individuals will have more power just because they were there from the start....while this is inevitable as a result of experience, new players will have a hard time getting influence and their influence will be more contingent than that of the "old" lords (i.e. the "parliament"). Another effect of this system would be that there are two conflicting hierarchies of power: The one of the clan and the one of the national parliament. An individual player could have a lot to say in the parliament while the people doing a lot of organisational work (the leader and officers of the clan) can only appeal to his good sense (the ones with the "responsibility" for the well being of the clans are not necessarily the ones who have a say in national matters). Suggestion/solutions: A more contingent system based on "recent" events (or perhaps votes should be redistributed when lords have been inactive for some time). Or: A national voting system based on "clan strength" defined by the #ofplayers/*ranks/*ports conquered by a clan. The "diplomat" could be a post that wield the power of the clan in the parliament (and how the diplomat is chosen would be up to the individual clan). I know you are using "realism" as a argument for implementing mechanics. But this is a game. "realism" is not a sufficient ground and a good argument for implementing anything. After 3 real weeks of sailing without seeing a sail or a coastline most of your game "testers/paying costumers" would have had just enough realism to quit the game. The job is sort the good/exiting realism from the boring and bad. Perhaps Lord Nelson was a lord by conquest but a lot of influence is inherited. You seem to argue for a specific mechanic because of the Nelson case (or at least you seem to do that) but it is not realism saying that the power to decide on national policies was given to the heroic lords. The power to declare war or make peace were in most cases the kings (with variations). Instead of accentuating one case as the basis of a system and dismissing the suggestions of your paying testers by pointing to a mistaken "realism", I think you should acknowledge that people who give you feedback here are using their time improve the game instead of talking down to them. So NO the heoric lords of the era was not given power over forgin policy. So it is unrealistic...but perhaps it can be used as the basis for a system of political influence in a game (with some tweaks and stuff).
  13. I do not know if this already has been suggested, but I think this could be an idea for making the Port Battles more diverse and exiting for more people. I guess that the recent tweak of the xp/rank system has in part been made to allow more players to crew the 1st through 3rd rates that seem to be the requirement for participating in port battles. The result is a that a couple of thousand ships of the line now sail the Caribbean and a lot of admiral players are looking for challenges that are not rewarded by the game as it is now. As it is now the port battles are the main scene for conquest and a test of cooperation of the nations and clans but they are very similar [except for the distinction between shallow and deep water battles...which may be expanded to regional captitals (1-3rd rates) deep water (4-5th rates) and shallow (6-7th rates)] But why not make an individual profile for each port for instance (the number of ships that can join on each side) San Juan 3 1st rates 4 2nd rates 6 3rd rates 7 4th rates 10 5th rates Moscscito cay 2 5th rates 16 6th rates 10 7th rates Along with the "Land sighted" thing that makes each port individual (E.g. the knowledge of shallows) so that a nation can be "experts" in their own harbors and players who have ships of lower rate will be able join without blocking the bigger ships from entering (a mistake you are getting yelled at right now) (a system based on total BR or rating intervals would also be better and more diverse than the current system)
  14. Thanks for the answer: I think you are disregarding the fact that you need to be lvl 35 to craft the connies and you need to prioritize making them over e.g. high grade notes...It is true that the raw gold cost and the work hour cost seems to make crafted "rammers" a possibility. But if you take into consideration what the crafters have to prioritize between it is not a matter of resources and work hours.
  • Create New...