Castello Haufniensis

I tried 1234 but it did not work. I need pw to fix this @admin

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).

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.

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.

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.

This is not about the incident. It is about the general problem.

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)

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.

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

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).

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)

Yes.

Yes to both of the questions above.

I crash (6 times in 20 min) both in harbor and in OW. When I start in OW (after crash and when I leave harbor) I start in the water without my ship. After about 10 secs my ship appears. When I crash the screen frezes and the bar says that the program is not responding. I then return to the "enter shard "PVPEu1"..." screen I tried lowering graphics to medium and updating drivers, restarted computer and steam.... Any other suggestions?

I have been yo-yo ing in the login queue for the last 10 min ....from 121 to 80 and back to 90.....and then to 68.......

The cautionary tale of Captain Dirty This discussion is very general and seems to be abut the right play the game as you see fit. What if it is not about clans an nations? What if it is about the ambitions of one single individual, who thinks he will be happy if he has power in a little computer world where people amuse themselves fighting with ships made of bits? Admitted it seems quite idiotic use a lot of time, just to have wear the big I-am-the-king-of-this-soon-wiped-map sombrero. But I think you all know that this kind of thinking exist in MMOs. There are lots of ways to become Lord of the Bits. Lets focus on two: One clean, one dirty. If you are Captain Clean and an officer, you are willing to work for the people playing the game. You try to listen to the people in your faction, clan, alliance, guild or whatever, you try to make an informed descision based on what you hear. Being CaptClean is a lot of work, because in order to decide what "we" are doing, you have got to talk to many people, solve many disagreements and sometimes neglect your own account/character to balance things. If in the other hand you are Captain Dirty, and the purpose of the game is to feel the rush of self-satisfaction as you command the bits. Being CapDirty is also a lot of work, but the focus of the game is not hearing the other players opinions, but rather to position yourself as lord of the bits. How can you tell the difference between CaptClean and CapDirty? 1. CaptClean will try to hear a lot of opinions and try to find a compromise. CapDirty will make ultimatums like: "If you don´t do as I say, I will screw things up for you". 2. CaptClean will try to be consistent and refer to a common ground. CapDirty is always your best friend when you talk to him telling you: "You are a good guy". But when you are not there he will tell other people that they are the good guys and that you are an asshat (or even project his own thirst for power over the bits to you). 1. Is easily detectable: Playing chicken to destroy what other people have used a lot of time building up makes everyone see the birdy. 2) Is also easily detectable over time. If captX sometimes talks unfavorably about someone, and then changes his mind for no other reason that he needs something from that person to enhance his own power or plain: people telling you of back talking: I must admit that most leaders are somewhere between capt Clean and capDirty. But as a mere player of the game you are better of with people that are more like captClean and less like captDirty. Do we have a captDirty in the mix in den/nor on PvP1? MO: Start on pvp3 Find a clan. Tell everyone that wants to listen in that clan that the leader of the clan is powerhungry and that the diplomacy he has made is bad Get a number of your friends into the clan and let them write in the national chat that the deals negotiated by the biggest clans are made by powerhungry leaders and no god for the nation. You then arrange a meeting with all the leaders of the different clans in your faction on pvp3, with the other officers and the leader of your own clan (the biggest in the nation) Then you decide that the deals originally made is OK, that they are sound (probably because the other leaders could see the reason)...but it matters less that the deal you were so against is now good, because it is you sitting at the end of the table? Your old clan moves to pvp1 partly because the strife you caused in the nation (or let other cause?) but mostly because the population of the server was very low and it was hard to find PvP..... One week to ten days later you decide to change servers....and since then you have flattered, backtalked, made ultimatums, said you were sorry a number of times (how many times should we believe in your sincerity?) This story is just a perspective.....but I think the story is less about clans, and disagerment about who attacks which flag, and more about who calls the shots: Captain Clean or CapDirty. (Disclaimer: I know that the case of rNON seems to be linked to the story of DRUNK. I don´t know much about DRUNK except they took my ship south of Jacmel....so this perspective is perhaps only applicable to NON and not to DRUNK) And next time: Find someone else to suck up to. I have no vote.

Yes exactly..you missed the "pirate" button when you created your character. And I think you miss a point by calling yourself privateer (a comfortable euphemism in a game where that options is not available). Privateers were buying letters of marque and actually worked as "private" units of war for the government DURING WARTIME against the enemy of the nation. Right now you are just hiding behind the Swedish flag....exploiting the "no green on green" and "no tag on OW"-game mechanics....that is..uhhhm,,,,no so mature?

Eherm....for you DRUNK and RNON: You get the choice to be in a nation or be a pirate when you create your character. The explicit question is this: How is your flag design and do you want the disadvantage of not being able to attack people with the same flag (there is a sort of protection in this mechanic since 99.99% from your own nation actually wants to play as a member of that nation and not turn pirate. The implicit question, which is not atm supported by game mechanics is this: Do you wan to play with organized diplomacy?. If you feel bad that someone or some mechanic might overrule your own egoistic preferences regarding who you should attack, you should chose pirate. As it is now DRUNK and RNON could belong to any clan, because their primary argument seems to be: Nobody should decide our diplomacy- We want to play the game as we see fit...and the game mechanics allows us to do that!- Well fine...you are playing according to the game mechanics, but do not pretend that you belong to a nation if you just want to follow you own nose. To be just a little honest you should have chosen "pirate" as your option. Admitted as the game is now it is not transparent who has a majority or any other quantifiable reason for deciding diplomacy, but by the small numbers of DRUNK and RNON compared to the people who used a lot of time making some sort of diplomacy for their nations it should be obvious that you are not the majority (I know: You will not accept majority rule....and what does that make you?): As the game mechanics are now it still supports you with the protection of the flag and the protection any agreement with the nation you "chose" when you started playing. Because your clan tag is not visible in OW you can gank players who think they have an agreement with your "chosen" nation. You also are protected from attacks of the majority of your nation who have no way of trying to make diplomacy work. There are a couple of words for people who hides behind a flag of a nation they dont want to work with: Cowards and hypocrites. I hope that the game mechanics in the future at least lets us see the tag of the clans in OW so they cannot be used to protect pirates.