Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'abuse'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Naval Action
    • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (Русский язык)
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • History
    • Shipyard
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail
    • Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
    • Future games & special projects
    • General discussions
  • Naval Action Legends
    • General Discussions
    • Closed Beta Gameplay discussions
    • Legends Support Section
  • SealClubbingClub's Topics
  • Pyrates and rovers's Literature & Media
  • Pyrates and rovers's Gameplay / Roleplay
  • Pyrates and rovers's History - ships, events, personae
  • Clan [GWC] Nederlands talig {Aanmelding}'s Topics
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Rekrutacja
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Historia - Polska na morzach
  • Chernomoriya's Topics
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's Mysteries
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's The Book of Rules
  • Congress of Vienna's Global
  • Congress of Vienna's EU
  • Congress of Vienna's Historical
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's Discord Server
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's The Rulebook
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's Tactics (methods)
  • Ship Auctions's Topics
  • Creative - Captains & Ships Logs's How to...
  • Grupo de Tradução para Português's O que fazer primeiro...

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • The Enclave's Pearl Harbor Day

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 17 results

  1. RobSep

    US bigot

    The joys of an American that doesn't represent our community i guess....didn't post his views that all EU players are marxist as i didn't want to upset our capitalist devs ... i'll leave it to you people to decide
  2. Bodye

    griefing

    That aloha guy just wasting time of others for no reason. Guys like this one shouldn't be part of this game.
  3. During patrol missions, ships spawn in shops. As soon as they are spawned, they are all bought by players, to immediatly sell again with huge profits. There is nothing to prevent this, but it hurts th patrol missions. Like I can buy Snows from shop during Nassau Patrol, immediatly sell them on contract giving me a good profit. Bought for 53k, sold for 150k. For example below from the Tumbado Patrol Event. As you can see Renomees, Frigates and also Cerberus all bought from shop and currently being sold by the same players. I never blame the players, they can do this. But game should prevent you from doing this. My Suggestion 1: When ever there is patrol event, the shops around the patrol events sell the ships with same price but as shop stock is depleted it will be resupplied in a short amount of time to number of 3. So every 3-5 minutes there always be 3 ships of Frig, Cerberus, Reno at the ship shop, for Nassau 3 Snows, 3 Navy B, 3 Mercury etc. So it will be meaningless to buy them all and sell for profit, if npc stock is zero, it will be supplied in a very short time. This way people will be more willing to participate in event, as they can buy a mediorce ship with the normal price. My suggestion 2: When it is patrol event, supply shops with heavy wood ships like from oak, wo, lo instead of bermuda, fir etc. For example you can not compete with rich enemy players who can fight in heavy expensive ships like Heavy Rattlesnake. None of the ships in shop are a match for Rattle, but at least they will be stronger. Same goes with frigate class, as light wood frigs are useless in patrol events. My Suggestion 3: When ever repairs and rum supplied by npc in certain ports, it is immediatly bought and like above sold with profit. Let the shop supply small but continous amounts of repairs at a higher price, example: 500 hull for 1500 gold / 500 rig for 1300 gold / 1000 rum for 250 gold. So that nobody can manipulate the market like buying all repairs and selling them for 3000/3000/1000. But if this guy is producing he can sell 1499/1299/ 249 and still profit. So the NPC shops spawn prices and spawn rates can control the market manipulations. @admin please consider when you have time. Let's keep more players in the events.
  4. Recently @King of Crowns was banned from chat after presumably violating the rules set out for our community. It has become more and more apparent from his behavior that one of his primary alts located in the U.S. nation, which has been used to spy and interfere economically with U.S. nation activities is a player that goes by the name of "THE MERCHANT." Tonight, presumably because there was no way to continue his trolling in Global chat of U.S. players he lost his mind and not only admitted to being an alt, but also abused both clans and players of the U.S. nation, which is against the rules laid out by @admin here: We feel this is both in avoidance of his in-game chat ban and a violation of alt usage guidelines. Here's is the evidence from U.S. Nation Chat over the course of almost an hour of his abuse, ending in his out and out admitting of being @King of Crowns. Thank you for your consideration. Evidence:
  5. Some really skilled player here that I have never seen on the PvP leaderboard before? He actually sank yet another pirate near Little Inagua 10 minutes later... EDIT: Delete please.
  6. As many, not only me, in swedish nation suspected, these 2 players were meeting at La Mona, and always fought each other, only to earn PVP marks in an unfair matter. I think this 2 players may be 1 character, abusing the current system, but this is only my suspicion. Many times we saw the COMBAT NEWS report, and almost each time these 2? played against eachother. Here pictures. May the Tribunal decide what is right. Thank you. https://imgur.com/a/dZV5e https://imgur.com/a/bDslO
  7. Rigge1988

    Smuggler flag

    Simple solution: Make smuggler flag only available for trader's brig and down. This way we get rid of the lame smuggler flag abuse on LGV's and now also LGV Refit. Could also benefit RvR. Since you can't sail after your heavy trading goods with an indiaman in an enemy port. This way you'd have to conquer that port. Explanation: You will not be able to enable smuggler flag for ANY ship above trader's brig. Oooor... Advanced solution: Smuggler flag gets disabled once you have attacked someone in battle. Wouldn't that be realistic? You're pretty much detected as a smuggler if you were to attack someone? Makes sense to me... Explanation: You'd lose your smuggler flag if you attack anything. You can enable smuggler flag for ANY trader ship still. But you will have to go back to national/free/neutral port to re-enable.
  8. At the battle for Bermuda there were no less than 2 alts attempting to grief the PB fleets. One succeeded. Please investigate and punish these two accounts for alt abuse: brightlight [NAP]MorgotHola With our scouts we managed to pick up the first one and then screen him out of the port battle ourselves. The second one we were unaware of and he managed to join the Port Battle from far away only to sail into the fort fire and get killed. Both accounts are low level. One is French, the other Spanish. Both were in Mortar brigs. Both pretended like noobs but are clearly players with some experience with the game. We contacted devs with our suspicions about the French account prior to the PB. The case against brightlight: The player was 1 day old at the time of the PB. It was created after the Port Battle for Bermuda was even generated… No player sails all the way to Bermuda on his second day - in a mortar brig. Please also look into who traded him the Mortar Brig or any gold he spent to buy it. The player was spotted sailing up earlier in the day. The player sailed to the south of the port and logged off near the edge of the circle, showing forethought and malice, by indicating knowledge of the PB system, PB entry and PB layout that no 1 day old player would have. The player was told not to enter the port battle, and answered in the affirmative. Since we obviously didn’t trust his word, we dispatched a screener of our own to keep brightlight from sabotaging the PB. Just as the PB started he entered open world. This screenshot is from ca. 1:30 minute after the PB started when he was caught into battle, right before he would have been able to enter the PB. (original picture with timestamp can be submitted to devs if necessary) The case against MargotHola: MargotHola is another low level player who decided to make the sail all the way from La Habana to Bermuda to sabotage a PB. He was one of the first players to join the PB, despite us joining immediately when the 2 minute timer was up. I use a stop watch to time our entry to Port Battles, so the alt must have been sitting in OW, ready to enter the PB as soon as it was open to anyone without hostility, and intent on clicking fast to be able to get into the PB. The alt joined really far away from the port, in an illogical spot, and he sailed into the fort fire to get killed by it later in the battle. The alt ignored requests to come on Teamspeak, but answered some messages in game-chat. He told that there had been a request in chat for a mortar brig to Bermuda - an obvious lie. He also makes basic grammar mistakes in his answers indicating that he is probably using Google Translate in order to answer only in Spanish. Video of the battle: (comments about the alts on teamspeak during battle should be ignored as made in affect, I take it for granted that the enemy port battle fleet was unaware and unconnected to the sabotage)
  9. (edit) Bugger me, I finicked up the title of the topic. Watch out for the negative rule formulation. If I use a zero cost ship (/Basic Cutter) to tag someone, my risk is so low that it can be construed as abuse. Hence I should not be able to tag with a Basic Cutter (or any other future potential zero cost ship). This excludes ships granted through redeemables. Ergo the rule should be: TL;DR A zero cost ship (/Basic Cutter) must not be able to tag. Note that to counter Basic Cutters all you have to do is blow some grape, but where is the fun in that. I'm trying to close the gaps around tagging, hence this question. Related discussions are: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14784-defensive-tagging/ http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15679-br-difference-threshold-should-not-include-ow-ai-fleets/ http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16336-reduce-tag-timer/ http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16352-naval-action-needs-a-vengeance-system/ I'll keep the top-level post up to date if you want any references to be added.
  10. The British Captain Seaman Staynes has for several weeks has been involved in hindering fleets engaged around port battles by ALT tagging enemy single ships to pull our fleets into combat, and joining port battles and not fighting. Today this ALT allowed the French fleet to get a flag to Manzanilla by tagging in several of our pursuit ships and then our main battle fleet outside of Manzanilla allowing the French to plant the flag. This is clearly GAME BREAKING and needs to be fixed! ALTS should not be able to influence port battles or hinder fleet moments. I'm not accusing the French of using this mechanic to plant a flag, but clearly someone is trying to work against the British. Seaman Staynes at the Battle of Port Morant. Joining and not saying a word. Seaman Staynes Tags British ships outside of Manzanilla Seaman Staynes tags more British ships into combat on the way to Manzanilla
  11. DrunkenSloth

    KF Flag Abuse

    This tribunal is against the clan KF(Kungliga Flottan) for abusing flag mechanics to prevent us from launching an attack on Codrington, at about 20:30 server time my clan was making preparations for an assault on Codrington. A player named "King Gustavus Adolphus" bought the flag and we figured they would bring the flag to Codrington, we set up just to the east of the port after a 10 minute sail. However judging from KF refusing to answer our question on where the flag was, instead responding with "buhu" and "We are playing the game how we want, just like you are..." A group of about 13 ships myself included waited outside Codrington for the entire duration of the flag, but it was never planted and trolling was the only response we got to our question. I originally didn't want to post this into Tribunal because of the flame war that it will most likely create, but for the sake of the game this blatant trolling and abuse of game mechanics has to be exposed. This was witnessed by many players in Sweden and succeeded in ruining the assault on Codrington and wasting the time of everyone that participated. Below I will provide screenshots of the flag carrier who turned out to be a Kadett that joined Sweden on March,12,2016. http://prntscr.com/anexat http://prntscr.com/anexr9 http://prntscr.com/anexx1 I will also provide the chat logs if a moderator would be interested. (To clarify this is not against all KF members, only those responsible for this abuse.)
  12. Many people in the English Nation are getting dragged into battles by 'friendly' Basic Cutters attacking enemy PVP player fleets that vastly outnumber the Brit players that get dragged in. It is thought that the Danes and Pirates are using ALTs in British Basic Cutters to hang around areas where they can attack Danes or Pirate fleets, dragging in unsuspecting Brit players in the area into a battle where they are heavily outnumbered and CAN NOT CALL REINFORCMENTS. The usual deal is that it's a Basic Cutter, Midshipman, No Clan etc. This is happening very often and is becoming a pain in the back side. Rarely happens against AI fleets. Enough Said.
  13. Alrighty, I think that a lot of people are going to be waiting/dreading for this Tribunal post to be put up here. I don't feel like I am personally the best when it comes to forums, but it seems that this is the only avenue that allows for justice to be served in a case like this. I am fine with there being spats in chat and even attacks on the open sea as I think most of us are, but I do not believe that this kind of abuse should be allowed in game, and the people responsible should be punished. The people who griefed our entire clan out of attacking ports that we had planned the entire week waiting for and blocked our ability to play the game, are willingly destroying our gameplay on purpose out of spite. I hope that all of you will agree this should not be allowed, but the only question that should be asked is, what will the punishment be? So I am the leader of the clan FTS inside of Naval Action, we play on the Pirate faction as most of you know. Today we decided to get on early with as many members we could muster during the European Timezone, people dedicated time and effort getting this to happen. So we all logged in early and when the time window for the first port that we planned to attack opened, we sailed out and successfully captured Samana with minimal resistance. This did not go over well with a few of the Pirate Clans who do not agree with what we were doing, that was fine they prefer a certain playstyle and that is ok. They didn't just leave it there though, they had two of their officers purposefully pull flags to to prevent FTS from attacking the remaining ports. As you can see in that screenshot these two officers pulled flags at the same time for ports that were next to the ones we had just recently taken. So now you ask, did they plan on attacking those ports? Probably not, but give them the benefit of the doubt. Until they openly admit it inside of pirate chat. Now, not that Kuthara is the leader of the clan that these two players come from and they are both officers inside of the clan. Now, I'm not one to normally post on the Tribunal trying to get other people punished, but these 2 or 3 players essentially robbed my friends and I of our time and effort, by abusing game mechanics and then gloating about it. To top it all off, we were not able to pull the flag for those ports after they expired, eliminating any possibility of our plans of taking them. Will all the evidence that is here, it is obvious the intention of these individuals and the abuse of current game mechanics that caused a huge discussion on a previous Tribunal post. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/11759-abuse-of-flag-mechanics-2-decision-needed/ These players are obviously guilty of griefing even if not necessarily exploiting. They had the clear intent for this outcome and were probably aware of the Tribunal post discussion about this same topic, but they decided to pull the trigger on their plan regardless. So the question remains, do we want these types of players knowingly abusing game mechanics and griefing other players who are testing the game? Or will we make an example of these two and prevent players from using this style of gameplay in the future, because they know that they will not get away with it. If you made it through this entire post, thank you for reading down this far and I would appreciate any discussion in this thread.
  14. Hey guys, I hate to rat on this guy in this way, but the "mechanic" he highlighted as a good thing very much seems to be an abuse of the trading system and a major impact on long-range trading activity (see thread here). In short, it's currently possible to move large quantities of goods far, otherwise dangerous distances instantly via the easy capture of low level NPC ships - the goods wishing to be transported and sold at a different port are simply loaded aboard a combat vessel and then transferred to said low level, captured NPC ships, in which the captured ship is instantly transported to a previously constructed warehouse on the other side of the map with no risk to those goods whatsoever. I don't think that having captured NPC ships transfer goods to faraway ports is a bad thing, but the fact that they can do so instantly and with no risk to that cargo definitely is. If knowledge of this mechanic becomes widespread, it will seriously impact the long range shipping aspect of this game as people will no longer move their goods in a fashion which puts them at risk of capture. And prowling the sea lanes in hopes of picking off a loaded, unlucky merchant ship is what piracy and privateering in this era was all about!! I strongly believe this mechanic needs to be addressed as soon as possible for both the good the economy and excitement of the game.
  15. Dear Admins, The danes are at it again with a second character on the pirate faction and attacking to drag people coming out/in the port into the battle, they called out for a fight in global that went unanswered and then one of the danes vanished which I guessed he teleported to capital or logged out and a little pirate in a yacht apears and drags a few of the pirates into a battle. He then rushes into his supposed friends and just dies and logs out to I guess go back to his danish character and this is not the first time the same thing had occured a few days before with the same guy doing exactly the same thing. the picture shows the dane players and the guy at the top of the pirate faction is the second account who keeps abusing this combat system at our port. i belive this is not the first post about this guy. "Dedo1911". Either ban him or limit his ability to have more than one charater. Suggestions to the dev of the game to reduce or stop this, make a safe zone around a port where players cant be dragged into combat or even better have a system that asks if you wish to join a fight if you are not the intended target but that can cause issues I am sure. Or create a max character of one or disallow them to create more characters of other nations. Either way this needs to be fixed or the abuse of this exploit will continue and will be negitive on the game if it continues into the early acess. Thank you for reading, From Salzi.
  16. I posted this earlier in another thread, but maybe this needs an own thread to bring it to the admin's attention and to make it possible to discuss. This is to solve some problems with how battle instances work, especially the abuse of game mechanics where a chased player joins an ongoing battle to escape. -- Maybe we should get rid of these "sides" in battles, and just go by flags. Would be a bit more complicated, since suddenly more than just two factions can be in one battle at the same time, but a bit more realistic. I know that it would be very hard for the system to detect who is the winner and who is the looser in a battle, and when the battle is over, but maybe we should get rid of that too. When all enemies are sunk you have that "leave" timer, and when noone is shooting anymore for however long they can leave. Since xp and money do not depend on winning or losing the battle (I think) it is not needed to set terms for win and lose. Or, implement a politics system, so that the system knows which sides are friendly to each other and which are at war. This politics system can also detect who fires at whom, and maybe show on a Nation's "billboard" which nations fired at them to enable players to make political decisions like declaring war, or sending a warning to another nation that is in peace with them and fired at them nevertheless.
  17. This issue has several times been sited in the "Major annoyances" thread and I want to point out that this is not an abuse of a game play mechanic. The real world equivilant of this game mechanic is a ships captain taking a walk out to the headland to see what is sailing on the horizon before he sets sail. It's a perfectly legitimate action and as such should be retained.
×