Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'green damage'.
There have been multiple complaints about "friendly" players joining a battle then stealing the ship another player had intended to capture. The most recent complaint was in the Tribunal subforum (see http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/10855-ships-joining-friendly-battle-and-griefing/) but there are others. I posted a suggested solution in a thread in the General subform (see http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/10854-friendly-players-sinking-the-ship-you-tagged-and-are-capturing/#entry192894) but I am reposting it here for extra visibility. The core problem is that when another player joins a battle on your side, then participates in a way undesirable to you, you have no way to make them stop. You cannot shoot or ram them because you will get negative XP and green on green damage is prohibited. And yet, there are legitimate reasons to allow other players to join (such as when the players are on teams at war with each other, and they deliberately want to interfere with their opponents' gameplay). My suggestion is this: Grant the initial attacker and defender a special role in a battle. Let's call them the 'prime' attacker and 'prime' defender. The prime attacker is the person who tagged the target on the open sea, and the prime defender is the specific captain who was targeted. Within the battle, when people join the attacker's team, the prime attacker is allowed to redesignate them as 'neutral' instead of 'attacker'. this makes them attackable by both the attacker and defender. Likewise, when people join the defender's team, the prime defender is allowed to redesignate them as 'neutral' instead of 'defender', which again makes them attackable by both sides. There should probably be some warning time before this takes effect, to allow players who find themselves declared 'neutral' time to retreat from the battle (or reposition themselves in preparation to be shot at). Players may not join as 'neutral' directly, they must join as either the attacker or the defender (unless the attacker or defender is the same nation as the joining player, in which case the joining player *must* join as their own nation). This is exactly the same joining mechanic we have now (players who join must declare themselves to be on one side or the other). A time limit on how long "redesignation" may be done might be desirable to prevent players from accepting help for the beginning of a fight then declaring allies "neutral" when it comes time to capture prizes, but I think on balance redesignation needs to be permitted the entire time the prime attacker or defender remains in the battle, otherwise griefers may hide their intentions until the timer expires. If the prime attacker or defender intends to leave a battle that's still in progress, they may hand off their role to the friendly player of their choice. If they leave without designating a successor, the role may be passed to a random friendly player, or the one who has been in the battle the longest. NPCs never take the role of prime attacker or prime defender (NPC's never refuse your help). In this way, a player can decline help on either side, and enforce their decision without resorting to green on green damage. I think this is what we really need -- an "official" way to say, "no, I do not want your help, go away or I'll consider it an act of war".