Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Alts for port battles activities - BAN WARNING


admin

Recommended Posts

Just now, admin said:

 

Please stop misreading our posts and trying to push them to other situations.

We have zero information from the recent tribunals that alts were surrendering or alts were killed to generate hostility. If there were such tribunals you should contact mods and ink and cross post in the tribunal. if it was not done.. its the reporter's fault. But empty witch hunts about potential collusion are not going to cut it here - Mueller does not have time for us to investigate this too. 

 

Informal alliances are allowed and if you informal ally will let you use his hostility missions its allowed. Its diplomacy.
Sinking alts to gain hostility or marks or other rewards is not allowed STILL And will cause bans.

у клана SORRY был неформальный союз с французами когда вы их банили вы готовы извинится и компенсировать ребятам все так как ваше мнение теперь поменялось?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, soulfuor said:

у клана SORRY был неформальный союз с французами когда вы их банили вы готовы извинится и компенсировать ребятам все так как ваше мнение теперь поменялось? 

EPIC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, soulfuor said:

у клана SORRY был неформальный союз с французами когда вы их банили вы готовы извинится и компенсировать ребятам все так как ваше мнение теперь поменялось?

с удовольствием забаним повторно так как французы в том бою были без пушек и все весело фармили конвест марки за порты (тогда еще были конквест марки
договорные бои запрещены правилами
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, admin said:

 

Please stop misreading our posts and trying to push them to other situations.

We have zero information from the recent tribunals that alts were surrendering or alts were killed to generate hostility. If there were such tribunals you should contact mods and ink and cross post in the tribunal. if it was not done.. its the reporter's fault. But empty witch hunts about potential collusion are not going to cut it here - Mueller does not have time for us to investigate this too. 

 

Informal alliances are allowed and if you informal ally will let you use his hostility missions its allowed. Its diplomacy.
Sinking alts to gain hostility or marks or other rewards is not allowed STILL And will cause bans.

and what's about frontlines mechanic? what have you worked for if it is enought entering in an ''informal ally's'' mission to skip the Hostility mission distance and setting PB for allied nation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, admin said:

 

Please stop misreading our posts and trying to push them to other situations.

We have zero information from the recent tribunals that alts were surrendering or alts were killed to generate hostility. If there were such tribunals you should contact mods and ink and cross post in the tribunal. if it was not done.. its the reporter's fault. But empty witch hunts about potential collusion are not going to cut it here - Mueller does not have time for us to investigate this too. 

 

Informal alliances are allowed and if you informal ally will let you use his hostility missions its allowed. Its diplomacy.
Sinking alts to gain hostility or marks or other rewards is not allowed STILL And will cause bans.

Excuse me.

Granted that killing enemies is not generating any hostility (aside defensively) the only use for alts is farming hostility missions (against AIs) normally not accessable.

And a moderator clearly said it is allowed.

If I misread mod post, I could be only happy granted my opinion is different; still I would accept (any) Devs' statement on this matter acting accordingly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think the issue is that with other nations being allowed and able to help gain hostility in parts of the map where a nation would never be able to get to itself, kind of makes the whole frontline idea pointless. And it doesn't need to be an alliance, just needs to be one char.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, admin said:

с удовольствием забаним повторно
договорные бои запрещены правилами

 

какой оффтоп я про альтов и говорил,через альта бф замутили договорняк все в тему не стоит беспределить вам не кажется?я клиент и я хочу объяснения что в игре разрешено а что нет четко и конкретно и в чем разница между договорным ПБ и просто договорным боем есть стримы с договорняками с альтами и прочим почему одним это можно другим нет?или это всем можно ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Excuse me.

Granted that killing enemies is not generating any hostility (aside defensively) the only use for alts is farming hostility missions (against AIs) normally not accessable.

And a moderator clearly said it is allowed.

If I misread mod post, I could be only happy granted my opinion is different; still I would accept (any) Devs' statement on this matter acting accordingly.

Excuse me too
I was responding to your message IN THIS TOPIC about usage of alts for hostility. And this topic was brought up multiple times on the forums and in game chats as if this topic can be used to ban someone for using other's hostility missions. This rule/post is about surrendering, sinking alts to quickly set up a PB.

 Not about asking real or imaginary friend to take a hostility mission. 

BTW We preemptively removed OW generation of hostility to solve 90% of the problems. In hostility missions usage of alts to generate hostility points by surrendering or sinking them is not allowed and is still banneable (for example bringing 10 ships to an enemy side to sink them to gain hostility faster).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Liq said:

I just think the issue is that with other nations being allowed and able to help gain hostility in parts of the map where a nation would never be able to get to itself, kind of makes the whole frontline idea pointless. And it doesn't need to be an alliance, just needs to be one char.

Ya, this indeed.

I thought Frontlines was to make front lines where nations are touching each other and have to battle it out to move forward to push back the enemy. If we are simply able to jump around them by using another nation, or heck even the enemy nation alt/rogue member, then Frontlines is useless. Just delete it and let us attack anywhere from anywhere, because basically that is what is possible with alt/friend hostilities.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, soulfuor said:

какой оффтоп я про альтов и говорил,через альта бф замутили договорняк все в тему не стоит беспределить вам не кажется?я клиент и я хочу объяснения что в игре разрешено а что нет четко и конкретно и в чем разница между договорным ПБ и просто договорным боем есть стримы с договорняками с альтами и прочим почему одним это можно другим нет?или это всем можно ?

взятие миссии разрешено правилами
заход в миссии разрешен правилами
утопление неписей дает хостилити утопившему и тоже разрешено правилами
эти механики доступны всем и разрешены - вам им и всем остальным


про ваш пример
фарм марок на альтах запрещен правилами
и даже не только на альтах договорные бои для фарма марок между игроками запрещены правилами - так как в вашем примере игроки сливающие свои корабли и не собирались драться - не взяли даже пушек и тупо еще решили это постримить - хихикая в чате что как щас круто марки пофармим. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, huliotkd said:

so  can i use an ALT to take Hostility mission where i cannot with MAIN, then i can join with my MAIN and set PB for MAIN nation?

 

this was already answered multiple times (i even posted about this SEVERAL days ago).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, admin said:

взятие миссии разрешено правилами
заход в миссии разрешен правилами
утопление неписей дает хостилити утопившему и тоже разрешено правилами
эти механики доступны всем и разрешены - вам им и всем остальным


про ваш пример
фарм марок на альтах запрещен правилами
и даже не только на альтах договорные бои для фарма марок между игроками запрещены правилами - так как в вашем примере игроки сливающие свои корабли и не собирались драться - не взяли даже пушек и тупо еще решили это постримить - хихикая в чате что как щас круто марки пофармим. 

так а как вы узнает о намерениях?я могу говорить что мы просто деремся а по факту набиваем марки или наоборот.может все же стоит максимально конкретизировать ? и что насчет стороннего по?для игры в два окна?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, admin said:

Excuse me too
I was responding to your message IN THIS TOPIC about usage of alts for hostility. And this topic was brought up multiple times on the forums and in game chats as if this topic can be used to ban someone for using other's hostility missions. This rule/post is about surrendering, sinking alts to quickly set up a PB.

 Not about asking real or imaginary friend to take a hostility mission. 

BTW We preemptively removed OW generation of hostility to solve 90% of the problems. In hostility missions usage of alts to generate hostility points by surrendering or sinking them is not allowed and is still banneable (for example bringing 10 ships to an enemy side to sink them to gain hostility faster).

 

Still, I would apologize, the issue, that makes all Frontline great concept empty is there.

And it was the real question.

A question a Mod, finally replied: it is fair farming other nation hostility missions (how, friend or alt, is not relevant) to flip a Port otherwise un-attackable.

Therefore Santiago russian attack was fair. And we were wrong refusing to defend it (not relevant in anycase IMO).

Therefore, and this was the question, if tomorrow I farm other nation hostility missions to flip a port otherwise I cant get missions to, it will be fair. Surely till next hotfix.

 

In the end we asked only for a clear statement about what's fair or not to be able to not break a rule.

Nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, huliotkd said:

sorry then, i didn't found your post about. 

can you link it?

no problem. 
Currently  - it is a legacy feature - you generate hostility for yourself even if you enter other people mission. This leads to this situation when legacy mechanic interferes with the new feature. OW hostility was removed but this legacy hostility calculation was not. It will take time to remove it from hostility missions too. 

 

In the past we spent too much time investigating alts and in 90% of cases those investigations did not find alt abuse. But to eliminate all concerns (and even conspiracy theories) port battles moved to clan based mechanic. It was not done because we want clans to fight (we want nations to fight) but human nature forces us to use clan based conquest as clans can control who enter the port battle - thus eliminating alts from port battles completely. Battlegroups also solved some of the alt concerns in OW screenings and interceptions.

As a result - hostility missions WILL ALSO move to clan based mechanics or will only generate hostility for the mission owner. But it will take time to implement. Before they are reworked - you can use legacy mechanics - it is not an exploit.
Wipe will happen once this feature gets stabilized. There is no point to wipe the map after every flaw is found.  

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for this clarification. We understand now that it will take time to move hostility generation fully to clan based mechanics. But this means of bypassing the Frontline Mechanic WILL be fixed before release. yes?

It is too bad we cannot see how Frontlines would have worked, and are intended to work. How WOULD rats and France work their way onto the US coast, for instance? Would they have had to start down in Florida and fight their way up the  coast? We may never know until game release...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, admin said:

As a result - hostility missions WILL ALSO move to clan based mechanics or will only generate hostility for the mission owner. But it will take time to implement. Before they are reworked - you can use legacy mechanics - it is not an exploit.
Wipe will happen once this feature gets stabilized. There is no point to wipe the map after every flaw is found.  

Obviously this isn't the right thread, but this comment is interesting.  Anymore info on the increase in clan based mechanics?

I'm going to assume that everyone in clan X will need to be in clan x to generate hostility for that said clan. Or maybe clan X + friends list?  Once this is done, what would the advantages of staying in a nation based game format be?  This would essentially be a clan + alliance based game then. 

Edited by Severus Snape
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Preechur Blackheart said:

Thank you for this clarification. We understand now that it will take time to move hostility generation fully to clan based mechanics. But this means of bypassing the Frontline Mechanic WILL be fixed before release. yes?

It is too bad we cannot see how Frontlines would have worked, and are intended to work. How WOULD rats and France work their way onto the US coast, for instance? Would they have had to start down in Florida and fight their way up the  coast? We may never know until game release...

That's exactly what will happen along with the mad race for nassau, marsh, Kidd's and Bermuda

Edited by Oli Garchy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, admin said:

no problem. 
Currently  - it is a legacy feature - you generate hostility for yourself even if you enter other people mission. This leads to this situation when legacy mechanic interferes with the new feature. OW hostility was removed but this legacy hostility calculation was not. It will take time to remove it from hostility missions too. 

 

In the past we spent too much time investigating alts and in 90% of cases those investigations did not find alt abuse. But to eliminate all concerns (and even conspiracy theories) port battles moved to clan based mechanic. It was not done because we want clans to fight (we want nations to fight) but human nature forces us to use clan based conquest as clans can control who enter the port battle - thus eliminating alts from port battles completely. Battlegroups also solved some of the alt concerns in OW screenings and interceptions.

As a result - hostility missions WILL ALSO move to clan based mechanics or will only generate hostility for the mission owner. But it will take time to implement. Before they are reworked - you can use legacy mechanics - it is not an exploit.
Wipe will happen once this feature gets stabilized. There is no point to wipe the map after every flaw is found.  

Thank you for this clarification. May I please suggest you check out this poll and use it in considerations for the patch. Of course, it needs more votes, but I think we can get the gist on some of it. I think a nation should be able to work on Hostility Missions together. I currently like how the clan with the most damage points in HM is awarded the port, but do not like that other nations can get HM points to get the port from using our HM. I liked the idea of other nations only being able to counter the aggression. Not steal the port out from under our noses. This is the only flaw, imo.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, admin said:

no problem. 
Currently  - it is a legacy feature - you generate hostility for yourself even if you enter other people mission. This leads to this situation when legacy mechanic interferes with the new feature. OW hostility was removed but this legacy hostility calculation was not. It will take time to remove it from hostility missions too. 

 

In the past we spent too much time investigating alts and in 90% of cases those investigations did not find alt abuse. But to eliminate all concerns (and even conspiracy theories) port battles moved to clan based mechanic. It was not done because we want clans to fight (we want nations to fight) but human nature forces us to use clan based conquest as clans can control who enter the port battle - thus eliminating alts from port battles completely. Battlegroups also solved some of the alt concerns in OW screenings and interceptions.

As a result - hostility missions WILL ALSO move to clan based mechanics or will only generate hostility for the mission owner. But it will take time to implement. Before they are reworked - you can use legacy mechanics - it is not an exploit.
Wipe will happen once this feature gets stabilized. There is no point to wipe the map after every flaw is found.  

You do know that you could simply make a ruling that it can not be used to gain a port from this point forward.  Any ports so flipped in such means is reverted back to neutral.  Right now folks are using it cause there has been no official word from devs if we can or not. If you say we can than folks will continue to use it and the front lines will be pointless.....

Solution would be that only friendly clans can take missions from the capital but we understand that will take time to cold, but make an official post saying that the legacy system can't be used to skip capital ports is against rules would stop this for the most part. I'm pretty sure it's not to hard to tell who abuses this after you making such ruling.  

8 minutes ago, Oli Garchy said:

That's exactly what will happen along with the mad race for nassau, marsh, Kidd's and Bermuda

You still would have to go through them to get to the Florida coast, and them I mean SPAIN/BRITISH/RUSISAN or who ever is between pirates and France (who is on the other side of the map).  Which will never be tested cause of the two ports that was taken using two different legacy features that wasn't meant to be in game.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Preechur Blackheart said:

Thank you for this clarification. We understand now that it will take time to move hostility generation fully to clan based mechanics. But this means of bypassing the Frontline Mechanic WILL be fixed before release. yes?

It is too bad we cannot see how Frontlines would have worked, and are intended to work. How WOULD rats and France work their way onto the US coast, for instance? Would they have had to start down in Florida and fight their way up the  coast? We may never know until game release...

Does it really matter?  You know the US would have faced the music at some point, most likely through a negotiated port swap with GB, Russia, or Spain to allow the attack. To deny the two largest nighttime factions content against each other is silly, and it will happen whether the US wants it to or not. That's why all of this teeth gnashing over the current state of things is so chuckle-worthy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Capitalism said:

Does it really matter?  You know the US would have faced the music at some point, most likely through a negotiated port swap with GB, Russia, or Spain to allow the attack. To deny the two largest nighttime factions content against each other is silly, and it will happen whether the US wants it to or not. That's why all of this teeth gnashing over the current state of things is so chuckle-worthy.

No one is denied anything. Freeports are open to everyone and all of them even have PvP Zones right next to them. Plus, these FPs are spread out everywhere...except we lost Coqui and La Orchilla. One of these should come back. :(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, van der Decken said:

No one is denied anything. Freeports are open to everyone and all of them even have PvP Zones right next to them. Plus, these FPs are spread out everywhere...except we lost Coqui and La Orchilla. One of these should come back. :(

I agree one of them should come back, and so should St. Mary's and Navasse.

Edited by Msk
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...