Remove Basic Cutters from PvP

[Aventador]

@admin After the shenanigans pulled by the BLACK clan today, I am calling for a complete removal of the basic cutter from any pvp. No tagging at all. Yes I know this would create indestructible spy ships but most spies will be in our nation anyways. Basic cutters should be strictly for pve. 

Even if the basic cutter gets removed from pvp we still have the issue of fleets hiding in battle before a port battle. (whether it's an alt in a store bought ship or tagging an ai fleet) So I am also calling for a 5 or 10 minute port battle restriction timer (similar to the logging in timer) after you exit a battle.

I think if these 2 things were implemented it would solve a lot of alt and port battle exploiting and would ultimately improve the game for everyone.

[Macjimm]

Wow.  No cutter.  Would a lynx be okay?  What about a crafted cutter?

I like the cutter and the lynx.  I enjoy sailing them.  I also like the PvP servers.  What you describe is a game where I would never be at risk of attack and would never have the option to attack anyone, unless I avoided the cutter.

I would have no opportunity for combat with any other player.  Sort of pointless for me to play PvP.

[JobaSet]

yea i agree so i can move my permits and bp safely. 

[Thonys]

removing ships is not the answer to problems

perhaps   for the game engine , but not the game,  

the place of the basic cutter will be taken by another ship then, so it does not solve anything ...

 

[Skully]

Interesting issue for which removal of any ship does not bring a solution.

Any (enemy) cabin boy can be used to bring up a battle screen/instance hiding, regardless of the ship used.

Countering it with a PB restriction timer would also not work, as that makes it easy to defend a port.

[elite92]

ip ban alts. done.

[Skully]

52 minutes ago, elite92 said:

ip ban alts. done.

ROFL, you would be banning casuals from single IP ISPs. Dual box alts do not have the same IP.

Please inform yourselves first on how (bad) alts work, before making suggestions.

Not to mention that you do not need any alt to make this work.

Edited July 2, 2017 by Skully

[Liq]

I think Skully is right, you simply need to buy the cheapest ship in port for a couple grand - Not really a CutterShennanigans issue this time IMO

[elite92]

would be already good enough to have a system that force u to have all accounts of the same nations on the same PC/IP.

[TBD]

Half of the game income is from alts, 50%pay cut for devs is not happening.

[Skully]

Thinking about it a bit, removing the need for a fleet to be somewhere at a fixed time might mitigate the problem. In fact, giving the fleet an incentive not to go into battle would eliminate this problem.

Hence I'm leaning towards supporting admin's proposal for timed supplies.

 

[Sinister]

Well I don't usually get involved in game BS and politics, but this has gotten out of hand. First off until there is a direct design and clear understanding of the game and how it is to be played. There should be NOTHING of Exploits until the design has been programmed into the system. This GAME is in development.

That being said let me explain to you the amount of preparation and planning that went on in order to make this happen!! If these plans are an exploit, you can figure that game is destined to FAIL.!!! I pray (hit PRAY key here) this is not the case.

1. First off we had to get 25 people in first rates. (We all KNOW that amount of work this takes. The countless hours of sailing and trading and in the case of 25 to 100 man clan with or without alts it takes to do and grind to make happen at this point in the game.)

2. We had to arrive HOURS before port battle in order to get past prescreening sailing from St. Mary's to Savannah.

3. Plan port battle entry point and tactics, and communicate it to group.

4. Sail in TIGHT formation with ships so as not to be tagged by the 20+ ships between St. Marys and Savannah that were prescreening anyway. (Because our Intel told us that Great Britain was offered a deal for the entire Gulf coast to help come protect a Port Battle that was going to take place.) This is not exploiting because in real combat we would know that battles would occur at a certain place at a certain time within an hour or 2 in order to help a nation out! (THIS WOULD REALLY HAPPEN?????? OR EXPLOIT???)

5.Stack on top of each other as not to get attacked by the countless number of prescreeners that were attempting to get a good BR attack by attacking using the edge of the circle to get a tag on just a few of our fleet that would have been stacked on top of each other in real life.(THIS IS REAL????) GAME MECHANIC EXPLOIT?

6. Get pulled into combat TWICE, With fleets which ran, and a few fought or were just to close to have gotten away before decimated. Then we had to escape together in which 2 people got tagged unfortunately because a fleet arrived outside in which we can't see because of Game mechanics and the fact that we would not be able to see a distant fleet coming from the horizon! (Regardless of the fact that its another Nations Fleet!) <-- THIS IS NOT AN EXPLOIT EITHER Because random nation politics happened in a matter of seconds back in those days and communication of distant lands and KINGS were immediate. (ie TEAMSPEAK) were grossly outnumbered 3 to 16 in which we lost our Mortar Brig for the port battle.

Image here shows that battle and Skill of our players. No BS just pure skill and commitment to the Battle.

7. After second battle we jumped out and into Port Battle which we had 2 more people get pulled from the group and ganked and boarded and ships taken due to faulty ability to be outside the circle in which we needed to be and still click on the battle icon due to limited visibilty of the port ( NO HUGE X OVER THE ENTIRE AREA OR WALL ON THE PB RING THAT CAN BE EASILY CLICKED TO GET IN THE BATTLE.) Unfortunate incident due to game mechanic that was not in our favor, But we are not whining about it as an exploit.(also will elaborate more on this point in later bullet.)

8. Well we all know how the Port Battle went. The US ran from battle outnumbering us as shown.

Legitimate Numbers on both parts and they ran in first few minutes, Were they hoping that enough of our fleet had been tagged or kept from battle in order to have a decisive Victory? And because we weren't decimated by the numbers outside they chose not to fight a Legitimate battle???? (SO everything before this point was not an exploit to keep from loosing the port???) Alliance with others / ALts from other nations in order to keep normal game play from happening???? (<---NO EXPLOIT HERE)

9. After capturing the port and went out and recaptured our 1st rates or made sure they were not taken by the Great Britain's. OR forced them to destroy it!!! Recovering one and loosing one to forced destruction. In which 2 individuals had to survive and keep numbers busy during the Port battle time. Sacrificing countless hours of play in order to have something that they worked countless hours to create get robbed from them due to EXPLOITATION by using outside resources like teamspeak and such to affect in game alliances and play.

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

Maybe we should not allow tagging of Fleets by other nations in the boundry water areas of a port Battle once its set, ONLY the 2 nations involved!!!

Maybe the small circle size in the tag circle should be increased to combine the BR of all other ship circles that overlap in an area in order for screening fleets to be able to run with port battle fleets and increase the BR to great for smaller groups to tag

Maybe Port Battle should be lobbied to where those with highest hostility get first seat in the battle? And then they get to choose out of those people who goes or don't go?

Maybe Nations with the most population get all trading prices increased and experience decreased by the percentage of the population they control?

Maybe when it come down to it, why not force people to have at least half BR for a battle to take place in lobby and NO Escaping until at least the BR of the loosing side is 1/2 of the winning side.(SO Battles will be fought as intended, instead of all the BS ganking outside the battle, and Skill and building of good ships wins the game?

Maybe we should all be working to make this game a better game and not try to get people banned or in trouble because a group of individuals found a way to work together and organize in a way that is exceptionally precise and well executed within the mechanics of the game. Everything outside of this game can be considered an exploit technically but it is impossible for it to be banned, because the DEVS cant put someone at your house watching what you do while you play a GAME on your computer.

[Skully]

1 hour ago, Sinister said:

Well I don't usually get involved in game BS and politics, but this has gotten out of hand. First off until there is a direct design and clear understanding of the game and how it is to be played. There should be NOTHING of Exploits until the design has been programmed into the system. This GAME is in development.

...

Maybe we should all be working to make this game a better game and not try to get people banned or in trouble because a group of individuals found a way to work together and organize in a way that is exceptionally precise and well executed within the mechanics of the game. Everything outside of this game can be considered an exploit technically but it is impossible for it to be banned, because the DEVS cant put someone at your house watching what you do while you play a GAME on your computer.

Welcome to the (current) end-game of Naval Action: the Tribunal.

Instead of welcoming reports of such efforts, analyzing why things might be bad for the game and adapting game mechanics, admin reaches for ban hammer very easily. This, in itself, is abused by the player base.

I very much like the planning logistics aspects that go around putting a battle and a campaign together. For me this is the best part of the game.

Another big part is the drama, which I also like. It's all about bringing out the worst of us for some naval warfare (game).

Hence I don't like suggestions that attempt to block some tactics that can be played out, rather I would like to see incentives that make players not want to use those tactics.

Fact remains: I don't like this tactic of using a cabin boy to ditch out of the last struggle to reach the PB. Because ultimately it would lead to a PB fleet not sailing OW, but rather setup safely inside a battle instance. So I would like to see it pried out the game.

Edited July 2, 2017 by Skully
Clarified how this tactic undermines OW.

[Sinister]

10 minutes ago, Skully said:

Another big part is the drama, which I also like. It's all about bringing out the worst of us for some naval warfare (game).

Hence I don't like suggestions that attempt to block some tactics that can be played out, rather I would like to see incentives that make players not want to use those tactics.

Fact remains: I don't like this tactic of using a cabin boy to ditch out of the last struggle to reach the PB. So I would like to see it pried out the game.

Then whats wrong with these Suggestions?

Maybe we should not allow tagging of Fleets by other nations in the boundry water areas of a port Battle once its set, ONLY the 2 nations involved!!!

Maybe the small circle size in the tag circle should be increased to combine the BR of all other ship circles that overlap in an area in order for screening fleets to be able to run with port battle fleets and increase the BR to great for smaller groups to tag

Maybe Port Battle should be lobbied to where those with highest hostility get first seat in the battle? And then they get to choose out of those people who goes or don't go?

Maybe Nations with the most population get all trading prices increased and experience decreased by the percentage of the population they control?

Maybe when it come down to it, why not force people to have at least half BR for a battle to take place in lobby and NO Escaping until at least the BR of the loosing side is 1/2 of the winning side.(SO Battles will be fought as intended, instead of all the BS ganking outside the battle, and Skill and building of good ships wins the game?

And the normal hunting and PVP of OW is the way to prescreen the battle by attrition of the opposing factions.

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by Sinister

[Aventador]

6 hours ago, Macjimm said:

Wow.  No cutter.  Would a lynx be okay?  What about a crafted cutter?

I like the cutter and the lynx.  I enjoy sailing them.  I also like the PvP servers.  What you describe is a game where I would never be at risk of attack and would never have the option to attack anyone, unless I avoided the cutter.

I would have no opportunity for combat with any other player.  Sort of pointless for me to play PvP.

 

4 hours ago, Thonys said:

removing ships is not the answer to problems

perhaps   for the game engine , but not the game,  

the place of the basic cutter will be taken by another ship then, so it does not solve anything ...

 

 

4 hours ago, Skully said:

Interesting issue for which removal of any ship does not bring a solution.

Any (enemy) cabin boy can be used to bring up a battle screen/instance hiding, regardless of the ship used.

Countering it with a PB restriction timer would also not work, as that makes it easy to defend a port.

You all misunderstood what I meant. I'm not saying remove it from the game i'm saying remove it from all pvp within the game.(you can still tag ai etc)

[akd]

As others have pointed out, basic cutters then become untouchable valuable goods transport and exploiters simply switch to cheap lynx / cutter / pickle.  It is a really, really bad idea.

Edited July 2, 2017 by akd

[Justme]

Sounds like one side was out organized and outplayed and is complaining in the forums about it, topping it off with a really bad suggestion.

[Prater]

4 hours ago, Skully said:

ROFL, you would be banning casuals from single IP ISPs. Dual box alts do not have the same IP.

Please inform yourselves first on how (bad) alts work, before making suggestions.

Not to mention that you do not need any alt to make this work.

Not everybody uses a proxy.  And there are other ways for devs to figure out who alts are without looking at IPs.

[Christendom]

if the basic cutter is immune from PVP it needs to have it's cargo hold removed so people can't use it to transport items.

[Justme]

7 minutes ago, Christendom said:

if the basic cutter is immune from PVP it needs to have it's cargo hold removed so people can't use it to transport items.

Would make it harder on the new players forcing them to rely on combat missions to make money.

[akd]

20 minutes ago, Christendom said:

if the basic cutter is immune from PVP it needs to have it's cargo hold removed so people can't use it to transport items.

Then they put trader ship in fleet and continue as before.  Plus, looting AI traders and gathering repairs off AI in missions is probably the best way for a player stuck in a basic cutter to dig themselves out of hole.

Edited July 2, 2017 by akd

[Sir Texas Sir]

5 hours ago, Skully said:

Interesting issue for which removal of any ship does not bring a solution.

Any (enemy) cabin boy can be used to bring up a battle screen/instance hiding, regardless of the ship used.

Countering it with a PB restriction timer would also not work, as that makes it easy to defend a port.

Not that we could of just hit any random AI in the area and go the same results.  All the while they could of joined the fight still.  No one was stopping them from doing that.  What I think is funny is the British are the ones bitching about this and it wasn't even there port battle.  We did it simply cause we knew US could field 50 players with a PB fleet and screening fleet (think they had 25 PB and 16 screeners for sure so that is 40 players).  We only had the 25 Port Battle fleet and a few low levels to pester them and scout.  If the current broken BR tag mechanics we knew some idiots would just keep tagging us and keeping us in the battles instead of letting us get into the PB.  Just look at the 16 vs 3 where they got three of us cause of our own ops.  Half those ships where sunk with little damage to the two first rates.  That is not something we are bitching about as it's part of the game.

We brought 24 1st rates for a 1st rate port battle (with one mortar brig for the forts/towers) and we wanted just that not spend all night swatting nats.

4 hours ago, Skully said:

ROFL, you would be banning casuals from single IP ISPs. Dual box alts do not have the same IP.

Please inform yourselves first on how (bad) alts work, before making suggestions.

Not to mention that you do not need any alt to make this work.

In another game I was part of the Mod staff we did an IP bane on a very toxic player.  Turned out his College IP was matching about 50 other players we had ban at the same time too. So we had to just do an account ban of his char.  So unless you have some only one IP that never changes it wouldn't work.  Today this would mean if I ban ever one from Road Runner, Comcast, TimeWaner or any of the other big IP's in my area it would ban every one for the most part that uses those companies.  That is why it's hard to ban alts unless you have actual proof to connect alts with the main accounts.  It blows my mind how many of ya'll anti-alt folks don't even understand basic things like this.  Than again they are some of the same folks that don't understand how a lag switch actually works and thinks folks are using Ping Hacks for there crappy connection  on potato computers on sub par servers on a game still in development.  Your going to crash and lag out once in a while.

[Aventador]

17 minutes ago, Justme said:

You complain because you want the devs to dumb down the game to your level, and seeing I'm not part of a clan or have any 1st rates I doubt you could capture one from me.

Meh I thought you were apart of black by the way you were speaking. Last time I checked I don't think making things harder to exploit is considered dumbing it down but hey what do I know

[Aventador]

3 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Not that we could of just hit any random AI in the area and go the same results.  All the while they could of joined the fight still.  No one was stopping them from doing that.  What I think is funny is the British are the ones bitching about this and it wasn't even there port battle.  We did it simply cause we knew US could field 50 players with a PB fleet and screening fleet (think they had 25 PB and 16 screeners for sure so that is 40 players).  We only had the 25 Port Battle fleet and a few low levels to pester them and scout.  If the current broken BR tag mechanics we knew some idiots would just keep tagging us and keeping us in the battles instead of letting us get into the PB.  Just look at the 16 vs 3 where they got three of us cause of our own ops.  Half those ships where sunk with little damage to the two first rates.  That is not something we are bitching about as it's part of the game.

We brought 24 1st rates for a 1st rate port battle (with one mortar brig for the forts/towers) and we wanted just that not spend all night swatting nats.

We're "bitching" because your fleet wouldn't have made it into the port battle without that exploit. If your argument is that you didn't have enough people then you shouldn't go after that port. Plain and simple

[Sir Texas Sir]

2 minutes ago, Aventador said:

We're "bitching" because your fleet wouldn't have made it into the port battle without that exploit. If your argument is that you didn't have enough people then you shouldn't go after that port. Plain and simple

If the BR tag mechanics wasn't broken even if you brought a full 25 ships you shouldn't pull our fleet in any way.  Right now the mechanics are broken and Devs are working on them.  And this is only speaking of what the Brits brought. I have no clue what you numbers where but from what I saw was brigs to Connies so it wasn't exactly a big strong fleet in the first place.  Not vs 24 1st rates and if ya'll had tagged us and brought all us into one battle than we where more than welcome to fight it out and sink all you, but be honest ya'll brought trash ships and ships to grief in and not fight?  I mean there was a freaking Brig in my fight and that can't even get into the Port Battle.  Now the fight me and Jean got into we aren't complaining about and he still made it into the Port Battle.  I got the no click bug and was caught out side by three Brits.  One was in a BRIG.....so your fleet came there with nothing other than to grief not fight.   And you still didn't even do a good job of that.  We still got into the port battle and won by US withdrawing even though they had the numbers and advantage of Forts and towers and time.   The defender doesn't need 1000 points, they just have to prevent the other team from getting 1000 points.  We either made sure any captured 1st rates was than sunk or recaptured.  So other than the mortar brig and one first rate lost we did better than expected.  We now have prime hunting grounds right on the back door of the US.  We have no plans to conquest and push ports on them.  We pick our ports for hunting and OW PvP.   We have every thing we need to craft our SOL's and other ships right in Mort area.