Rune Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, Skully said: 3 (2) redirection requires explicit consent. Did all players that were forced to move give their consent? yea true but this is not a finish product and we all knew that. game-labs can stop the development tomorrow if they choose that and there is nothing we can do about it 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kloothommel Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 Just now, Skully said: So is your language. Ad hominem, the tactics of losers. Sorry, thanks for playing. Move along... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 3 hours ago, Peter Goldman said: piece of random information not holding up altogether. If testing the legal boundaries of NA is not you cup of tea, then best stay out. I was hoping (invain) to discuss mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rune Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 what mechanics would you like to see ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 23 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said: Testing the legal boundaries defines what can or can not be done. On 8/23/2017 at 10:00 PM, Skully said: Alt ban in itself is illegal. On 7/12/2017 at 0:53 PM, Skully said: On 7/12/2017 at 0:42 PM, Peter Goldman said: If alt is breaking game rules, then it can be banned. Thanks God Devs banned 4 alts recently. Good change. http://steamcommunity.com/app/311310/discussions/1/143388344304613939/ And moreover ruling 257572/16/NL from ECC, EU customers are subject only to Steam EULA and EU law. Tribunal rules only apply to accounts on forum.game-labs.net. I'm perfectly fine with kitchen-lawyering and playing it through the Tribunal, but at some point reality kicks in. So I think it is important to know the legal boundaries in which NA must operate. The fact that alts can not be banned was an unintended side-effect of the case I brought against Valve / Game-Labs. So I hate to bring up a new case. It might backfire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 24 minutes ago, Rune said: what mechanics would you like to see ? Lets not even talk mechanics yet, and just see what rules any mechanic need to adhere to. I think those should be: You can only fight who is in your timeslot, regardless of Nation, Clan or alliance. A 25 (PB) Fleet must be able to defend/hold a port, unless defeated directly in a 25x25 fight. The OODA loop of a Nation is roughly 24 hours. In other words, if players are willing, they should be able to form a defense within 24 hours. Any actual mechanics will be clunky and buggy at first. Any that do not adhere to the rules should be considered bugged and would need rethinking. So it will require tweaking or even ditching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rune Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 7 minutes ago, Skully said: Lets not even talk mechanics yet, and just see what rules any mechanic need to adhere to. I think those should be: You can only fight who is in your timeslot, regardless of Nation, Clan or alliance. A 25 (PB) Fleet must be able to defend/hold a port, unless defeated directly in a 25x25 fight. The OODA loop of a Nation is roughly 24 hours. In other words, if players are willing, they should be able to form a defense within 24 hours. Any actual mechanics will be clunky and buggy at first. Any that do not adhere to the rules should be considered bugged and would need rethinking. So it will require tweaking or even ditching. with timeslot do you mean timezone ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 I'm not sure where this is going. I am in favor of a server merge, but only if we got port time window defense slots, would be the defenders timezone you have to fight. Otherwise if it's about an illegal game? Erhm, you lost me there because the game allows you to do everything it offers. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Rune said: with timeslot do you mean timezone ? A timeslot is a construct coming from previous versions. It was arbitrary set to 2 hours. (As opposed to a timezone which is usually 1 hour.) The 2 hours also coincides roughly with the time spend by a casual for a play session. So it makes for a nice magic number. We could rephrase it as: you can only fight whoever is on at the same time, regardless of Nation, Clan or alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikocen Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) Skully, you are telling so big bullshit. Firstly, there are no limitations for players because of PB hours. You just dont understand laws about which you are saying. I'll give you an example. US player wants to take part in PB and of course he is able to do it. Btetween 5pm and 10pm server time. Limitation would exist if he wouldnt be able to take part in RvR in order to system which is blocking him, cause he is not from EU. Second thing is Global server. Every player has acces to every in-game mechanic. And now imagine situation, when player from PVE server is telling, that PVE server is illegal, cause this player doesnt have acces to PvP and RvR. Same lie as yours. So please stop this disscusion and enjoy the game, to which you got full accses. Edited September 10, 2017 by Mikocen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rune Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, Skully said: A timeslot is a construct coming from previous versions. It was arbitrary set to 2 hours. (As opposed to a timezone which is usually 1 hour.) The 2 hours also coincides roughly with the time spend by a casual for a play session. So it makes for a nice magic number. We could rephrase it as: you can only fight whoever is on at the same time, regardless of Nation, Clan or alliance. so if no one has your timeslot you cant attack or be attacked right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, Teutonic said: I am in favor of a server merge, but only if we got port time window defense slots, would be the defenders timezone you have to fight. Exactly, so I would say a Clan is entitled to put a PB timer on at least 1 port. It can be considered their HQ or FOB. 3 minutes ago, Teutonic said: Otherwise if it's about an illegal game? Erhm, you lost me there because the game allows you to do everything it offers. Not in terms of doing PB outside of the 17-22 restriction. Whether it is actually illegal is a legal debate, not a mechanic one. I hate legal debates, that means work for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Rune said: so if no one has your timeslot you cant attack or be attacked right ? Bingo, herein lies the problem. You can not fight or be fought against directly through PvP, unless you both are in the same timeslot. But other players are able to attack your ports and you should be given the right for a defense within 24 hours (aka your own timeslot). Edited September 10, 2017 by Skully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rune Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 so if the US want to take a danish port they have do it in the timeslot we choose. how do we prevent ppl from setting there timeslot late at night like last time to prevent them getting attacked ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 10 minutes ago, Rune said: so if the US want to take a danish port they have do it in the timeslot we choose. how do we prevent ppl from setting there timeslot late at night like last time to prevent them getting attacked ? Is a Clan entitled to hold as many ports as they want with just a PB timer? Or should this require some form of effort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rune Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 i would say they can set what ever time they want even 2 different timeslot there ports and have have as many port as they can afford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 31 minutes ago, Rune said: i would say they can set what ever time they want even 2 different timeslot there ports and have have as many port as they can afford The first would essentially create a block without spending any effort. The second talks about affording a port. Should we measure this in terms of PvP or PvE effort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victor Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, Skully said: Furthermore there is no point in debating this without an EU solicitor present and lets just say that I do not qualify. I qualify, instead. You would have a very very weak case. You have a very "personal" (or, let's say, al least "disputable") interpretation of the term "discrimination" according to the EU law. Edited September 10, 2017 by victor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, victor said: I qualify, instead. Excellent, then please open the case at ECC and inform us of the case number. It would save me the initial work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victor Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Skully said: Excellent, then please open the case at ECC and inform us of the case number. It would save me the initial work. I do not open cases that I cannot win. And - if you still have not understood - my suggestion was to you: you are accusing a company - in their own forum - that they are infringing the law (with very weak legal arguments). Not a wise choice in my opinion. But go on as you prefer with your 40 Euro crusade. Edited September 10, 2017 by victor 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, victor said: I do not open cases that I will not win. And - if you still have not understood - my suggestion was to you: you are accusing a company - in a forum - that they are infringing the law (with very weak legal arguments). Not a wise choice in my opinion. But go on as you prefer with your crusade. Let me be clear, I do not accuse the company. I merely advise, as I have done in the past before I opened up the previous case. http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/16347-warning-green-on-green-friendly-damage-is-no-longer-allowed/?tab=comments#comment-309724 Quote Denying access of an EU customer to your service based on a Code of Conduct that was neither in place on date of purchase or adheres to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, is shaky grounds. I highly recommend seeking professional legal advice before entering this domain. (edit: I think we may need a separate topic here, lets not try to cover legal aspects here.) We are well aware that using their forum may not be the best option. But I am of the opinion that I can best advice on their terms for the moment. On 6/30/2017 at 2:35 PM, Skully said: Should she ever read this, I first want to apologize to the EU solicitor for not heeding her advice, not to post on this forum. Sometimes we don't agree and each of us is free to choose a different path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrago Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) Skully, perhaps you should go to law school, become an attorney, and then dedicate yourself in a qualified way towards cases that matter. Edited September 10, 2017 by Farrago 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 38 minutes ago, Farrago said: Skully, perhaps you should go to law school, become an attorney, and then dedicate yourself in a qualified way towards cases that matter. I think it matters that Naval Action has no legal loop holes. 3 hours ago, Skully said: If testing the legal boundaries of NA is not you cup of tea, then best stay out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrago Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 12 minutes ago, Skully said: I think it matters that Naval Action has no legal loop holes. Lol Okay Perry Mason You go get 'em. Mods, since this topic is probably the cup of tea of only most keen legal minds among us, please change the thread title to something more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, Farrago said: Mods, since this topic is probably the cup of tea of only most keen legal minds among us, please change the thread title to something more accurate. Like I said, I have no desire to debate the legal side. I see no problem coming back to the discussion of a potential mechanic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts