ALOHA+BF exploiting game mechanics..

[Caramon Mayer]

The fact is that they have not fought, the fact is that they fought only against players who were not their "friends". Who instead expected a support from them that did not have, on the one hand who was with the BF and the other who was with the Aloah.
All that without their knowledge.
Does that sound right?

[JDAM]

@admin Banished asked me to share this explanation so you can better determine the facts

Edited December 14, 2018 by Hemp Amore

[RedNeckMilkMan]

It looks like BF joined an unbalanced fight and made it even. Numerous other people joined from other nations and so on. BF decided to peace out. Maybe they were concerned about Havoc trying to kill them after the battle, maybe they didn't want to spend their time ganking. 

Admin's ruling about starting a fight and fighting doesn't apply here. BF started the fight with every intention of fighting and when the situation changed they decided to leave. Nothing wrong with leaving a battle. This is not an exploit. When you join a fight that has other nations in it, don't expect them to help you.

Don't know why Aloha is in trouble here, looks like they did the lion's share of fighting.

Edited December 14, 2018 by RedNeckMilkMan

[Silfarion]

Brits gank Reverse on his alt 17vs.1, then when other people join the fight after Reverse dies, and make the fight fair, the Brits choose to run. Some of those that ran were split into different battles--one of those battles was one I joined, since the big ~17vs.17 ship fight was full. I asked Banished and Wy to join my new battle as it was gonna be more fun and fair than chasing Brits that don't want a fight. In my battle were mostly British players, including some HAVOC. 

Before they could do this, the Renomme "Ruby the Reaper" tagged them as they were leaving the 17 vs. 17 fight, and said in chat in the new battle that his intent was to keep Banished and Wy from joining my new fight. Then, as more enemy Brits joined my fight-- same Brits that were fleeing the 17vs.17--me and my allies all sank. Reverse and his friend joined the battle against Banished and Wy around this time when it was gonna be a fun and even fight (3:28:14 on his video). However, some of the Brits from my fight, including HAVOC, got new ships and joined the battle on Reverse's side, making it less of a fun fight for Reverse and more of a gank against the Prussians. (If I were Reverse, I wouldn't want to help people who had just ganked me 17vs.1 either).

Reverse can defend himself, since I don't speak Russian and don't know what he was saying on his stream. But choosing to leave a fight when it no longer becomes fun, or not wanting to participate in a gank, or frankly leaving a fight in general because you don't want to be there anymore, are not things that are against the rules. It gets a little weird in the Patrol Zone, since the leaving and join timers are not normal, but nevertheless there was still nothing wrong done here. 

You can argue that you didn't like it, or that it was mean or unfair, but you can't argue that it was against the rules or that it was any kind of exploitation. 

[z4ys]

Easy fix. 

Don't show names of the enemy + disable chat to all within patrolzone.

[Thomas Boyle]

28 minutes ago, JG14_Cuzn said:

This is just another reason why the population #’s are shrinking every day....

 

Similar incidents ruin reputation of the game/devs/players that is another reason why people leave.

And this is another reason why the patrol is a shit and i don't go there.

The patrol is a bad crutch supporting pseudo-PvP while OW PvP is dead.

[Georg Fromm]

44 minutes ago, z4ys said:

Easy fix. 

Don't show names of the enemy + disable chat to all within patrolzone.

But that would not be a good solution, what should then our PvP heroes post in their "I'll celebrate myself, because I have sunk 5 newcomers alone" thread.  Officially, the thread has the name "duel/small battles".

I also do not think that the above example is a case for the Tribunal, although it just as happened, as described by the thread creator. In three years of beta, friendships have been formed, which also endure across nations. It is not clear to me why friends can not fight against each other, but this certainly requires a certain degree of human maturity or a certain attitude to the game or the other players outside my clan.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Hellmuth von Mücke

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Anolytic said:

How can Banished be at fault here? According to the screenshots he got tagged and is therefore the only one who had absolutely no choice in what side or any to join this battle.

There is a question about what considerations players should make in choosing what side to join in a battle. Based on precedence I'm not sure the rules are clear enough on this and I also don't know the circumstances well enough regarding why BF-players ended up on the opposite side of ALOHA.

As far as what happened once inside the battle it is hard to find a case for any specific rule violations. As long as there is no green-on-green fire or ramming, and no intentional blocking then beyond that it is hard to make any judgements on any possible behaviour in a battle without severely limiting player tactical choices. Regardless of what was the reason here, it is often reasonable in a PvP-fight to pass heavy ships without firing while fully reloaded, and instead fire on smaller ships in order to get more guns out of the fight faster.

Worth noting on admin's post that is referenced above here is that if viewed in context it is clear that it refers Port battles.

Besides, based on the screenshots, all accused players got several assists and kills, so it cannot be said that they did not fight in this battle.

^ this, and to add to that the renommé that tagged banished screened us into battle with the intention to have us unavailabe to help our friend in a british gank. Thats the reason we left the 17vs18 battle at first after half the british fleet had left, so we didnt want to make that battle more uneven in the first place..

[admin]

9 hours ago, Caramon Mayer said:

I am entered into this battle to help the Prussians. And when I came to tyre I realized that they were helping each other despite being adversaries.

On one side Banished privateer and Wy did not fire on the BF and let them kill me and the others who did not make part of their clan. And on the other hand Captain Reverse and friends did not fire on the Aloah so that banished and WY could kill HAVOC and the rest that were not BF. They were left without shooting themselves.  
PS They fire each Others when i underline what they are doing in the battle by helping each Others.

We spent  a lot of time before to remove other side helpers from the port battles. Thats how friend list for port battles was created. Thats why alliances were removed (they allowed alts to tag players in safe zones) etc etc etc. Such behavior in a port battle would be unacceptable, you are right. Passive behavior is against the rules in port battles but it is now impossible due to friend lists. 

But it was not a port battle. Patrol is different as it allows long entry for all nations on the server (with minimal limitations like - not allowing one nation to join two sides).  In any battle we do not allow active interference (blocking, breaking your bow by ramming, or just pure FF damage) on the same side. Keeping enemy in battle on purpose for hours is also against the rules. 

Not shooting the enemy or trying to avoid it is not against the rules in the patrol battle. And kills show that no-one was passive as well.

It's unfortunate they did not help you - but we do not see an exploit here as patrols are open to all. In the sandbox some clans (even on enemy sides) form neutrality or friendships and alliances try to avoid each other on the open map. And they do not shoot each other in battles, when they are forced to different sides. They cannot who is who on the open map and only know who is who after they join the battle. 

But we warned clans before for passivity in normal open world battles. We considered patrol battles demand for national allegiance more relaxed.  And will come back with the clearer response on this later (once the video is reviewed).

[Njord]

@admin It is absolutely ridiculous, how this thread even exists in the tribunal. It is a sandbox game with different nations and as long as there is no intentional friendly fire or actual griefing, nobody should be forced to attack anyone or help anyone. There are no rules for this and there shouldn't be any - this is not a dictatorship but a MMO Sandbox game. Anyone not willing to engage someone, should be free to do so. If clan A and B are allied ( no matter of being in the same nation or not ), why should they be forced to help the enemy clan C under any circumstances?

Personally I think it is very healthy for NA that some veteran clans with skilled players form alliances against zerg / well organised clans like HAVOC, or else we end up with what we had with swedes when they completely dominated the server. Now don't get me wrong, I love the idea of one nation or even one clan being able to dominate the whole map but it should come at a price, be extremely hard and require a lot of organization and skill - not simply having most players show up when they are needed.

[Shocktrooper Basteyy]

7 hours ago, Anolytic said:

How can Banished be at fault here? According to the screenshots he got tagged and is therefore the only one who had absolutely no choice in what side or any to join this battle.

There is a question about what considerations players should make in choosing what side to join in a battle. Based on precedence I'm not sure the rules are clear enough on this and I also don't know the circumstances well enough regarding why BF-players ended up on the opposite side of ALOHA.

As far as what happened once inside the battle it is hard to find a case for any specific rule violations. As long as there is no green-on-green fire or ramming, and no intentional blocking then beyond that it is hard to make any judgements on any possible behaviour in a battle without severely limiting player tactical choices. Regardless of what was the reason here, it is often reasonable in a PvP-fight to pass heavy ships without firing while fully reloaded, and instead fire on smaller ships in order to get more guns out of the fight faster.

Worth noting on admin's post that is referenced above here is that if viewed in context it is clear that it refers Port battles.

Besides, based on the screenshots, all accused players got several assists and kills, so it cannot be said that they did not fight in this battle.

I guess you missed something. You are in the same Nation than BF. You are sided on the defenders automatically. ALOHA could'nt decide to join any side but BF had the Chance to do not join the AGAINST PRUSSIAN SIDE. So it was the decision of BF to join AGAINST Prussia. They should fight then. If HAVOC would do such a Thing with for example CABAL/HRE/PURG3 everyone would just blame at us and Insult us. They would Tribunal us. If Banished does such a Kind of Things nobody is doing anything against it. Banished is the first one who would cry if we did something like this. He is everytime the first one who is crying in generell. That's one more important Point why we are losing Players every day. @admin you Need to be more consequent. It can't be that some Players have a higher Chance to do not be banned. Something Need to happen. I generally quit the game because of such sh*t. It's making the game unsexy and unattractive. But the admin Needs to decide it. Let's see. I'm for at least a ban for Banished.

[AeRoTR]

Interesting, but patrol zone is for fighting and doing damage. When you enter a battle, and not fighting you are filling up needed space. 

In Nassau I fought against many, while 4 more joined the battle on my side, but as they were friends the did not fight each other. 

So they blocked my reinforcement chance filling up space in my team. 

Patrol is a zone where only 1 side survives, other sunken to finish battle. You go to patrol knowing you can lose a ship. So this is at least unethical behaviour. There is no sportsmanship in this. 

This however if happened in OW battle, I would say nothing, it is normal, but in patrol not the best behaviour. Reverse is a fair guy as I know, on behalf of Banishedz this is a very expected behaviour (but do not worry, I like your posts in forum) 

[Black veil]

@admin looking at the posts in this thread am I missing something.... a patrol battle was started between gb and Prussia then bf joined against Prussia, then havoc players in 2 hercs and a trinco find a open patrol battle and join the only side they can gb how does mean that bf doesn't have to fight aloha??? Either we the players are missing something or u are just not seeing our point??? As I cannot see how u think this is acceptable behaviour in the intended game mode patrol zone? Can u please explain what we are all getting wrong Here? For this to be good sportsmanship, add the fact that yordi was offered a replacement ship is ownership of guilt. And secondly the battle was left after this with 2 havoc hercs against 2 Prussian aggis which apparently bf left ad they didn't want to gank aloha again r we missing something they u know and we don't? Thanks

[admin]

55 minutes ago, Black veil said:

@admin looking at the posts in this thread am I missing something.... a patrol battle was started between gb and Prussia then bf joined against Prussia, then havoc players in 2 hercs and a trinco find a open patrol battle and join the only side they can gb how does mean that bf doesn't have to fight aloha??? Either we the players are missing something or u are just not seeing our point??? As I cannot see how u think this is acceptable behaviour in the intended game mode patrol zone? Can u please explain what we are all getting wrong Here? For this to be good sportsmanship, add the fact that yordi was offered a replacement ship is ownership of guilt. And secondly the battle was left after this with 2 havoc hercs against 2 Prussian aggis which apparently bf left ad they didn't want to gank aloha again r we missing something they u know and we don't? Thanks

Just like we said above. 

Port battles had people joining to block entry to battle and be passive to help enemy win the port battle. This was removed by creating limited entry to PB. If a person in the port battle or a clan is passive you kick them from the clan or clan friend list and they will never interfere in the port battle. Solved 100% of problems. 

In this case such passivity is impossible

There is only one case that is somewhat similar to this one:

In that case a player announced his mistake in joining battle on another side and declared his intention to fight. He was warned and it never happened again. But he wanted to fight green on green (picked the wrong side).
...
 

Overall.
You do not know who is inside the battle. Some clans form friendships and help each other on the open world battles. 
Did they interfere with your combat, blocked you, shoot your sails on accident? There are rules on this
If they decide to let go one of the enemies or not shoot them - there is no rule on this (yet) and we are not going to tell people who to shoot and who to avoid. Perhaps next time you see a patrol battle against prussians and will join on the enemy side because you do not agree with how they play. 

What do you propose ? How you will enforce it without manual intervention. 

[Draymoor]

Watched the whole stream and there was no wrong doing from Banished. Maybe GB needs to look at their own first, like 'Ruby the Reaper', complaining about lack of good sportsmanship when your own players have none. It's the patrol zone, in a previous battle there like 15+ vs 15+ including the same players and many in GB side left the battle and run away, should they not been banned too? I mean they did not help their allies and run away from the fight. How is that any different?

[traitorous mctraitoro]

How in god's name is fighting only certain nations in a battle exploiting.

Never expect another nation who joins you in battle to help you, if anything expect them to leave or at the very least loot all the ships before you. OR expect them to kill you straight after that battle.

To summarise, other nations are enemies. Even when pretending to be friends.

P.s. git gud.

[n_Ka]

I have stop playing because that point, and after the wipe, to be sure, the map come fast same of this map. And to be sure port battle it's a joke.

[Black veil]

Martin they knowingly joined against Prussia in a patrol zone and not help is that not an issue? And appreciate admins feedback however it was a patrol zone designed for fighting and damage u pick a side u sink or win u cant suddenly go oh no i cant gight these guys there my friends why did u join against them then? Regardless also about not knowing who's in the fight is a weak argument based on the fact everyone is in communication with each other... also in terms of how to deal with it clarify patrol zone if u join the opposite team u have chosen to fight them regardless of who it is patrol zone is a PvP zone where u pick a side and fight, so in reality I could say hmmmm my friend is here who I'm talking with I've joined against him or her but I can't shoot them... so why did I join against them? And not with them? That's the point here none of this other macho stuff just straight up if we knowingly join a fight against friendlies  in the patrol zone which is said PvP zone do innit have tonight if so why did I join? Other than clarify the standing on this after review it can neither be right or wrong there actions but going forward we need clarification 

[admin]

17 minutes ago, Black veil said:

Other than clarify the standing on this after review it can neither be right or wrong there actions but going forward we need clarification 

This is exactly the point. The avoided combat argument cannot be applied here - because both sides fought (bravely) and almost everyone got kills or assists. 
Some clans have informal no combat agreements. Some clans have port battle agreements (they kill each other on the OW) but do not attack each other's ports. 
This cannot be enforced. How do you and @Caramon Mayer propose to enforce it? We had no entry before but it lead to less pvp in general. Because many would prefer the battle described in this post, because otherwise they will get no battle at all. 

[traitorous mctraitoro]

FIRST OF ALL who's martin?

Second its open world. Maybe call it patrol zone but it's open world. There isn't any escaping if some people are waiting outside.

Let's all be honest here. What would of happened immediately after that battle if BF damaged themselves fighting someone who clearly won't be their enemy after the battle.

I mean havok definitely wouldn't of ganked them.

Even if they weren't going to, their reputation would sure as hell make me think twice about going all out in a battle. It's a battle, you make decisions, you shouldnt have to engage every ship if you don't want to.

Open world means actions in battle have consequences out of it.

 

[Black veil]

no ur right about the avoided combat rules  parsay, however they knowingly joined the fight... so patrol zone needs to be clarified that if u join a patrol zone fight ur there to fight not see ur friends and leave... then use the excuse of I don't want to gank… what gank?, and lastly they offered to replace Yordi's ship and another players which I cant remember. after the fact as they know it was bad sportsmanship... 

that in my opinion is taking repsonisibilty, which to there credit is good and im sure appreciated by both players however this shouldn't have happened in the first place.. anyway I see no reason to comment further im sure u will review and make your own minds up... happy sails all

[vazco]

1 hour ago, admin said:

What do you propose ? How you will enforce it without manual intervention. 

A good start would be to introduce an anti-gank RoE for patrol zones. At least it would remove the excuse for people to not to fight.

[vazco]

The issue of this battle is that if no consequences are taken or new rules introduced, next we'll see a lot of bait battles in patrol zones.

One side will tag another and will wait for others to join in. First-joiners will keep killing newcomers, avoiding fighting other first-joiners. This is not fun, not sporty, gamey and bad for the game, yet  the same as this battle, as no rules were broken.

[staun]

1 minute ago, vazco said:

A good start would be to introduce an anti-gank RoE for patrol zones. At least it would remove the excuse for people to not to fight.

In a case like this it would actually make ganking easier with a limited br. I see most of the guys is friends on the other side, so we dont fight them, But because of limited BR, he cant get extra player in. So He gets ganked.

[vazco]

4 minutes ago, staun said:

In a case like this it would actually make ganking easier with a limited br. I see most of the guys is friends on the other side, so we dont fight them, But because of limited BR, he cant get extra player in. So He gets ganked.

Not fighting part of enemy in patrol zones should be simply prohibited. It's an exploit now as well and will lead to issues. We can prohibit this now, or wait a week or two until it becomes a cancer of patrol zones

Lower BR would at least allow you to not to be forced to gank others.

Edited December 14, 2018 by vazco