Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Banished Privateer

Ruby the Reaper griefing

Recommended Posts

This guy is doing this intentionally, it's not a single time accident. He is "screening" players in OW (non-RvR related) and just shooting their sails and running away in the fight. Basically, preventing players from attacking his friends or from joining other fights or both things combined (joining other fights with his friends). First time it happened at Leogane Patrol, you can see it here on the stream (I marked the videos with timestamps of the mentioned events):

 

Background story:

1. Brits escape from our battle one by one

2. Silfarion gets into the second fight right outside our fight

3. Brits escaping our fight join vs Silfarion (it turns into a gank)

4. Ruby the Reaper tags us to prevent us from joining Silfarion's fight

5. He instantly starts running away and just shooting our sails

 

Second evidence from today:

 

Background:

1. He attacked us to prevent us from attacking his friends that we were chasing

2. He did not shoot me even a single time and I had dropped sails entire battle. 0 efforts to engage nor attempt to fight this

3. Once his friends were safe, he instantly left the battle and returned to the port

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he's shooting your sails, he's engaging you, though.

@admin Is there a difference between tagging and running away, and tagging, shooting sails, while kiting? Is there no place for "delaying actions" in NA, or is it "do your best to kill the enemy or you are a griefer?" Please clarify.

EDIT: To clarify, I mean that if he's close enough to shoot your sails, you are close enough to shoot his. Your choice to not have a ship that could actually chase down Ruby is not their fault. You dropping sails should not force the other player to do the same.

Edited by greybuscat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, greybuscat said:

To clarify, I mean that if he's close enough to shoot your sails, you are close enough to shoot his. Your choice to not have a ship that could actually chase down Ruby is not their fault. You dropping sails should not force the other player to do the same.

Shooting sails is possible at the range of 2000m to even 2500 meters. A safe range that can't harm sails, can't harm hull, nor can't sink anything. It's an ineffective range of any damage, but it still keeps players in the battle. His intention is not to fight and he attacks us. He's intentionally preventing us from joining actual fights. Renomee attacking 2 Aggies? Suicide mission, he would have escaped if it wasn't a patrol circle. Requin attacking and leaving instantly? That's repetitive griefing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Released Privateer said:

Shooting sails is possible at the range of 2000m to even 2500 meters. A safe range that can't harm sails, can't harm hull, nor can't sink anything. It's an ineffective range of any damage, but it still keeps players in the battle. His intention is not to fight and he attacks us. He's intentionally preventing us from joining actual fights. Renomee attacking 2 Aggies? Suicide mission, he would have escaped if it wasn't a patrol circle. Requin attacking and leaving instantly? That's repetitive griefing.

If it was griefing the devs would've made it so hits without a % of damage don't tag, but they haven't, so consider this intended and the action as not griefing but playing the game the devs want you to play.

Edited by Slim McSauce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Slim McSauce said:

If it was griefing the devs would've made it so hits without a % of damage don't tag, but they haven't, so consider this intended and the action as not griefing but playing the game the devs want you to play.

Hits always do damage, even if it's 1 dmg or even if it's 0.01% dmg. You can even shoot grape into sails and still do some minimal, irrelevant damage. 

 

2 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

the devs would've made it

Maybe they haven't yet? We are in the Early Access game still in development. You're making too many assumptions

3 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

so consider this intended and the action as not griefing but playing the game the devs want you to play.

Jumping to conclusions. Many game rules are often subject of change because of player abuses just like here. You think the Devs wanted alts in port battles to ruin RvR and sabotage the game? That's why they changed the rules about RvR alts usage/abuse. Your comment makes really very little sense. The Devs keep adding more rules because players are very good at griefing, cheating and exploiting all possible game mechanics.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Released Privateer said:

The Devs keep adding more rules because players are very good at griefing, cheating and exploiting all possible game mechanics.

I guess that's the mistake. Instead of changing mechanics to reflect the vision they leave inconsistencies in and try to bandage the problem with more unwritten "rules" that don't hold water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delaying actions are fine, in my opinion, but preventing people from otherwise fighting in the OW is just griefing.

In the Patrol zones, this kinda stuff is even more annoying, especially when the guy literally says (47:32) that he is just keeping Banished and Wy in the battle so that they couldn't join my fight--which by this point was already gank in favor of the Brits, hence why I asked Banished and Wy to help--which would have been much more fun for everyone involved. 

Honestly just think logically, you have a better chance of getting damage in an even fight--and thus Patrol rewards--in like a 5v5 than a 14v2. Preventing an even fight in Patrol zone like this player did is in my opinion textbook definition of griefing. It ruins the fun for everyone, and does nothing other than waste time. 

I can understand how the line can get more blurry when it's just an OW fight like the second video, so admin can make that decision on whether or not it was griefing. Personally, since Ruby joined, tried to tagged a while and then gave up once he realized it's hard to when someone just drops sails, then I feel confident saying that it is attempted griefing at the least. If Banished hadn't already experienced the previous battle with Ruby in the Patrol, he probably would've raised sails and tried to fight like any normal player would--and like he did in the first video. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

I guess that's the mistake. Instead of changing mechanics to reflect the vision they leave inconsistencies in and try to bandage the problem with more unwritten "rules" that don't hold water.

There is a very thin line between game abuse, exploiting and actually playing the game. This is why we have a tribunal and this is also why we have courts in real life. In real life laws of countries are complex and complicated, thus many cases are verified by judges. Same goes here, game rules are simple, game mechanics are complicated. Game mechanics in such complicated game can't 100% fix griefing/exploiting without severe game limitations. Let's stay on topic @Slim McSauce and only involved people comment/relay their story and wait for the Devs to come up with a final verdict for the case. This is not a discussion, this is a tribunal topic.

Edited by Released Privateer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Released Privateer said:

 

5. He instantly starts running away and just shooting our sails

 

 

1. He attacked us to prevent us from attacking his friends that we were chasing

2. He did not shoot me even a single time and I had dropped sails entire battle. 0 efforts to engage nor attempt to fight this

3. Once his friends were safe, he instantly left the battle and returned to the port

She

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets all be honest here. 

It's clearly greifing.

((And Devs should make it so you have to do fair damage to keep a tag))

As for saying it's tatical, its a realistic game, so for battles that are close together you shouldn't be allowed to hold a fleet in one; and gank the other just because a different battle instant is produced for both.

So if anything it's exploiting.

Not that anyone cares what I think. He's both greifing and exploiting in my opinion

Also I'm biased as I've seen him bullying so I dislike him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Beeekonda said:

She

Maybe I'm too old-school, but I am reffering to the "player" or intenet "user" and I am not assuming gender. Since players don't have sex/gender mentioned in the game, I am using generic pronoun. Feel free to check this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_(pronoun)

I could also use "he/she" form or "it" genderless form or singular pronoun "they". Whatever way you prefer, but please stay on topic.

Edited by Released Privateer
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Released Privateer said:

There is a very thin line between game abuse, exploiting and actually playing the game. This is why we have a tribunal and this is also why we have courts in real life. In real life laws of countries are complex and complicated, thus many cases are verified by judges. Same goes here, game rules are simple, game mechanics are complicated. Game mechanics in such complicated game can't 100% fix griefing/exploiting without severe game limitations. Let's stay on topic @Slim McSauce and only involved people comment/relay their story and wait for the Devs to come up with a final verdict for the case. This is not a discussion, this is a tribunal topic.

If this is to be confirmed as griefing mechanics should be changed to reflect the enforcement of the rule. Not much to ask but for tagging to only be for shots that take a full drop a ships health down by a %, if that means increasing damage of ball to sails at a certain range I'm for it, tagging is annoying even more annoying is that only some ships carry bow chasers giving them a huge advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding a minimal damage threshold to be considered a tag might solve some of these instances where players keep tagging while running away from an actual fight. 

Edited by Draymoor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Released Privateer said:

Shooting sails is possible at the range of 2000m to even 2500 meters. A safe range that can't harm sails, can't harm hull, nor can't sink anything. It's an ineffective range of any damage, but it still keeps players in the battle. His intention is not to fight and he attacks us. He's intentionally preventing us from joining actual fights. Renomee attacking 2 Aggies? Suicide mission, he would have escaped if it wasn't a patrol circle. Requin attacking and leaving instantly? That's repetitive griefing.

Fair enough. I still think most "griefing" tribunals are overblown, and that this system is a poor way of dealing with a massive flaw in the game's design, but I'm obviously in the minority on this one.

I still want to know if there's any room for delaying actions in this game, though, and where the line is between griefing and legitimate tactics. Admin is quoted as saying any ship entering a battle is expected to "fight it," but I don't see the words "to the death" anywhere in there.

Is it cheesy that two battle right next to each other are in separate instances, allowing for delaying tactics? Sure, I guess, but this isn't a simulator. I wish the entire open world was one huge instance, but we have to play the game we have, not the one we want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@admin Would be good, if there were mechanics in place to prevent this kind of abuse. Maybe simply allow people to escape after a certain distance, if their ship has 100% hull armour and add a damage threshold, that has to be achieved with a shot to count as tag in battle. If someone does not receive x total amount of damage in y minutes, he should be free to leave. 

This way people can still tag others to delay them but not keep them in battle forever with no intention to fight. It is pretty stupid as it currently is, if you think about it.

There are way too many hour long chases, griefers and tribunal threads about this "keeping in battle without wanting to fight" either just to troll or to keep people pinned down to be ganked after. It is way too cancerous and makes for a toxic environment. People can't be subject to griefers wasting their time, when the game is already time consuming as it is.

 

This would also make a good tag more important. If you really want to fight, you join up close in the perfect position. 

Edited by Sovereign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 hours ago, Sovereign said:

@admin Would be good, if there were mechanics in place to prevent this kind of abuse. Maybe simply allow people to escape after a certain distance, if their ship has 100% hull armour and add a damage threshold, that has to be achieved with a shot to count as tag in battle. If someone does not receive x total amount of damage in y minutes, he should be free to leave. 

This way people can still tag others to delay them but not keep them in battle forever with no intention to fight. It is pretty stupid as it currently is, if you think about it.

There are way too many hour long chases, griefers and tribunal threads about this "keeping in battle without wanting to fight" either just to troll or to keep people pinned down to be ganked after. It is way too cancerous and makes for a toxic environment. People can't be subject to griefers wasting their time, when the game is already time consuming as it is.

 

This would also make a good tag more important. If you really want to fight, you join up close in the perfect position. 

but if he tags others to delay them entry in a battle because that battle closes without the intention of fighting, that's where the greafing part is..

This is the second time the same player has done the exact same thing, unlucky for the player in this case she did it towards the same player in a matter of days while he is streaming so everyone can see what happened.

I dont think there could be a mechanic that would work efficiently other then the devs make clear statements (which there already are, but not well informed to new players), and if the rules are broken they take it up with the player

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 things at play here:

- infinite tag ( as we see in conquest screening today, and we seen it forever in game )

- extremely low damage threshold for tag - should be noticeable, like 5% - 10% interval, not just a ball.

 

Is it griefing ? Well... in truth the actions show there was little intention to engage immediately, but we all been there, done that.

Examples: delay flag carrier - delay separated PB ships - delay ship en route to zone battle - delay ... delay ...delay...

 

Not a judge nor a jury ( i consider all these metagaming situations really childish), but careful what you wish for. For it may come true and will come back to bite you in the backside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minimum tag damage threshold, nor distance is not the issue here. We often chase enemies 1000-1500m away, sometimes 2000m and still catch them and fight. While we chase at long distance, we shoot with the ball. Shooting with chain is ineffective at the far range, so we will always cause minimal damage.

On RvR topics there is bigger margin of acceptance and tolerance, referring to what @Hethwill the Red Duke says, but screening doesn't have to be griefing or kiting. I do remember many fights where everyone would rush and desperately try to kill flag carrier, often suicide attempt. I do remember many PB screening battles where ships sink, screening fleets "screen" lonely targets and capture/sink them or screening fleet engages entire PB fleet and "sacrifice" their fleet to save the port. It is delaying, but as long as they fight, I wouldn't call it griefing. Not until they tag, shoot sails and run away and repeat it. 

Intentions of the players are very important. Is he attacking with intention to fight? or... with intention to exploit dualism of NA instance worlds. 

The only mechanic to ever solve all griefing/kiting/screening/tagging issues is one world, one instance NA and we know it won't happen due to technical issues.

___________

Back on the topic, Ruby shows no interest in any of the battles to fight, second case he tried to tag 2-3 times, in the first case he clearly admits in the chat what his intentions are. Player has committed these actions several times, admits in chat what his intentions are, for me the case is very clear and leaves no space for mistakes, accidents, nor confusion.

Edited by Released Privateer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can implement a rule to stop people from exploiting the dualism of OW and battle instance. Both are considered strategic and logistic and both are a means of extracting advantage over an enemy, that means kiting entire battles. If devs truly do not condone this behavior, they'll change the ROE to reflect that, until then your tribunal lays on very grey precedent and I wouldn't consider picking out a player(s) on OW and tagging them to keep them from other battles in order to gain advantage in said battle.

Edited by Slim McSauce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shooting sails to keep the enemy from entering a port battle once or twice is RVR
shooting sails to keep enemy in battle 4 times in a row without any particular goal is griefing

Were those occasions separate or happened in sequence one after another?

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

I don't think you can implement a rule to stop people from exploiting the dualism of OW and battle instance. Both are considered strategic and logistic and both are a means of extracting advantage over an enemy, that means kiting entire battles. If devs truly do not condone this behavior, they'll change the ROE to reflect that, until then your tribunal lays on very grey precedent and I wouldn't consider picking out a player(s) on OW and tagging them to keep them from other battles in order to gain advantage in said battle.

Well, we need to use game functions in their intended and designed way. "Attack" is very clear information, you press the button, means you want to fight. Of course players should have option to retreat and run away at some point. The case is that player attacks without any intention to fight. That is misuse of game mechanics. 

8 minutes ago, admin said:

shooting sails to keep the enemy from entering a port battle once or twice is RVR
shooting sails to keep enemy in battle 4 times in a row without any particular goal is griefing

Were those occasions separate or happened in sequence one after another?

Both occasions happened on different days, but within short time period (that makes us think this is a common practice for this player). In both occasions the player has achieved his goals (1. Forbid us from joining real big battle with his and our friends. His friends were killing our friend, but we couldn't join in time because he tagged us. 2. Forbid us from attacking his friends. He attacked us allowing his friends to run away)

Edited by Released Privateer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Released Privateer said:

Well, we need to use game functions in their intended and designed way. "Attack" is very clear information, you press the button, means you want to fight. Of course players should have option to retreat and run away at some point. The case is that player attacks without any intention to fight. That is misuse of game mechanics. 

"Attack" ends up being "Run" in more than 60 or so % of battles unless it is a PB. The meta allows a fast built ship to run from just about any battle. There's very little expectation of even a fight in most battles, let alone an actual fight. The goal here was to split forces up, or kite you from entering a zone that the other side wanted to hold control of. Non-griefing intentions but very grief-y outcome.

Edited by Slim McSauce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 minute ago, Slim McSauce said:

"Attack" ends up being "Run" in more than 60 or so % of battles unless it is a PB. The ship meta allows a fast built ship to run from just about any battle. There's very little expectation of even a fight in most battles, let alone an actual fight.

but this wasnt the case here, she tagged us because she knew it would screen us out from both the battles.

If she had sailed in with an intention to e.g. rageboard (she sailed lrq) a ship and get away it would be all good or at least try to do some sense of damage.

 

To the screening in a RvR scenario i would place a patrol zone circle around the attacked fleet so the screeners wouldn't be able to tag and keep tags from insane range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...