OjK Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 Polish player was tagged near La Mona. [BF]Zz1m joined the battle only to increse BR side on the Polish side, so soon after another RUBLI (Agamemnon) joined to the combat, and Zz1M left the combat. Intentionally raised the OW limit and left the battle without a shot fired. 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huliotkd Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 lol...a Russian player clan BF ??? they are really used to Exploit all mechanics. before patch also Moscalb used this with me. joined and do nothing...he said he was just watching the battle 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dron44I Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 (edited) BF and RUBLI are friends. Nobody see clan tag in OW. Nobody ask Zz1m join and leave. I think that he want fight but when see freinds on the enemy side prefer leave. I will say my clanmates that gank 3 v 1 is't good idea. Also you had 270+500=770 BR and RUBLI had 940 BR. Battle was opened for your side and if you was waiting help they can join. Zz1m did not closed battle when join to your side. Edited April 30, 2019 by dron44I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OjK Posted April 30, 2019 Author Share Posted April 30, 2019 (edited) That is exactly the issue. The battle was Santa Cecilia + USS (600) vs 270 The Agamemnon would not be able to join the fight, if Zz1m wouldn't increase (artificially) the BR on Polish side. He joined JUST AFTER, the BF member raised Polish side BR from 270 to 770 Edited April 30, 2019 by OjK 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamBlower Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, dron44I said: BF and RUBLI are friends. Nobody see clan tag in OW. Nobody ask Zz1m join and leave. I think that he want fight but when see freinds on the enemy side prefer leave. I will say my clanmates that gank 3 v 1 is't good idea. Also you had 270+500=770 BR and RUBLI had 940 BR. Battle was opened for your side and if you was waiting help they can join. Zz1m did not closed battle when join to your side. Rubbish! You know the mechanics of the BR-difference exactly Pirates in Santa Cecilla (200) & USS (400) attacked a Polish Trinco (270) ==> Reinforcement for the polish is possible, Pirate side is closed after timer counts Russian Player Bellona (500) joined on polish side ==> BR on polish side is now higher than on Pirate Side and because of the third Party battle opens again for Pirate side after the pirate Aga (340) joined battle is instantly closed for both sides => No Reinforcement is possible You are the guy that's crying for punishments of other Players! Go and buy yourself a gloriole. Edited April 30, 2019 by HamBlower 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dron44I Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 (edited) On 4/30/2019 at 8:31 AM, HamBlower said: lol. you dont know the mechanics. Battle NEVER close faster then 20 min if BR difference more then 13%. If aga join and made BR 940 vs 770 ( more then 13% difference ) battle dont close. Cry in another place. Please! Please be more respectful towards your other Captains. - H. Darby Edited May 1, 2019 by Henry d'Esterre Darby 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AeRoTR Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 They are the experts for exploiting every mechanic,so no need to argue, also expert in crying in tribunals. We know them, we know them well, do we need to keep discussing, I do not think so. Problem is flawed ROE, there are big problems with this ROE. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
van der Clam Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 I believe admin has stated that if we join a battle then we are committed to fighting. This was an alts prevention. I cannot remember where the post is. But here lies the problem. Many of us are friendly with clans from other nations. This is why when clicking on battle swords the Battle Info needs to include Clans that are in the battle. If we click on a battle sword and see a friendly clan in there, then we should not join. If we join, then we had better be committed to fighting. If we are friendly with someone not in a clan,thus they do not show in the Battle Info, and we join, the so be it, we must fight anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 I dont judge, but i knew that this roe would get missunderstood/abused by players, either by sending in players intentionally or people joining battle and then choose to leave or not fight. I CALLED IT RIGHT OF THE BAT TOPKEK.JPG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socialism Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 Bring back the 3 minute timers for BOTH sides. This drama doesn't happen 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Vong Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 через какое время он вышел? если через 2 минуты- то это нормально - он не захотел сражаться. это бывает. если он вышел не сразу - можно искать нарушение Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 same abusers, same culprits. it's like a running joke now. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toblerone Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 1 hour ago, van der Decken said: I believe admin has stated that if we join a battle then we are committed to fighting. This was an alts prevention. I cannot remember where the post is. But here lies the problem. Many of us are friendly with clans from other nations. This is why when clicking on battle swords the Battle Info needs to include Clans that are in the battle. If we click on a battle sword and see a friendly clan in there, then we should not join. If we join, then we had better be committed to fighting. If we are friendly with someone not in a clan,thus they do not show in the Battle Info, and we join, the so be it, we must fight anyway. Or maybe just take away that TOTALLY USELESS feature that hides players' names in OS. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbancourt Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 1 hour ago, van der Decken said: I believe admin has stated that if we join a battle then we are committed to fighting. This was an alts prevention. I cannot remember where the post is. But here lies the problem. Many of us are friendly with clans from other nations. This is why when clicking on battle swords the Battle Info needs to include Clans that are in the battle. If we click on a battle sword and see a friendly clan in there, then we should not join. If we join, then we had better be committed to fighting. If we are friendly with someone not in a clan,thus they do not show in the Battle Info, and we join, the so be it, we must fight anyway. Just act with honesty and integrity. If you choose a side in a battle the other side is BY DEFAULT your enemy. Doesn't matter if you trade sloppy kisses in the tavern. You shouldn't care who they are. (However if you find that your "ally" is a no-good cheater or notorious Captain Jerkface feel free to excuse yourself if they're bad enough.) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genevieve Malfleurs Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 20 hours ago, dron44I said: BF and RUBLI are friends. Nobody see clan tag in OW. Nobody ask Zz1m join and leave. I think that he want fight but when see freinds on the enemy side prefer leave. I will say my clanmates that gank 3 v 1 is't good idea. Also you had 270+500=770 BR and RUBLI had 940 BR. Battle was opened for your side and if you was waiting help they can join. Zz1m did not closed battle when join to your side. you know, when people are well known if not famous for using any dirty trick there is, it becomes quite an effort to believe in their integrity 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbler (Retired) Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Personally i think the 2-3 min deadline timers were better, no way to exploit that way. Although i kinda see what devs intended, just as usual people game the game. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus MacDuff Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 4 minutes ago, Dibbler said: Although i kinda see what devs intended, just as usual people game the game. An here lies the problem. Devs come up with these great ideas that have a lot of potential. The issue is, the more complicated they are, the more exploitable they become. We need simple rules for our simple minds. Frontlines (if that's where we're going) that cant be bypassed. Basic ROE 2-3 min timers. Same ship-building potential for all. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamover Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Trinco - half right side and 68% sails. USS US a bit damged left side and 96% sails + Cecilia. You really think, that they need some exploits to finish trinc? I think that [BF]Zz1m just joined to battle, saw all this shit, understand that he will be next and left the battle (right decision). And Aga doesn't matter in this case. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbler (Retired) Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Gamover said: Trinco - half right side and 68% sails. USS US a bit damged left side and 96% sails + Cecilia. You really think, that they need some exploits to finish trinc? I think that [BF]Zz1m just joined to battle, saw all this shit, understand that he will be next and left the battle (right decision). And Aga doesn't matter in this case. Whether was intentional or not isn't the main issue/problem. Issue is that it can be used this way, and as we know if players can some will . Edited May 1, 2019 by Dibbler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamover Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 4 minutes ago, Dibbler said: Whether was intentional or not isn't the main issue/problem. Issue is that it can be used this way, and as we know if players can some will . It isn't gameplay topic, it's tribunal, so lets stay in case 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts