Hostility Manipulation - Intentionally Dying Inside Hostility Missions

[Severus Snape]

And now for the real crime of tuesday night.  

May I present, exhibit A to the Jury: 

names as follows:

CrazyCraigMan
Richbeard USS Detroit
Zim
Master Blaster
TheMavericKnight

Going into hostility missions and intentionally sinking to lower hostility of a clan they didn't approve of taking the port.  Please note the lack of damage to the AI ships, broadsides in the middle of the water.  Lack of assists by the cerbs.  I'm also told that none of the ships had repairs and some did not have cannons, though I cannot confirm this.

From the peanut gallery

Anyway, I hereby state the case this is blatant manipulation of hostility missions by various US players and clans to prevent another US clan from flipping the port.    

 

----

Full disclosure the port in question was flipped by MAGIC clan and our pirate friends and allies assisted us in this endeavor, which is a tactic that has been used a number of times in the game and allowed, despite being up on tribunal, by @admin.  It was most recently used by Poland players against Cap Francais where they had an assortment of other nations assist them in hostility missions in an attempt to flip the port.  

No alts were sunk.  No alts joined the opposite side of these missions to gain hostility.    

Edited June 27, 2019 by Severus Snape

[Sir Texas Sir]

Agreed upon Green on Green is not against the rules nor getting sunk.  Now if they went in with alts and got the alts sunk with there mains that would be against the rules.  Being stupid isn't against the rules either.

If they had just killed the AI in this one since UWS was doing so too, all that agro would of went towards WIE Master Blaster or US as a nation. If WIE got more agro than say a MAGIC char popping in missions with a Basic cutter and not sinking any thing.  All that agro would of gone to the leading clan by what I understand the new agro rules for hostility are.  They could of made enough agro to out flip MAGIC and put the port into another clans name simply by showing up and fighting the same battles.

Per Patch Notes 32:

• Changed the hostility missions point attribution. Any kills for attacker only count to the mission taker clan (clan attacking the port). Any kills on the defensive side only counts to the port owner.

So if they had all just piled into that one mission to cap out 10 ships they prob would of with UWS help got more agro and put the port in WIE's name.

[Severus Snape]

5 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

useless text

Appreciate your comments, though none of them are germane to the discussion at hand and only hypothetical.  You also were not present in or around the battles, your participation here is irrelevant.  You cannot confirm, merely suggest that Green on Green was being used.   It was not.

Thanks

Edited June 27, 2019 by Severus Snape

[Severus Snape]

7 minutes ago, Liberalism said:

I don't think that there is a game rule that forbids sinking to AI. No alts were used. 100% legal.

There's also not a game rule for criticizing gameslabs in videos and yet you still got banned.  No alts were used.  

Relevant to the thread please - thx

Edited June 27, 2019 by Severus Snape

[Sir Texas Sir]

7 minutes ago, Liberalism said:

I don't think that there is a game rule that forbids sinking to AI. No alts were used. 100% legal.

There is a rule about being known alts/spys.   I think the whole MAGIC clan needs to be chat banned in the US chats, we all know they are and they have admited very openly to being alts of VCO clan members.

1 minute ago, Severus Snape said:

There's also not a game rule for criticizing gameslabs in videos and yet you still got banned.  No alts were used.  

Relevant to the thread please - thx

Actually there is your alt in the pictures above, who was getting UWS missions?  So in same words your just as guilty of using alts as they are of getting sunk by AI.....which either is not against the rule.

Right @Christendom?

[Papillon]

You cannot prove intent.  Each of the listed names, they had family emergencies after the battle started.  Or some other coincidence, unless stated overtly.  But you did prove being a spy, punishable (not sure why you brought such a thing to tribunal).

However, pitchforks work well against both sides, I like to sharpen for both and your case is presented eloquently. 

[Severus Snape]

1 minute ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Actually there is your alt in the pictures above, who was getting UWS missions?  So in same words your just as guilty of using alts as they are of getting sunk by AI.....which either is not against the rule.

Right @Christendom?

I am pictured in the hostility mission, yes.  Thank you for pointing that out.  Now please use that brain of yours and notice who is at the top of the hostility mission, because it's not me.  So clearly I wasn't getting UWS missions.  As I'm sure you're aware, the very topmost slot in missions on the left side is the captain who started the mission.  Thank you for clearing that up for everyone.  

I'm sure that keen detective mind of yours is better suited to assisting your new Dutch nation rather than pointing out the obvious here on the forums.   Again, thank's for your contribution.

Christendom who?

 

[Severus Snape]

1 minute ago, Papillon said:

You cannot prove intent.  Each of the listed names, they had family emergencies after the battle started.  Or some other coincidence, unless stated overtly.  But you did prove being a spy, punishable (not sure why you brought such a thing to tribunal).

However, pitchforks work well against both sides, I like to sharpen for both and your case is presented eloquently. 

Admin has stated repeatedly here on the forums, those that enter the battle, should fight in it.  In the case of a couple of the accused, no damage was visibly seen being done.  I think the intent can clearly be defined and chat logs would surely back that up.  Further investigation clearly should be done.

[Severus Snape]

Just now, Liberalism said:

Half of the pirates in Cap Francais hostility sunk to AI before Polish players joined, should they get punished? I am pretty sure that @McKillen_2 was en eye-witness of that.

If they did it intentionally, yes.  

If half the pirates died and you still weren't able to flip the port.....well I'm not sure how that reflects upon pirates, but it sure does make poland seem inept.  Another classic sruPL blunder. 

Appreciate you!

[Guest]

Wait so if get tag on a epic ai and die do i get tribunaled because i make it despawn for other players that are on their way back from a long sail to sink the epic ai? 

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

@Henry d'Esterre Darby probably should close this thread as well before it goes overboard.

[Severus Snape]

1 minute ago, Wyy said:

Wait so if get tag on a epic ai and die do i get tribunaled because i make it despawn for other players that are on their way back from a long sail to sink the epic ai? 

IF epic AI spawned in hostility missions and you intentionally die to it in an attempt to lower hostility, then you should be brought up on tribunal.   But they don't and your comment makes Sir Texas level sorts of sense.   

[z4ys]

 

2 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

There is a rule about being known alts/spys.   I think the whole MAGIC clan needs to be chat banned in the US chats, we all know they are and they have admited very openly to being alts of VCO clan members.

Actually there is your alt in the pictures above, who was getting UWS missions?  So in same words your just as guilty of using alts as they are of getting sunk by AI.....which either is not against the rule.

Right @Christendom?

 

2 hours ago, Liberalism said:

I don't think that there is a game rule that forbids sinking to AI. No alts were used. 100% legal.

We were doing hostility for mantua. First russians joined against us after they realized that they cant sink us with their rattvisans vs our xebecs some started joining our side (because it was vs neutral port) and acted like they would want to sink on purpose against the AI in order to lower hostility. To me it looks like mechanic is flawed

• Therefore I suggest: That it is only possible to join hostility missions when your clan is on the clan friendlist in order to reduce exploiting by alts. (Applied to attacker and defender)

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by z4ys

[Severus Snape]

25 minutes ago, z4ys said:

realized

 

We were doing hostility for mantua. First russians joined against us after they realized that they cant sink us with their rattvisans vs our xebecs some started joining our side (because it was vs neutral port) and acted like they would want to sink on purpose against the AI in order to lower hostility. To me it looks like mechanic is flawed

• Therefore I suggest: That it is only possible to join hostility missions when your clan is on the clan friendlist in order to reduce exploiting by alts. (Applied to attacker and defender)

 

Good suggestion.  

 

[Sir Texas Sir]

3 hours ago, Wraith said:

Accusations without proof is a bannable offense.  I wasn't going to respond in this tribunal since VCO was not a named party in the OP, but since you brought VCO into it then I feel the need to ask for that proof or a retraction. And if neither comes, then you should be banned.

But speaking of which, how would you even know what gets said in U.S. nation chat unless you yourself have an alt/spy in the U.S., since by your forum sig you're clearly a Dutch player?

 Actually there been plenty of proof by several parties and if they want more the devs can ask for it.  It wouldn't take them a few seconds to check IP logs and who they trade with to see that they are certain folks alts and have been working with each other.  Maybe instead of champing for these guys ever time they do something wrong you should check you own clan.   

Alts aren't against the rule, but stating you are an alt and than trying to get things done for another nation is against the rules.  I don't use mine to flip ports for my own clan unlike some folks in this thread.  Nor do I have a long track recorder of doing shady stuff as some folks have.   I'm also still on good terms with the US and playing with them when I can, but right now leveling up several chars takes time I don't have.   It's one thing to be one good terms with a nation, it's another that the whole nation knows your an alt clan of the very pirates that constantly troll and attack your ports/nation.

1 hour ago, z4ys said:

 

 

We were doing hostility for mantua. First russians joined against us after they realized that they cant sink us with their rattvisans vs our xebecs some started joining our side (because it was vs neutral port) and acted like they would want to sink on purpose against the AI in order to lower hostility. To me it looks like mechanic is flawed

• Therefore I suggest: That it is only possible to join hostility missions when your clan is on the clan friendlist in order to reduce exploiting by alts. (Applied to attacker and defender)

 

If the missions are restricted to only friendly clans of the regional capital owner than there is no need to change the missions.  

[z4ys]

13 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

If the missions are restricted to only friendly clans of the regional capital owner than there is no need to change the missions.  

Why not add both.

• Mission for regional cities can only be taken by clans on the friendlist of region capital owner
• Hostiliy missions can only be joined when on the clan list of the defending and attacking side

 

Because It works both ways. Even the attacker side can be joined by alts that sink themselves and say "its not against the rules iam just a noob"

[Sir Texas Sir]

Just now, z4ys said:

Why not add both.

• Mission for regional cities can only be taken by clans on the friendlist of region capital owner
• Hostiliy missions can only be joined when on the clan list of the defending and attacking side

 

Because It works both ways. Even the attacker side can be joined by alts that sink themselves and say "its not against the rules iam just a noob"

What if you have a friendly nation that wants to help?  They should be able to join your side and kill others if they want.  That would just make it hard, it's already hard to do hostility when you got to fight up to 10 AI and up to 10 defenders.  If your going to limit it, than that means no one can join the other side either and that would just kill small nations/clans of getting any help from others.  

By limiting the missions to clan list only it also restricts solo/clanless casuals from helping out that want to help but not do PB's or join a clan.   If there is foul play in the mission it's not that hard to just screen shot and post it, I mean we get tribunals for just about every thing from some folks after all.

[Capsize More]

Pretty blown away that you would bring this incident to tribunal.  Its like a drug dealer calling the police to report his illegal narcotics are missing and he thinks he knows who did it.  

[Thonys]

deliberate unintentionally green on green is forbidden (if sunk)

if the victim complains  about this (ingame + warning + tribunal), its valid for tribunal, (+ proof  screenshot and names)

Edited June 27, 2019 by Thonys

[Oli Garchy]

Just IMAGINE if any magic had done this to another USA clan. The salt and crying would be unending. I'm sure some of you would be singing different tunes

[Crimson Sunrise]

10 hours ago, z4ys said:

Why not add both.

• Mission for regional cities can only be taken by clans on the friendlist of region capital owner
• Hostiliy missions can only be joined when on the clan list of the defending and attacking side

 

Because It works both ways. Even the attacker side can be joined by alts that sink themselves and say "its not against the rules iam just a noob"

with this u just removed every small clan from the game able to do hostilities, since there is a limit on clans one the friendly list, any large clan can take port and then dictate who gets what port from that zone, it also works in reverse say and alt clan takes a valuable port now those ports cant be touched by anyone thats not allied to the capital owner. short and sweet now u have neutral ports that could be untouchable by the nation that owns the capital because that clan doesnt have anyone set ot allied 

[Crimson Sunrise]

and from the first post its evidence u seek just look at the video it clearly shows that those that got sunk didnt shoot at the AI, but still manuevered to get sunk, this is no afking, this isnt dcing this isnt family emergencies this is a clan intentionally dropping hostilites so another clan doesnt get that port. 

[Capsize More]

13 hours ago, Crimson Sunrise said:

and from the first post its evidence u seek just look at the video it clearly shows that those that got sunk didnt shoot at the AI, but still manuevered to get sunk, this is no afking, this isnt dcing this isnt family emergencies this is a clan intentionally dropping hostilites so another clan doesnt get that port. 

What the video and screenshots don't clearly show is that it was MAGIC flipping the port, and MAGIC is well known to be pirate alts only.  This is the thing that is getting overlooked and should shed some light on what really went on here.  Severus of course left out the screen shots of their hostility missions.  Just like he used screens of me saying prove it in global, when I wasnt even there, he is playing magic tricks to make it seem like the offenders are the offended.   

Edited June 28, 2019 by Capsize More

[Atreides]

It is really a shame that people can't play the game without resorting to underhanded exploiting behaviour to use alts for the sole intention of ruining the game for others.