Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

BL4CK joins hostility WITHOUT CANNONS to Intentionally sink!!!


Recommended Posts

Some fellow clan members and I began hostility on the shallow port La Guanaja. Then the players DarkSun and SeagulGonaCumPokeMeInTheCoconut, both [BL4CK] clan members, joined the hostility mission with the intention of lowering hostility. [BL4CK] DarkSun didn't even bring cannons. This was a blatant, though failed, attempt to try and prevent VCO from setting a port battle. 

Below is a screenshot of the battle results showing both [BL4CK] clan members having been captured. I have also included a short video of the incident. 

4574BD66A898607682ADB74F1434C27DC150EB91

  • In the video, from 20-40 seconds you can see player DarkSun attempting to get boarded by the npc Santisima. 
  • At 1:20, it can be clearly seen that player DarkSun did not equip cannons on his ship.
  • At 2:12, DarkSun can be seen getting boarded by the npc Navy Brig.
  • At 5:00, DarkSun loses the boarding action.
Edited by Storm Crow
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

No cannons huh.  Let's hope these offenders are faced with the same level of scrutiny as the last "no cannon" drama did.  

is this tribunal ever going to get resolved?  Or these guys just gonna keep getting away with activities that others have been disciplined for?  @admin & @Ink

First farming with "friends" and now joining with no cannons to intentionally die.  SAD

@Storm Crow why does seagul's name not pop up?

Edited by Severus Snape
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RubyRose said:

seagul's name is longer then the current letter cap for new players for character names as a result it comes up blank when in battles

which i believe should be fixed 

you could call him by his old name "Solas" ;)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

from same tribunal this is refering to the contractual exchange of neuvitas from spain to pirates
c8122e3b87824fec07cdb46064c2e436.png

does that not make it against game rules to trade ports, or more specifically to die intentionally to either hinder or excel another nations hostility percentage for a port. 
this was the admin's verdict on the tribunal post

 

Edited by RubyRose
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

we have seen BL4CK clan members behavior in hostility missions repeatedly dying intentionally not only in the Spanish hostility for neuvitas but also in our hostility at la guanja earlier today, this is a clan who is intentional or more specifically contractually dying to trade a port with another nation. which by the admin's previous ruling on a similar type. is against the rules and 2 clans payed the price for it. i believe since its already known that this is unacceptable behavior that BL4CK knowingly broke this game's ruling should face similar punishment, for repeatedly and intentionally dying in hostility missions to ai/players. to either help an enemy nation to set a port battle or to hinder another pirate clan from setting a port battle.  this shouldnt be tolerated

Edited by RubyRose
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, van der Clam said:

@admin @Ink I'm still confused as to why 1st rates are allowed to raise hostility against a shallow port. This should've been changed like a long time ago.

Don't you mean....

Should players be allowed to go into hostility missions and intentionally die....without cannons.....in an attempt to manipulate hostility?   

This is the question that should be asked here.  right?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Latron said:

It's sad that those players have fallen so low. I used to sail with many of them.

I'm we did a little shady shit here and there that was within the rules/mechanics but never stuff like this.  Though we had a few members that would do things they shouldn't have to advance in the game this is not the BLACK that was under 7/Duncan and than me.  I guess we are seeing how it is now that Koltes decides to finally run the clan or something?

2 hours ago, MidnightLight said:

Being a way for a while and seeing this How Mighty Have Fallen 

Yah we pulled some thing cause we where out number all the  time, but not this crap. This is flat out breaking the rules, even back when we bent them some we keep them within the lines just enough to not break them.  Yet another reason I will not return to Pirates and BL4CK as it's not what they use to be. 

3 hours ago, RubyRose said:

seagul's name is longer then the current letter cap for new players for character names as a result it comes up blank when in battles

which i believe should be fixed 

The report feature really needs to be broken down to say why they are being reported.  Simple code issues like this and some of the names I seen are very not PG-13 friendly that maybe the Devs don't know are insults in English or other languish.  Something like +report and it bring up a menu saying why:  Offensive behavior, Name, Spy etc.

Oh and I know seagul picked his names case they are max letter caps on purpose, but the not showing is new since he returned.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

I'm we did a little shady shit here and there that was within the rules/mechanics but never stuff like this.  Though we had a few members that would do things they shouldn't have to advance in the game this is not the BLACK that was under 7/Duncan and than me.  I guess we are seeing how it is now that Koltes decides to finally run the clan or something?

It really does show when all of the friends I had back then have either left the clan or stopped playing, and those who are still there after all this time are the ones who turned their back on me in some way.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The game lets you put cannons on or not? its your choice to sail with our without.

How is that a broken game mechanic or exploit?

End of the day Captains choice. Games fuct anyway.

So no cannons should make an easier target to sink? Or maybe he is board fit took cannons off for speed? So many variables yet you cry poor me. No wonder players dont come back.

Edited by Loco Bandito
Link to post
Share on other sites

CLEAR violation of the rulings of the Cap Francais no cannons fiasco. Surely similar punishment will be fairly given in this instance. 

 

As an aside, I'll echo what some of my old clanmates have already said above:

I used to proudly uphold the BLACK banner on PvP2.

I was honored to be an officer in that clan, run some port battles, wreck some folks in the duel room, etc. It was great fun. I sailed with some good people. 

So I was thrilled to see my old friends back in the game again, and I'd hoped we'd work closely together. It became obvious very quickly they had no interest in that, which saddened me a bit, but that's ok. But never did I think they'd do such dirty dirty things as what they have been tribunaled for these past 3 times (one tribunal deleted by mods).

With this latest flouting of the rules, it has become completely obvious to me that BLACK from PvP2 no longer exists outside of our memories. The 'A' in the name wasn't all that was damaged in the shipping. This BL4CK is an ugly shell of a once excellent clan. People used to see the BLACK tag and know they were facing a tough opponent (well...as tough as you'd find on PvP2...heh). Now they see the BL4CK tag and chuckle.

I can only hope that swift and firm clarification of the rules and punishment delivered by the development and moderation teams will cause my old clanmates to see the error of their ways, and start anew to rebuild the old clan from its foundation. I want to see them be a great clan again. But this is not the way.

 

1 hour ago, van der Clam said:

I'm still confused as to why 1st rates are allowed to raise hostility against a shallow port. This should've been changed like a long time ago.

I see deep water all around the port in question. What do you see that would limit first rates from sailing there to grind hostility?

If you want to only use shallow ships to grind with, there are ports which will spawn missions in shallow water for you. Simple. This a tribunal for players deliberately trying to sabotage by coming into battle without cannons and the intention to sink. Lets not derail it too much, or the mods will step in.

 

16 minutes ago, Loco Bandito said:

The game lets you put cannons on or not? its your choice to sail with our without.

How is that a broken game mechanic or exploit?

End of the day Captains choice. Games fuct anyway.

You can sail without cannons if you want to (a reminder pops up letting you know you are sailing without cannons). What you can't do (per past tribunal rulings) is join battles without cannons and no intention to fight. Thats a violation of the rules.

As the saying goes, don't walk into a theater and yell 'fire' then spout 'freedom of speech' when the authorities show up.

4 minutes ago, Loco Bandito said:

Its a sandbox MMO you can do what. So many carebears.

See above, carebear. B)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Loco Bandito said:

The game lets you put cannons on or not? its your choice to sail with our without.

How is that a broken game mechanic or exploit?

End of the day Captains choice. Games fuct anyway.

So no cannons should make an easier target to sink? Or maybe he is board fit took cannons off for speed? So many variables yet you cry poor me. No wonder players dont come back.

I know you haven't played in a very long time, but lets be honest here.  Me and you done a lot of boarding in our days and we never went without cannons.  You don't make a board fit Navy Brig any way it doesn't have the crew and you don't go into a deep water hostile missions without cannons and try to get boarded.   You might not know but one of the great things added since you last played is broad side from your actual cannons with the ['] keys so  you want cannons to do damage to the ship and crew while boarding.  I watched the video and it looks just like these guys where trying to block shots and get sunk.   Going into a mission to get sunk to reduce hostility is against the game rules.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

I know you haven't played in a very long time, but lets be honest here.  Me and you done a lot of boarding in our days and we never went without cannons.  You don't make a board fit Navy Brig any way it doesn't have the crew and you don't go into a deep water hostile missions without cannons and try to get boarded.   You might not know but one of the great things added since you last played is broad side from your actual cannons with the ['] keys so  you want cannons to do damage to the ship and crew while boarding.  I watched the video and it looks just like these guys where trying to block shots and get sunk.   Going into a mission to get sunk to reduce hostility is against the game rules.

 

Mate I hardly play, was keen to get back into it, tried it here and there but the whole game is going backwards. Pirates never got a Pirate mechanic, they control ports like nationals. 

Pirates should have raid port mechanic. make them pillage and plunder, mercenaries for hire.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This was never refrained earlier in game. There is no game mechanic to stop or limit that. 

Such exploits are clearly encouraged in game by (no) rules of the game and by the "jurisprudence" of this Tribunal. Precedent cases where unpunished. This strategy (losing fights against NPC) is encouraged and is a valid one in Naval Action. 

Players who don't like it, as I don't, must live with it anyway or quit game. As I did.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Aquillas said:

This was never refrained earlier in game. There is no game mechanic to stop or limit that. 

Such exploits are clearly encouraged in game by (no) rules of the game and by the "jurisprudence" of this Tribunal. Precedent cases where unpunished. This strategy (losing fights against NPC) is encouraged and is a valid one in Naval Action. 

Players who don't like it, as I don't, must live with it anyway or quit game. As I did.

You clearly haven’t played very long, or are simply ignorant of the past rulings on the subject. Please educate yourself before cloaking your misinformation in silly verbiage meant to convince your reader that you know more than you do.

This behavior is clearly against the rules on several points (joining fights without the intention to fight, manipulating RvR-related battles without even bothering to equip cannons, etc.), as determined by past tribunals. 

This is as clear cut as it gets.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Severus Snape said:

No cannons huh.  Let's hope these offenders are faced with the same level of scrutiny as the last "no cannon" drama did.  

 

Last no-cannon case was related to farming with other players.
When NPC sinks you no-one is getting marks, which is fine if you do it yourself for yourself.

But if you clearly interfere with the port battle activities of the other players of your own nation (where your purpose should be to help them) then you are breaking the rules of the game. 

In this particular case the explanation will be requested from the players and warnings will be issued. If these players will be noticed in similar activities again they will be transferred to the nation they are trying to help and could lose rank as well. 

 

  • Like 24
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...