Knuddel Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 (edited) NAB-94300 that guy here is griefing he is not comming to fight has no intentions of killing or at least fighting me but is keeping me in battle for fun. https://ibb.co/SKyszZm BTw this is his control https://ibb.co/d2FRJnG he stoped shooting https://ibb.co/d2FRJnG and enjoying his controle perk.... https://ibb.co/yWJCjmp Talking about war needs time but not even Shooting lol https://ibb.co/0qVNYX7 so last comment from him https://ibb.co/nkQgBbY I think thats the definition of Griefing. Feedback would be nice. Edited October 4, 2019 by Knuddel Edit reason is Links which arend accured 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Rainsborough Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 (edited) As Lucky is Chinese and will have difficulty responding I would like to point out that you tagged him in order to prevent his entry into the port battle. After the 3rd time of you tagging him he may have just got a bit tired of your bullshit tagging. Practice what you preach. Edited October 4, 2019 by Gregory Rainsborough 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Farseer Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 Does anyone have a magnifiying glass to read thos screenshots? Oo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubyRose Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Knuddel said: NAB-94300 that guy here is griefing he is not comming to fight has no intentions of killing or at least fighting me but is keeping me in battle for fun. https://ibb.co/SKyszZm BTw this is his control https://ibb.co/d2FRJnG he stoped shooting https://ibb.co/d2FRJnG and enjoying his controle perk.... https://ibb.co/yWJCjmp Talking about war needs time but not even Shooting lol https://ibb.co/0qVNYX7 so last comment from him https://ibb.co/nkQgBbY I think thats the definition of Griefing. Feedback would be nice. so he was shooting at the start so how would this be a tribunal worthy issue all he did was get in range of his control area he now has no reason to keep shooting as u cant leave battle. Edited October 4, 2019 by RubyRose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuddel Posted October 4, 2019 Author Share Posted October 4, 2019 Delaying yes at the time when we could enter the PB fine (so called scrfeening) But that was happening long after the PB closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poryv Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 keeping someone in battle without intention to fight is griefing. Screening is tagging someone, but not keeping them there for ages without a fight. This is a legit tactic. When you screen someone out, you fight or you let go. Everything else is griefing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 21 minutes ago, Poryv said: keeping someone in battle without intention to fight is griefing. Screening is tagging someone, but not keeping them there for ages without a fight. This is a legit tactic. When you screen someone out, you fight or you let go. Everything else is griefing. someone could argue that by screening, all I need to do is hit you every 2 minutes to make sure you don't leave. People "screen" others out of a port battle and do exactly this without "fighting." there is no black and white because what you think is fine and doesn't warrant a tribunal, others believe it permanently warrants a tribunal. Screening is for the strict objective to not allow someone to fight what they want to fight, it's no different than someone attacking someone for the sole purpose of not allowing them to do something they want to do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raekur Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Poryv said: keeping someone in battle without intention to fight is griefing. Screening is tagging someone, but not keeping them there for ages without a fight. This is a legit tactic. When you screen someone out, you fight or you let go. Everything else is griefing. As Teutonic stated, screening is a delay tactic that is used to deny an attacker from reaching their intended target. This can be either a port battle or a trade ship. While you as a "victim" may not agree with the tactic, your intended target may view it otherwise. So I guess the same advice applies to raiders as it does to traders, if you don't want to get tagged bring a friend. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severus Snape Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gregory Rainsborough said: As Lucky is Chinese and will have difficulty responding I would like to point out that you tagged him in order to prevent his entry into the port battle. After the 3rd time of you tagging him he may have just got a bit tired of your bullshit tagging. Practice what you preach. If this is indeed LuckyL, this isn't his first or 2nd rodeo. He's actually been warned by @admin to stop griefing. Here's one from recent memory. I know there are others. He also used to amuse himself by staying in port battles for the full 15min duration after the battle was over just to deny the other side entry into the port. ---- As to the realm of screening, the goal is to deny the enemy entry into the PB. Lot's of grey area here. What I do know is that this guy is a 1st class troll who is incapable of winning actual PVP fights and has been warned before for doing similar actions. f^&ck him Edited October 4, 2019 by Severus Snape 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liq Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 5 hours ago, RubyRose said: considering the delaying action isnt against game rules and is a valid tactic and/or strategy actually admin somewhere somewhen stated that the one that initiates the battle (aka tags the other player) has to actually fight in it and not just kite so nope, no valid tactic or strategy 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donjuan Dimarco Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 thats defently griefing, ugly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 its griefing yes, but havent been through this several times? dont hate the player, hate the game(devs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubyRose Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 13 hours ago, Poryv said: keeping someone in battle without intention to fight is griefing. Screening is tagging someone, but not keeping them there for ages without a fight. This is a legit tactic. When you screen someone out, you fight or you let go. Everything else is griefing. no greifing is defined on multiple tags in a row with no intention of doing battle by the same player against the same player. u can look at the tribunal that was put against me awhile ago do doing just that in this same situation against another player. see this type of action could be used to keep u in battle till allies are in position to retag u and take u out in the OW. dont cry about a tactic every nation uses in general pvp not just outside pb's 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuddel Posted October 5, 2019 Author Share Posted October 5, 2019 21 hours ago, Raekur said: reaching their intended target. This can be either a port battle or a trade ship. While you as a "victim" may not agree with the tactic, your intended target may view it otherwise. So I guess t My intention was not to keep him in Usless battles but to sink him. And to avoid guys going into PBs sint griefing. ANd he tagged me first so i cannt participate in the Portbattle ccaurse one of our Screeners took my place on command. Guys you are mixing 2 diffrent things up and his intention was just to waist time. He didnt shoot a single shoot just keept me in battle with Controle Perk thats just booring. If he would go for me and try to kill me i would not complain, but like that its just Griefing. His taktic was to make me Bored to death and thats just simple not Fair. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubyRose Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Knuddel said: My intention was not to keep him in Usless battles but to sink him. And to avoid guys going into PBs sint griefing. ANd he tagged me first so i cannt participate in the Portbattle ccaurse one of our Screeners took my place on command. Guys you are mixing 2 diffrent things up and his intention was just to waist time. He didnt shoot a single shoot just keept me in battle with Controle Perk thats just booring. If he would go for me and try to kill me i would not complain, but like that its just Griefing. His taktic was to make me Bored to death and thats just simple not Fair. so u posted a tribunal over a guy who screened u out of a pb. wow there goes the game. https://ibb.co/SKyszZm BTw this is his control https://ibb.co/d2FRJnG he stoped shooting u really should keep ur story straight the first pic shows him shooting at ya, the 2nd pic shows u have damage and if he was the only one to pull u then he did indeed shoot at u. which means he did his job as a screener and kept u out of ur intended battle. enjoy reading an old tribunal for about the same issue. TLDRadmin Posted December 19, 2018 issue will be resolved according to game rules. consistent griefing where the only goal is to keep the player in battle multiple times in the row is not allowed. for the record i received no warning for it. considering the evidence was not back to back battles but separated by multiple days. Edited October 5, 2019 by RubyRose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FKL 1982 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 Seems to me like the control mechanic is working as intended Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liq Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, H982 FKL said: Seems to me like the control mechanic is working as intended control perk's purpose was to let ships without bow chasers that are de facto faster than an other vessel catch up to them - Because they were in fact catching up and the other vessel had no option of getting away, except simply despawning after 2 minutes because a cannon ball did not hit his sails once tagging with the sole purpose of keeping someone in battle without engaging him = greifing, was also said by the developpers before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuddel Posted October 10, 2019 Author Share Posted October 10, 2019 So i would like to get a developers staitment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubyRose Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 On 10/6/2019 at 12:32 PM, Liq said: control perk's purpose was to let ships without bow chasers that are de facto faster than an other vessel catch up to them - Because they were in fact catching up and the other vessel had no option of getting away, except simply despawning after 2 minutes because a cannon ball did not hit his sails once tagging with the sole purpose of keeping someone in battle without engaging him = greifing, was also said by the developpers before thats an assumption on the area control perk if it was intended for those without bow chasers why does the pfrig, prince, niagara and a few other ships have it built in might i add the prince and pfrig both have bow chasers. not to mention but the perk is for every ships not just bowless ones. how someone chooses to use it doesnt make it griefing just because u dont like how he used it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liq Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 22 minutes ago, RubyRose said: thats an assumption on the area control perk if it was intended for those without bow chasers why does the pfrig, prince, niagara and a few other ships have it built in might i add the prince and pfrig both have bow chasers. not to mention but the perk is for every ships not just bowless ones. how someone chooses to use it doesnt make it griefing just because u dont like how he used it 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfire Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 (edited) You don't want to be screened out of port battles don't show up . "A person who enters a battle should fight it" ..they did the shot their cannon at you..hit you. This was a port battle your linking open world every day sailing rules and trying to bend them to your advantage. Different rules for port battles and screening out fleets and players and YOU KNOW THIS. Been that way since flippin screening fleets were used at port battles here hence the word Screening !! Edited October 11, 2019 by Dragonfire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raekur Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Liq said: How exactly does this apply to the current issue? That quote was in regards to a multiple ship engagement not a one vs one. Please keep things in context to the discussion and not try to bend an unrelated situation to try to force it to be applicable. The admin comment was towards someone joining a side for the purpose of locking out anyone from joining that side and then just sailing away from the engagement. How does that relate to this exactly? Screening in relation to a port battle is not just attempting to prevent ships from reaching the port battle. It includes the screening fleet of the other nation and preventing them from engaging friendly vessels regardless if they are the port battle fleet or screening ships. People need to stop trying to exclude things because they do not support your viewpoint. @Knuddel What your intentions were are irrelevant to this because you are not the person being accused. The purpose of a tribunal is to determine if the intentions or actions of the accused are in violation of the rules. The problem here is that you got screened out of a port battle which means that 24x7 did his job. That is all there is to it. He tagged you, he fired at you, he inflicted damage. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubyRose Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 screening isnt against the rules and griefing only pretains to multiple back to back pulls with no intention of fighting as per my post about for this same exact situation. and the ruling the admins gave on it. this tribunal is a joke 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuddel Posted October 13, 2019 Author Share Posted October 13, 2019 No The Portbattle was Closed. For both sides bevor i sailed off. This battle started like 20 mins after teh Portbattle closed for both sides. I would not complain when this would be a Screening action. But that was just stupid waisting of time. And that is Griefing. He started the Fight he shoot a few rounds than he just keept me in his controlerange and had no intention to fight He atacked me in front of Ays. About Portbattlesy and Screening: Yes abosolut fair, but that was far off everything. Just waisting time. i think i should do the same with you and look how you wpould react. I was watching netflix while that "Battle".... If that is how you want to use your Playtime... well i sugest you single Player games. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuddel Posted October 14, 2019 Author Share Posted October 14, 2019 (edited) Same guy is doing it again same prince no intention of fight NAB-94482 Screenshoots will follow. LAME 30 mins so fare. BTw Gegory your new excuse for ur clanmate would be interesting. Edited October 14, 2019 by Knuddel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts