Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Despe

Report for griefing Capt Hardy and Richard Caley

Recommended Posts

I was grief today by Capt Hardy and Richard Caley in Morgans Bluff, in a 1.30 hour battle. I rec this video at 0.58 hour, because i thougth that it was a real battle, and when i understood that they only wanna me waste my time i start recording. The video finish at  0.05 hour, not sure for what, probably a bad configuration in my software.

In any i think that the grief is so clearly. Thy have not any intention to figth in any moment, only shooting my sails with chains and balls for tagging me constantly, and run away when i try to approach for figth.

Thx for your time and work.

Despe loves you.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't griefing. They are so close to you but you can't hit them with your Carronades. Thats not the fault of your opponents

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, eneibesmuB said:

That isn't griefing. They are so close to you but you can't hit them with your Carronades. Thats not the fault of your opponents

Please see the video. 1.30 hour shooting my sails, tagging, retaging, run away, tag aggain, run again... I did the best i can, is not easy hit one snow and one prince with carros. And if im so bad shoting, why they dont sunk me in 1.30 hour? the answer is simple, because they dont have eny intention to figth, only taggin me until the last second of the battle .

Edited by Despe
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Please see the video. 1.30 hour shooting my sails, tagging, retaging, run away, tag aggain, run again... I did the best i can, is not easy hit one snow and one prince with carros. And if im so bad shoting, why they dont sunk me in 1.30 hour? the answer is simple, because they dont have eny intention to figth, only taggin me until the last second of the battle .

its not griefing .

you have to understand ,  that you are in a dangerous ship to attack you, and therefore they do extreme battle tactics

you on the other hand made no decision in counter attack (and stick to it)

example 20.55 > used chain instead > of ball  (and hasty fire instead of aiming )

you should have sink the snow first when you had the chance

you sail not under 75 % and most at the time above 80%

also running at a prins  (not smart)

 

my verdict is you should have shot the poop out of them 

(but you did not)

perhaps the admiralty of your nation has a verdict too :)

 

 

conclusion:  no griefing

but good battle tactics from GA members (what even could be more..... drastically )[they played with you]

and poor execution of your own tactics

 

ps:  i am not judging of you as a captain so don not take it to personal .!

"the best mates are ashore"

 

это не горе.

Вы должны понимать, что вы находитесь в опасном корабле, чтобы атаковать вас, и поэтому они используют экстремальную тактику боя

Вы, с другой стороны, не приняли никакого решения в контратаке (и придерживайтесь его)

пример: 20.55> использовал цепь вместо> шара (и поспешный огонь вместо прицеливания)

ты должен был потопить снег первым, когда у тебя была возможность

Вы плаваете не ниже 75%, а в большинстве случаев выше 80%

также работает на принс (не умный)

 

мой вердикт, ты должен был выстрелить из них

(но ты не сделал)

возможно, у адмирала вашей нации тоже есть вердикт :)

 

 

вывод: без горя

но хорошая боевая тактика от членов ГА (что даже может быть больше ..... радикально) [они играли с вами]

и плохое исполнение собственной тактики

 

PS: я не сужу о вас как о капитане, так что не принимайте это как личное.!

"лучшие друзья на берегу"

Edited by Thonys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Thonys said:

and poor execution of your own tactics

and if my tactic are poor why they dont sunk me? They have a 1.30 hour, long guns to shot me out of my range and the were faster than me. Porbably it is because they have not intention to figth, the only hull reps that i used is for fort damage.

46 minutes ago, Thonys said:

that you are in a dangerous ship to attack you

if i tag a ship that i cant sunk, i leave battle i dont tag him 1.30 hour. What is the intetntion of tag? I think keep someone in battle because you know you can sink it. It is the case? No, they only tag me for not leave the battle.

46 minutes ago, Thonys said:

you sail not under 75 % and most at the time above 80%

Even with 100 per cent sails the were faster than me. Seems that you dont see the video, i was at 69 per cent sails some time, the first 10 minutes under 75 percent, and 73 percent some minutes after. Shooting sail have a goal: make the ship slower for sunk or board it. It is the goal in this case? My answer is no, they could have tried that in 1.30 hours, they were 2 vs me.

46 minutes ago, Thonys said:

you should have sink the snow first when you had the chance

Sink one snow and one prince is not easier when they are faster that you and run to the fort when i try to aproach them. Y have not really chances to sink them.

47 minutes ago, Thonys said:

also running at a prins  (not smart)

I run vs the prince only when i have better wind that him. Seems thay you don pay any attention to the video

 

 

Edited by Despe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Despe on this one (very unusual!).  It's ridiculous that you can be held in battle for one and a half hour.  Game mechanics allow this to happen (there should be a way out), but if the intent is simply to hold someone in battle for this long, it's griefing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Despe said:

and if my tactic are poor why they dont sunk me? They have a 1.30 hour, long guns to shot me out of my range and the were faster than me. Porbably it is because they have not intention to figth, the only hull reps that i used is for fort damage.

if i tag a ship that i cant sunk, i leave battle i dont tag him 1.30 hour. What is the intetntion of tag? I think keep someone in battle because you know you can sink it. It is the case? No, they only tag me for not leave the battle.

Even with 100 per cent sails the were faster than me. Seems that you dont see the video, i was at 69 per cent sails some time. Shooting sail have a goal: make the ship slower for sunk or board it. It is the goal in this case? My answer is no, they could have tried that in 1.30 hours, they were 2 vs me.

Sink one snow and one prince is not easier when they are faster that you and run to the fort when i try to aproach them. Y have not really chances to sink them.

 

Mmm
still no grievance
and as a supplement:

I will make a recommendation to the officer training board for a refresher course on attack tactics.

 

like i said :

"лучшие друзья на берегу"

 

Edited by Thonys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Thonys said:

I will make a recommendation to the officer training board for a refresher course on attack tactics.

My answer is the same, if my tactics are poor and GA mates are excellent, why they dont sunk me in 1.30 hour? Even when i am side by side vs them, they still shooting my sails. You can see that in video clearly, but seems that you didnt see it.

Edited by Despe

Share this post


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

My answer is the same, if my tactics are poor and GA mates are excellent, why they dont sunk me in 1.30 hour? Even when i am side by side vs them, they still shooting my sails. You can see that in video clearly, but seems that you dont see it.

still no grievance

they just play with you

("ven could be more..... drastically )[they played with you] and poor exec" )

 

you could have surrendered  (period)

Edited by Thonys
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thonys said:

still no grievance

they just play with you 

you could have surrendered  (period)

Now that is a ridiculous response.  If someone if griefing, harassing and wasting your time...you should surrender??

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Thonys said:

still no grievance

they just play with you 

you could have surrendered  (period)

Play for what? I play for sink the enemy or leave when im loosing, i dont play for shoot sails of a player 1.30 hours knowing that he can't escape because I'm faster than him.

I could surrender: yes, i could, but surrender is when you know that you are dead in battle and you dont want to play because you know that you will be sunk in 15 minutes, it is not to reward two players who are an hour and a half shooting at your sails.

It is simple to undestand, take a bellona and i take a neuchafel, i can tag you 1.30 hour, you will surrender?

Edited by Despe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Now that is a ridiculous response.  If someone if griefing, harassing and wasting your time...you should surrender??

i even surrender when i have to take a shit... lol

 

harassing is a felony >tribunal>  did not see that over here .

wasting time: >>  you commit to do battle for 1h30 minutes .

it s not griefing  (they still fire guns)

 

and yes it is ridiculous to do stuff you do not commit too. >>  that is ridiculous. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Thonys said:

it s not griefing  (they still fire guns)

lol, of course they still shoot guns, they need tag me to prevent i leave battle xD.

In any case, what is griefing for you?

Edited by Despe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just see 2 captains 

to make a recommendation to the officer training board for a refresher course on attack tactics.

:)

end of pigeon talks :)

 

Edited by Thonys

Share this post


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

extreme battle tactics

lol

being kept in battle for the whole 90 min with no actual fighting is griefing in my eyes

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Liq said:

lol

being kept in battle for the whole 90 min with no actual fighting is griefing in my eyes

 

4 minutes ago, Thonys said:

i just see 2 captains 

to make a recommendation to the officer training board for a refresher course on attack tactics.

:)

end of pigeon talks :)

 

sorry

i see 3

:)

i suddenly see it is tribunal i must apologise: 

end of transmission.

 

Edited by Thonys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know for a fact Capt Hardy is average the fact you couldn't sink him fills me with joy

Happy Christmas

Custards wife loves Custard 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:

I agree with Despe on this one (very unusual!).  It's ridiculous that you can be held in battle for one and a half hour.  Game mechanics allow this to happen (there should be a way out), but if the intent is simply to hold someone in battle for this long, it's griefing.

Then I would like to report the game for griefing me, for making me sail for 1 hr for a PB! 
The tactic here are lame but it's one battle, doesn't griefing require multiple instances? I thought that was established. Otherwise I think there would be too many cases that could be thought of as griefing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Never said:

Then I would like to report the game for griefing me, for making me sail for 1 hr for a PB! 

not comparable, you sail because you want, nobody forces you. I was in battle 1.30 hours seeing how my enemies tagging me constanly and waiting for the time were over for can leave.

I can make things easy for you with a question, what would happen if you were to do pvp and someone kept you constantly in battle in front main enemies waters, 1.30 hours with a privateer? and after that another guy do the same another 1.30 hour? I think that in this case you cant do pvp, you were in a bullshit loop, what in my opinion is griefing. Thats the same in my case.

Share this post


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

not comparable, you sail because you want, nobody forces you. I was in battle 1.30 hours seeing how my enemies tagging me constanly and waiting for the time were over for can leave.

I can make things easy for you with a question, what would happen if you were to do pvp and someone kept you constantly in battle in front main enemies waters, 1.30 hours with a privateer? and after that another guy do the same another 1.30 hour? I think that in this case you cant do pvp, you were in a bullshit loop, what in my opinion is griefing. Thats the same in my case.

The first line about PBs wasn't serious. 

But in the case of it happening for more than 1 battle then yeah I would say it's griefing. If there was no purpose to delaying you then it's also griefing. If there was a point to it, like delaying you from a PB or something, and it wasn't in more than 1 instance then it's not griefing. At least that's how I understand it, but these griefing 'rules' are way too grey and blurry. 

It would be about time we have a clear set of rules of what is griefing and what isn't. And have them visible someone in game, like on the loading screen before battle and have pop up warnings during battle also, if possible. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Never said:

But in the case of it happening for more than 1 battle then yeah I would say it's griefing.

How can it be griefing if there are 2 distinct players in my example?  do you report both? and what about these player did that without comunication and without knowing that the other had done it first? This is the problem of your argument. If one random guy can tag you 1.30 hour in a battle and this is not griefing, one second guy can do the same after some time, and you can not accusse the second one for griefing, if the first one can do it.

And the issue of the PB is irrelevant. I was not part of any PB group, i was alone in front their port trying to tag brits, and the PB ends when i was in battle, like you can see in the video, if you have seen it, and they still tagging me to the end of timer.

Respect you sais of rules of this, totally agree. We need clearly rulesr rules to prevent that some players can be bothering another one for 1.30 hours, and you can't do anything to prevent it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Despe said:

How can it be griefing if there are 2 distinct players in my example?  do you report both? and what about these player did that without comunication and without knowing that the other had done it first? This is the problem of your argument. If one random guy can tag you 1.30 hour in a battle and this is not griefing, one second guy can do the same after some time, and you can not accusse the second one for griefing, if the first one can do it.

And the issue of the PB is irrelevant. I was not part of any PB group, i was alone in front their port trying to tag brits, and the PB ends when i was in battle, like you can see in the video, if you have seen it, and they still tagging me to the end of timer.

Respect you sais of rules of this, totally agree. We need clearly rulesr rules to prevent that some players can be bothering another one for 1.30 hours, and you can't do anything to prevent it.

It isn't 'my argument', it's what I understood as the rules for what is considered griefing; as stated by admins/moderators here. To be considered griefing it has to be repeated and obviously it would have to be the same player. The rest of scenarios, as irritating as they can be, are not griefing unless Admin wants to change his stance on the rules he has mentioned on every single case as of late that is being reported as griefing. 

But yeah, we also need the rules for griefing in-game and not just in the forum and they should be specific and clear. Otherwise we need a new system for keeping people in battle instead of the 'if you get scratched by a single spec that came off a cannon ball you are tagged and can't leave'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I am understanding this complaint correctly, Despe you are complaining that 2 ships that combined have less firepower than yours did not close to a range where you could do more than take pot shots at them. They harassed and weakened your ship while preventing you from inflicting a large amount of damage to theirs. You chose the weapon load on your ship the same as they did, the difference is that they made a better choice while you were hoping to run across a trader who was slower than you that your carrows could tear apart with ease. So you got upset because they would not make it easy for you. There were several times where you could have chased Hardy down into an area that would restrict his area to maneuver in and you turned away. That was your choice not theirs. On other occasions you fired only on shot or two instead of all available, again your choice. Your ships can dish out over 1200 points of damage using mediums compared to their 500 and you expect them to just close in and brawl with you at point blank range? You must really expect everyone else to be utter morons to think that a ship carrying longs will close to 200m away from a carrow laden ship when it has absolutely no reason to at all. This is not a tribunal worthy thread, more of a whining fest because you were ill equipped to deal with 2 smaller ships that were fitted for dealing with you in a manner that neutralized your advantage.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...