Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

otro nuevo Boicot en el intento de capturar George Town 2 pve


Recommended Posts

  • Miembros
  •  6 6
  • 6 publicaciones

I want to report that yesterday at 11:30 until 12:10 a player from the British nation named Frank Ramsey decided to enter the warming of George town with Pandora to burst our warming towards George Town

desconocido.png

Within this battle, the player repeated several times that he did not know the English language and that we spoke to him in German.

 

idiot.jpg

That was passed by a player who identified with our problem by making us know how dishonorable the British player is. I guess the comments of my warming battle are recorded in some document within the game and I hope that the @ administration will look for these documents to confirm my actions. I understand that this is not allowed to be that way. I hope that the administration takes action in the face of such an act of dishonor. Question: I thought this game is a struggle of nations to control the ports, because players from other nations are allowed to enter the warming of the port of another nation. We show our great concern about these acts. I wish that measures be taken to avoid it in the future.

 

Edited by CHARLIE V
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

yes.. already being coded Not only other nations. Other players from your nations wont be able to join  if they are not in your group. This will remove the potential exploit of alts blocking the def

agree perhaps its time to sell hostility missions. That would solve most of the problems.. 50,000 doubloons per each..  And add reward for taking a port.. 150,000 to recover the hostility missi

you have to make a tribunal against Spanish.havoc makes this every time. after that the devs change the mechanics. or you change your nic to rediii or liq. maybe thats works aswell

  • Ink locked this topic

Reported player has participated in 2 missions

For taking a slot: Warning. 

  • Player have violated "interference in RVR" rule.
  • For taking a slot, he will be warned and his steam ID recorded for future violations (that will count to his steam ID even if he changes nation).

For hostility interference. No action due to no interference.
Port will not be set neutral or transferred. 

  • Despite acceptance of interference he could not change hostility itself. Hostility points are awarded individually and on exit the battle. Spanish players exiting were creating hostility points (even if other players are still in battle)
  • Player could not affect interference as it is awarded to those who sink ship in a mission and exit the mission. Staying in the mission or keeping it open does not affect or delay hostility points. 
  • British clans were faster gaining hostility and would have got the battle for themselves because they accumulated 11152 points and Spanish only were able to accumulate 5229 points

 

There is another similar case on Truxillo where action will be taken soon. Because of such cases happening the entry to hostility missions will be only limited to clan alliance and group members (who are already invited to a group)

 

post unlocked for discussions.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • admin unlocked this topic
18 minutes ago, admin said:

There is another similar case on Truxillo where action will be taken soon. Because of such cases happening the entry to hostility missions will be only limited to clan alliance and group members (who are already invited to a group)

I agree that something needs to be done regarding the way that hostility was raised on Truxillo as it is an abuse of the game mechanics and this may solve that issue, but I do hope that you will also take a closer look at how ports are transferred when a clan changes nation. The removal of all other nation clans from the friend list to prevent them from defending a nation port is wrong and is just as much an abuse of the game mechanics as what happened at Truxillo. Even though ports are owned by a clan, in most cases many other clans have contributed to the development of the port and as such have a right to try and defend their investment when the owning clan decides to move nation.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, admin said:

Reported player has participated in 2 missions

For taking a slot: Warning. 

  • Player have violated "interference in RVR" rule.
  • For taking a slot, he will be warned and his steam ID recorded for future violations (that will count to his steam ID even if he changes nation).

For hostility interference. No action due to no interference.
Port will not be set neutral or transferred. 

  • Despite acceptance of interference he could not change hostility itself. Hostility points are awarded individually and on exit the battle. Spanish players exiting were creating hostility points (even if other players are still in battle)
  • Player could not affect interference as it is awarded to those who sink ship in a mission and exit the mission. Staying in the mission or keeping it open does not affect or delay hostility points. 
  • British clans were faster gaining hostility and would have got the battle for themselves because they accumulated 11152 points and Spanish only were able to accumulate 5229 points

 

There is another similar case on Truxillo where action will be taken soon. Because of such cases happening the entry to hostility missions will be only limited to clan alliance and group members (who are already invited to a group)

 

post unlocked for discussions.

My question is: where is it writting that players are NOT allowed to enter the battle and why was it even possible in the first place. There were already similar incidents 4 years ago when alts were taking slots during port battles on PvP servers so this issue isn't new at all. You implement the mechanics, you allowed so it's no offence. You fixed it with port battles long time ago so why did you still allow it with hostilities?

 

At least something will happen. It's always funny to see, as an old school player, that people have obviously need to force changes. Looking forward to changes of the mechanics.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CptEdwardKenway said:

My question is: where is it writting that players are NOT allowed to enter the battle and why was it even possible in the first place. There were already similar incidents 4 years ago when alts were taking slots during port battles on PvP servers so this issue isn't new at all. You implement the mechanics, you allowed so it's no offence. You fixed it with port battles long time ago so why did you still allow it with hostilities?

 

At least something will happen. It's always funny to see, as an old school player, that people have obviously need to force changes. Looking forward to changes of the mechanics.

this means reasonable

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Archaos said:

closer look at how ports are transferred when a clan changes nation.

Totally agree too,  RvR mechanichs has no clear rules if Truxillo issue is not allowed and San Juan transference is it.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, huliotkd said:

but truxillo an san juan are not the same thing.

truxillo was flipped using an alt to create hostility mission, san juan was flipped by main account of ex-danes player...so, completely different

But you delete all friendly list clan, for prevent the danes defending the port. It is diferent but it is a suspicious use of RvR mechanics.

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

But you delete all friendly list clan, for prevent the danes defending the port. It is diferent but it is a suspicious use of RvR mechanics.

Apples and oranges dude. Stop this bs only because your clan is involved in the truxillo flip.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Montagnes said:

Apples and oranges dude. Stop this bs only because your clan is involved in the truxillo flip.

RvR mechanics have an objetive: a figthing for a port. If you delete the friendly clan list with your alts in Denmark for prevent danes defending the port, you are broking that mechanichs too. Truxillo issue is as suspicious as San Juan is. And Gasparilla is the same.

Edited by Despe
  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, huliotkd said:

 

truxillo was flipped using an alt to create hostility mission, san juan was flipped by main account of ex-danes player...so, completely different

Truxillo ruling will be announced soon.. When we hotfix of hostility entry rules. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin said:

Reported player has participated in 2 missions

For taking a slot: Warning. 

  • Player have violated "interference in RVR" rule.
  • For taking a slot, he will be warned and his steam ID recorded for future violations (that will count to his steam ID even if he changes nation).

For hostility interference. No action due to no interference.
Port will not be set neutral or transferred. 

  • Despite acceptance of interference he could not change hostility itself. Hostility points are awarded individually and on exit the battle. Spanish players exiting were creating hostility points (even if other players are still in battle)
  • Player could not affect interference as it is awarded to those who sink ship in a mission and exit the mission. Staying in the mission or keeping it open does not affect or delay hostility points. 
  • British clans were faster gaining hostility and would have got the battle for themselves because they accumulated 11152 points and Spanish only were able to accumulate 5229 points

 

There is another similar case on Truxillo where action will be taken soon. Because of such cases happening the entry to hostility missions will be only limited to clan alliance and group members (who are already invited to a group)

 

post unlocked for discussions

So other nations outside of the 2 sides will not be allowed to join?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mouth of Sauron said:

So other nations outside of the 2 sides will not be allowed to join?

yes.. already being coded
Not only other nations. Other players from your nations wont be able to join  if they are not in your group. This will remove the potential exploit of alts blocking the defense. 

Only group members, alliance clan members will be able to join hostility missions. This leaves the window for non clanned members to participate and help if they are invited to groups/battlegroups.

 

  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mouth of Sauron said:

So other nations outside of the 2 sides will not be allowed to join?

Literally no one else will be able to join. You have to be either a clan member/member of allied clans or at least invited to the group. No other nation can be clan member, allies or invited. I think that should be clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin said:

yes.. already being coded
Not only other nations. Other players from your nations if they are not in your group

Only group members, alliance clan members will be able to join hostility missions. This leaves the window for non clanned members to participate and help if they are invited to groups/battlegroups.

 

👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff

Something still bothers me.

Nothing would restrict Nation A, at war with Nation B, from getting their "unofficial Ally" Nation C to flip Nation's A Frontline Port, so that Nation B cannot attack it for 4 days.

Given Nation C has a port on the frontline aswell / OR the Port is attackable from a Free Port.

Not sure how to fix it

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Montagnes said:

Apples and oranges dude. Stop this bs only because your clan is involved in the truxillo flip.

It is the same abuse of friendlist and alts as already explained. 

Alt clan with empty friendlist can be abused defensively and offensively. But it's still the same. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Liq💋 said:

Good stuff

Something still bothers me.

Nothing would restrict Nation A, at war with Nation B, from getting their "unofficial Ally" Nation C to flip Nation's A Frontline Port, so that Nation B cannot attack it for 4 days.

Given Nation C has a port on the frontline aswell / OR the Port is attackable from a Free Port.

Not sure how to fix it

this could be fixed by creatively thinking about non attendance. for example attacking non attendance - can be spawning elites and sending them to circles forcing people to come defend. 
But then even this does not stop it.. Ally can attend. Do some american boxing, even sink ships and reset the cooldown. Without any alt usage. Just a helping hand. 

Maybe even better way could be removal of cooldowns. Frontlines are new cooldowns, but borders can have daily fights. 

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

this could be fixed by creatively thinking about non attendance. for example attacking non attendance - can be spawning elites and sending them to circles forcing people to come defend. 
But then even this does not stop it.. Ally can attend. Do some american boxing, even sink ships and reset the cooldown. Without any alt usage. Just a helping hand. 

Maybe even better way could be removal of cooldowns. Frontlines are new cooldowns, but borders can have daily fights. 

Or maybe cooldowns only affect the 1 nation that attacked.

Plus other nations can still flip a Port when another nation has a PB on it aswell. So only if the other nation captures it first, the second scheduled PB gets deleted.

Edited by Liq💋
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin said:

this could be fixed by creatively thinking about non attendance. for example attacking non attendance - can be spawning elites and sending them to circles forcing people to come defend. 
But then even this does not stop it.. Ally can attend. Do some american boxing, even sink ships and reset the cooldown. Without any alt usage. Just a helping hand. 

Maybe even better way could be removal of cooldowns. Frontlines are new cooldowns, but borders can have daily fights. 

Cooldowns are good for taking some rvr breaks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, admin said:

this could be fixed by creatively thinking about non attendance. for example attacking non attendance - can be spawning elites and sending them to circles forcing people to come defend. 
 

which could be fun.. and could drastically change port battles. especially for small nations. 

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

Cooldowns are good for taking some rvr breaks.

yes.. but they can be used to create a block - a forced break nobody wanted. And the longer the cooldown the more incentive is to use it artificially. 

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

yes.. but they can be used to create a block - a forced break nobody wanted. And the longer the cooldown the more incentive is to use it artificially. 

RvR exhaustion could be a thing that severely hits the game pop.

I would be cautious with some changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...