Galileus Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Seems to me that Green on Green can be quite justified though. If you have a problem with another player, you can report him. If you green on green him instead, he can report you, and you will be in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taranis Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) If you have a problem with another player, you can report him. If you green on green him instead, he can report you, and you will be in trouble. Yes, that much is understood. Not sure it answers my question / observation however. Also, seems to me that I would rather developers be investing their time in developing the game rather than get distracted by dealing with tribunal reports. Edited April 7, 2016 by TaranisPrime 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balsafer Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Yes, that much is understood. Not sure it answers my question / observation however. Also, seems to me that I would rather developers be investing their time in developing the game rather than get distracted by dealing with tribunal reports. That is why the green on green issues are handled automatically for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileus Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 That is why the green on green issues are handled automatically for the most part. Also, this is why green on green is overall forbidden and not considered to be justifiable by circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taranis Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 That is why the green on green issues are handled automatically for the most part. So you are saying that an automated rule banning green on green results in less tribunal support tickets and associated aggro? Interesting - I would have guessed the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry d'Esterre Darby Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Something we've been seeing more of lately is when one enemy rams another enemy in order to sink their ship, in order to prevent it from being captured (i.e. it is better for your Victory to get sunk than to allow it to be captured by the enemy, even if getting sunk means getting rammed by a friendly). Technically this is green-on-green damage but I don't imagine it ever gets reported because it's desired (even requested I think) by the player getting sunk. I suppose there is still risk for the captain doing the ramming, if the ramming damage is enough to give him kill credit then he might get an automatic XP reset, which puts the other side in the odd situation of wanting to do high enough damage to mast / sails / crew in order to be able to board, but still low enough that if the ship gets rammed the green player will get kill credit (and corresponding XP reset). Can players on the opposing side report someone for green-on-green damage or must the report come from the player who received the damage? If this is an intended mechanic then perhaps make it so that if Survival is turned off then the sinking is always considered a "scuttle" no matter which side got the "kill". Consensual green on green damage, especially to deny a resource to the enemy, or, for example, asking a friendly to ram between you and an enemy locked in boarding action to prevent you from losing, is ok. Nonconsensual green on green is not ok. Bear in mind that consensual or not, doing too much green damage will cause you to run afoul of the automated systems, so use consensual green on green damage frugally. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taranis Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Consensual green on green damage, especially to deny a resource to the enemy, or, for example, asking a friendly to ram between you and an enemy locked in boarding action to prevent you from losing, is ok. Nonconsensual green on green is not ok. Bear in mind that consensual or not, doing too much green damage will cause you to run afoul of the automated systems, so use consensual green on green damage frugally. Yeah - so my personal conclusion is that this green on green damage rule is causing more problems than its solving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quineloe Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 I don't know of anyone who had their account punished in any way for consensual and accidental green on green damage, so what problems is it causing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taranis Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 People are holding back when there are perfectly legitimate instances to sink a "friendly". As discussed, these can include times when the "friendly" is trolling (or when an enemy is taking advantage of the binary team based dynamics of battles), or when a friendly ship is in jeopardy of getting captured (eg: Mers el Kebir), not to mention accidental friendly fire in a close quarter brawl. In the end, it seems that the green on green limitation is due to a desire to limit players from exploiting XP... This categorical solution seems a little off the issue it is really looking to address. That said, I can't think of a better way of resolving for the exploit. So how about: Allowing for more than two sides in a battle - which at least would resolve the case when enemy factions join your side to hamper you instead of assisting you. Allowing the person initiating an attack to set boarding permissions at the onset of a battle. This would help eliminate the thieving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quineloe Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Those are Tribunal cases. Report them with enough evidence in the Tribunal. Ships in danger of being captured were not fired upon back then, so it would be unrealistic to allow it here. Mers El Kebir was a war crime of the worst sort and those ships weren't in immediate danger of being "captured". It was also not a consensual attack, in your scenario you would definitely have consent from your friendly player to sink his ship to prevent a capture. And yet you have a tool for this: Ram him hard. He turns off survival and sinks. As much as I object to all aspects of this, it's an option you have that will not really punish you through game mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileus Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 People are holding back when there are perfectly legitimate instances to sink a "friendly". As discussed, these can include times when the "friendly" is trolling (or when an enemy is taking advantage of the binary team based dynamics of battles), or when a friendly ship is in jeopardy of getting captured (eg: Mers el Kebir), not to mention accidental friendly fire in a close quarter brawl. In the end, it seems that the green on green limitation is due to a desire to limit players from exploiting XP... This categorical solution seems a little off the issue it is really looking to address. That said, I can't think of a better way of resolving for the exploit. So how about: Allowing for more than two sides in a battle - which at least would resolve the case when enemy factions join your side to hamper you instead of assisting you. Allowing the person initiating an attack to set boarding permissions at the onset of a battle. This would help eliminate the thieving. With all due respect, you're making stuff up. I've never had problems with FF nor heard anyone "fearing" it. We very often fire broadsides at each other when we're together and having fun. You're imagining an insanely complicated solutions that would create dozens of problems. Switching from 2-sided system to 3-or-more-sided one is insanely complicated and work intensive. Allowing for one person to set boarding privileges fixes the fringe thieving scenario and makes life harder for everyone else - who's not thieving. Trying to "fix" non-existent problem you propose a massive overhaul or creating new problems. I'm sorry, but this is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottydog Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 For your information Vernon. Capt Pugwash was a kids TV prog during the 60's. Seaman Stainnes, Roger the Cabin Boy and Ben Dover. Adults found this amusing as did the older children. My Grandsons are old enough to understand the double meaning. Now would you like to continue down this avenue because this is an entirely different matter which will be dealt with if you persist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vernon Merrill Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Please, bring it. Perhaps you can "deal with" your "chat problem" first. I have zero time for your bravado. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouse of war Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 For your information Vernon. Capt Pugwash was a kids TV prog during the 60's. Seaman Stainnes, Roger the Cabin Boy and Ben Dover. Adults found this amusing as did the older children. My Grandsons are old enough to understand the double meaning. Now would you like to continue down this avenue because this is an entirely different matter which will be dealt with if you persist. No those were not the names of the characters in the TV program - so it's hard to see how your grandsons can find the names you gave amusing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taranis Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 With all due respect, you're making stuff up. I've never had problems with FF nor heard anyone "fearing" it. We very often fire broadsides at each other when we're together and having fun. You're imagining an insanely complicated solutions that would create dozens of problems. Switching from 2-sided system to 3-or-more-sided one is insanely complicated and work intensive. Allowing for one person to set boarding privileges fixes the fringe thieving scenario and makes life harder for everyone else - who's not thieving. Trying to "fix" non-existent problem you propose a massive overhaul or creating new problems. I'm sorry, but this is absurd. Well in my experience playing pvp - there have been many an occasion as the ones i described. It is unreasonable to threaten players with reprisal when there are many valid reasons for green on green to take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileus Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Well in my experience playing pvp - there have been many an occasion as the ones i described. It is unreasonable to threaten players with reprisal when there are many valid reasons for green on green to take place. If it is valid, then it's consensual, then there is no threatening and no chance of reprisal. If it's not consensual, then it's not valid, then it's an attempt to abuse unfinished game mechanics. Simple as that, end of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottydog Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Capt Pugwash was a kids TV prog during the 60's. Seaman Stainnes, Roger the Cabin Boy and Ben Dover. Adults found this amusing as did the older children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taranis Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 If it is valid, then it's consensual, then there is no threatening and no chance of reprisal. If it's not consensual, then it's not valid, then it's an attempt to abuse unfinished game mechanics. Simple as that, end of story. 2 of the 3 examples I gave are not consensual green on green but perfectly valid. Perhaps you can re-read what has been mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileus Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 2 of the 3 examples I gave are not consensual green on green but perfectly valid. Perhaps you can re-read what has been mentioned. They are against rules, so they are not valid. Is someone does you bad, you report him, not shoot at him. This is EoT from me. You refuse to listen to anything that is said to you and prefer to replace reality and rules with your own romanticization of what should and what should not be. If you cannot follow simple rules, go ahead and get banned. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taranis Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 They are against rules, so they are not valid. Is someone does you bad, you report him, not shoot at him. This is EoT from me. You refuse to listen to anything that is said to you and prefer to replace reality and rules with your own romanticization of what should and what should not be. If you cannot follow simple rules, go ahead and get banned. Seems to me that you equate rules with what is valid or not. Circumstances are what make actions valid or not, not rules. Rules often do not address the validity of certain actions - and some times create new problems. The green on green rule is not appropriate in several instances. It is worth people coming up with these rules getting to open up their minds to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quineloe Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 (edited) Well you still have yet to come up with a plausible scenario that hasn't been dismissed as unhistorical or plain misinterpreted. Edited April 8, 2016 by Quineloe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KuroNyra Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Seems to me that you equate rules with what is valid or not. Circumstances are what make actions valid or not, not rules. Rules often do not address the validity of certain actions - and some times create new problems. The green on green rule is not appropriate in several instances. It is worth people coming up with these rules getting to open up their minds to that. If you are attacked by a green, you report it but you don't fire back. It's simple. If an ally is being caped, you don't fire on him. It's simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balsafer Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Never is it ok to sink a friendly and there is never a legitament reason too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taranis Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Never is it ok to sink a friendly and there is never a legitament reason too We shall have to agree to disagree on this one. I personally think that the following are legitimate reasons: 1) If the friendly is not a friendly 2) If the friendly is trolling you 3) If the friendly is being lost through enemy boarding In my experience, these 3 exception happen often. You may disagree with me - and that's fine. It does not however mean that I misunderstand or misinterpret the rule, nor does it mean that I am fabricating these examples. IMHO, the rule as stated is simplistic without these exceptions in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileus Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 1) Then the other guy reports you and you get banned, even though it was him who provoked you. Big drama, gray area of when friendly can be treated as unfriendly, problems, trolling and griefing. "But sir! I just miss-aimed the first salvo! It was a mistake, his response was the bad one! I just used my right to green-on-green as an answer to green-on-green!", Friendly simply making a mistake and aiming too low or through you sails gives you right to sink him - according to your rules. A lot of gray area and grief. 2) As above. Trolling is not quantifiable. 3) If the friendly agrees, rules allow it. If he doesn't... well, it IS his call, not yours. All in all, what you think doesn't matter, because your examples are KNOWN to be abusable and are KNOWN to lead to more problems than they fix. Not to mention, these are not exceptions to the rules BY DESIGN. By design rules forbid you from green-on-green, even in self defense. You tribunal these cases, as mentioned time and time again. Allowing the playerbase to self-judge where the trolling starts or ends is awful idea and would lead to necessity of policing every single case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts