Alpenvibes Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 wow i just fell in love with these devs/admins xD its great to see you standing behind your vision and the game! you got my fully support! and about the sandbox excuse... i think its bs. rl is sandbox too, i could go out and hit someone or even kill someone. i COULD! but i would get punished! you CAN steal an allys ship too, but you will get punished! Maybe just think about not banning the player, instead make him pirate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanall Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 My take on the matter for those that dont want prize-stealing to be ban-worthy? That capsizing the attempted thieves by ramming them should also not be ban-worthy. The 'sandbox' argument works both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry d'Esterre Darby Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Breaking boarding? Sounds like this is to prevent a friendly player from boarding. It would include "stealing boarding" when someone other than the player initiating the battle instance completes the boarding. Have I got that right? Can the Admin or Mr Darby please explain what "NPC Disengage" means? I may not be the only one who doesn't understand this clearly. If a boarding is going badly for you, or you're boarded and you think you're going to lose, or even if you just don't want to be boarded right now, you can attempt to disengage. Disengaging takes four or five rounds, and I'm not sure what your penalties are while trying to do so. If you're successful, your ships drift apart and you may begin maneuvering to get clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quineloe Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) it takes four rounds, then when it just says "disengage" another round duration takes place - but nothing happens that round. Edited February 2, 2016 by Quineloe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uzii Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Banning for bad game behaviour (not actual bad behaviour (swearing/harrassing), that should be bannable) should really be the last tool to be used to correct an issue. It is the very last defence of game rules. Allowing players to choose whether or not to leave there battle instance open should be the first thing to try and correct this problem. If that somehow doesn't work, and all other methods fail, bring out the Ban-Hammer. It should not be the go-to response if something doesn't quite work as intended. Hopefully, this being a temporary fix, a better one is being worked on as we speak. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKurj. Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 So this means you are going to set the cost to purchase Outposts lower? Otherwise this will have little effect. The 1st outpost is dirt cheap.. Thats all you need is the one more and you can do just as you do in kingston.. or wherever your starting nation is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoarmurath Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 If they can't board the ships, they will sink them. And it will still be an issue. Remember, most of these players are not just greedy, they are here just so they can grief someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James T Skoll Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 If they can't board the ships, they will sink them. And it will still be an issue. Remember, most of these players are not just greedy, they are here just so they can grief someone. I sincerely doubt people pay $40 for a niche game genre just to grief. People just play differently than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoarmurath Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I sincerely doubt people pay $40 for a niche game genre just to grief. People just play differently than you. I know from experience that there are way more griefers than you imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James T Skoll Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I know from experience that there are way more griefers than you imagine. As a griefer myself, I got this game because I loved Sid Meiers Pirates and Assassins Creed Black Flag. And I like old naval sail boats. While pissing other people off in an MMO sandbox is fun and funny, I mainly just want to sail pretty ships and shoot cannon balls at other pretty ships. If my ( and others ) intention were solely to grief, Id just play an F2P game. Not everyone is a griefer, but some people are assholes. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quineloe Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 As a griefer myself Kinda giving away there that you really are not. Every griefer I've ever met even questions the existence of "griefing" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James T Skoll Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Kinda giving away there that you really are not. Every griefer I've ever met even questions the existence of "griefing" Are you seriously going to go to semantics over griefing people? Trust me, there is power gaming and there is griefing. People who question dumb crap like that are either doing it as a justification for their actions or are genuinely dumb. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xoosch Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) To lower boarding stealing opportunities by friendly players NPC Disengage will be disabled. Breaking boarding by ramming is extremely useful in pvp and it saves lives - it will be kept. We will have to find another way to solve the breaking boarding by so called friendly players. Perhaps by banning? ps. to reduce such cases until we find out the solution players are advised to move out from capitals further to other areas. Map is huge and there is place for everyone. Ok i'm all for fair play and following the rules. But your Rules begin to look a bit extreme. Chat misbehavior-banning, green on green-banning, ramming a friendly-banning. Please consider not everyone is reading the forum and aware of these rules. And even if here are people who don't play by your rules, they still have payed good money for the right to play this game. So at least make it some kind of 3 Strikes System. Edited February 2, 2016 by Xoosch 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frost Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Even better design the game so the mechanics take care of all those issues. Chat filter! Instance toggles! Bam two mechanics from the 80s and we don't have these forum based rules nobody ingame sees or follows and you aren't supporting griefers! Edited February 2, 2016 by Frost 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macjimm Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 If a boarding is going badly for you, or you're boarded and you think you're going to lose, or even if you just don't want to be boarded right now, you can attempt to disengage. Disengaging takes four or five rounds, and I'm not sure what your penalties are while trying to do so. If you're successful, your ships drift apart and you may begin maneuvering to get clear. Darn. Hope this doesn't sound obtuse. I think that the above defines NPC disengage. In other words the AI will no longer disengage when boarding is in progress, regardless of who initiated the boarding. But players may still disengage. Although I'm still confused about breaking boarding. It seems I am allowed to ram an enemy player during a PvP to disrupt a boarding to save a friendly ship BUT I can be banned for ramming a friendly/AI boarding. Is that about right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry d'Esterre Darby Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Darn. Hope this doesn't sound obtuse.I think that the above defines NPC disengage. In other words the AI will no longer disengage when boarding is in progress, regardless of who initiated the boarding. But players may still disengage.Although I'm still confused about breaking boarding. It seems I am allowed to ram an enemy player during a PvP to disrupt a boarding to save a friendly ship BUT I can be banned for ramming a friendly/AI boarding. Is that about right? At the moment, that's about right. I doubt banning would be the first response, but it is currently against the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbcochran Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I love all these whiners. You QQ so hard bc the devs take a stand against behavior which would ultimately destroy the game. All of you who complain are the sort that are not needed in the game. You whine that you will no longer be able to cherry pick or grab the low hanging fruit? Give me a break. It's players like that that are always looking to exploit the rules so hard. Just because you're able to do something in game doesn't mean you should, in fact, do it. I applaud the devs on this stance, as I am a firm believer in "let the heads roll" philosophy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snail Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 All have been warned - this game and community are run like the 18th Century British Navy. You are expected to comport yourself with a certain level of decency and honor, and an eye towards following the rules. Those who fail to do so and persist in their actions will find themselves on the beach with no command (banned). Problem is, you have people in the game who are less-than-reliable witnesses for said events, and the devs themselves have little accurate means of assessing said reliability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tremor Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 NO to bans. All that "I report you" can AND WILL be abused. If someone aborts your boarding -> bad but that happens. If someone steals your ship -> bad but that happens. If someone shoots at green accidential -> bad but happens. If someone shoots PLANNED at green -> switch him to oppsite side with a small timer that prevents him from shooting for 30? seconds. or mark him as psychotic player. Psychotic players can only enter missions and fights with other psychotics. A normal player can CHOOSE if he want to join a psychotich battle ^^ (mabye mark them red on map) If you have such huge problems with player adds just remove open battles for missions. (only group can enter mission) Or maybe make TWO mission types. Open for all (more xp) Closed (less xp) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanial Blackandecker Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 No it isnt perfect but Admin already said it was a temporary measure. I'm also happy this game isn't turning into an alternate universe where griefing friendly players is fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Nice idea! Waiting for this solution, however temporary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I STRONGLY disapprove of banning for this act. I have not yet been guilty of it myself but I detest the idea of players being banned for this. If this is the kind of policy that NA devs are going to pursue then I will be made to think hard about how much I want to commit to this game. Surely the best and most reasonable fix for this is to allow people to lock their missions and NPC encounters to prevent "friendly" players from ""assisting"" Again: I think handing out bans for this use of game mechanics would be EXTREMELY FOOLISH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryaz Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 At the moment, that's about right. I doubt banning would be the first response, but it is currently against the rules. Where are these rules? I'm want to make sure I understand them if arbitrary elements of legitimate gameplay can result in a ban. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanial Blackandecker Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 The act of intercepting a half captured prize surely in itself is an act of piracy? Perhaps those that want to do that should become so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratline Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I love all these whiners. You QQ so hard bc the devs take a stand against behavior which would ultimately destroy the game. All of you who complain are the sort that are not needed in the game. You whine that you will no longer be able to cherry pick or grab the low hanging fruit? Give me a break. It's players like that that are always looking to exploit the rules so hard. Just because you're able to do something in game doesn't mean you should, in fact, do it. I applaud the devs on this stance, as I am a firm believer in "let the heads roll" philosophy. Yeah, you see it's people with exactly this attitude who end up rolling the wrong heads. Thanks for demonstrating precisely why banning based on hearsay and anecdotal evidence is bad. This isn't something clear cut such as exploiting, verbal abuse or racism. The reason most people are saying that banning is ill advised is not because we support griefing, or engage in this behaviour ourselves (I've never even entered another player's mission or battle, other than the furballs outside Port Royal pre-Steam)... it's because we have the experience and brains to know the shitstorm that overuse of bans can create unless you can clearly show the person punished was guilty. A far better solution is to fix the mechanics in game to make this harder, if not impossible, 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts