NPC Disengage.

[Duque]

I think banning people, who paid $40 for a niche game, is a step in the wrong direction and sends a very wrong message. This kind of stuff must be dealt with I guess, especially because people like to whine over piracy like it's the return of the black plague, but flat out banning people from your game just because they saw the opportunity to get theirs is not how devs should deal with it. If you ask me, this shouldn't be an issue in the first place. I'll willingly admit I've done it to people, I've seen others do it a bunch. You put the mechanic in there and this is how people use it. At the very least if you're going to let people be hugboxing carebears, let pirates do it to each other. Everyone whines about how they have to be different from the other factions and here is the perfect chance.

Sorry, paying $40 for a game wont allow you to be as rude as you want. If you want be rude and attack and do all you want become pirate. This is a great game and we dont need here people who doesnt show respect for aother players. Ths is a great improvement patch.

[James T Skoll]

Sorry, paying $40 for a game wont allow you to be as rude as you want. If you want be rude and attack and do all you want become pirate. This is a great game and we dont need here people who doesnt show respect for aother players. Ths is a great improvement patch.

 

Way to take what I said the complete wrong way. 

[Aubrey]

This is not DayZ

Interfering with friendly Navy in history could cause court martial and punishment and sometimes death. 

For example not delivering bottles with messages to the division of Flotsam and Jetsam was punishable by death. Stealing something from a fellow sailor was punishable by flogging and if repeated by death. Its in the Naval Fighting instructions.

 

If the player is green its a friendly. And he should be helped. This is our position.

Want to fight or do something bad? Attack normally from the open world - he is your enemy then - your hands are clean now.

 

PS

we are ok deleting hanging 10-20 captains for griefing of their Navy compatriots as an example to others.

Awesome view point, no time for BS, I like that!

Edited February 4, 2016 by Aubrey

[Quineloe]

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.

No, I don't think you understood what I meant.

[LordBeer]

I'm glad we agree that banning is too much. Turning people Pirate if they steal others captures sounds like a great idea, I'd like that as a fix. How do you police it though?

 

Let's not start talking about the "rules" of the British Navy in the early 19th c. Because this game doesn't accurately model them and this discussion has little to do with them. I am ALL in favour of mechanics that heighten immersion and encourage roleplay.

 

Being part of the British Navy and wanting to roleplay has nothing to do with being annoyed that someone took your trader brig. Did you have orders to interdict enemy trade or run enforcement for customs? No.

You could use the tribunal.  Although, I imagine a majority of people would have trouble getting enough hard evidence to make their case for something like this.  It wouldn't really affect me much since I'm all geared up for recording/streaming.  An hour and a half of HD does recording takes up A LOT of space though, and tribunal matters can take up time and resources to be done properly.

 

You could also setup up the game to register one player who get permission to board.  Set it by whomever does damage first, most damage over a set time, or have people get a random chance for boarding permission if multiple people enter a match at the same time.  If someone other then the player with permission boards the ship, they get a pirate flag.  I'm not sure how much trouble it would be to program that in though.  I guess you could just disable their grapple ability for the claimed ship, but I'd enjoy getting to take some shots at any thief myself.  

 

I'd rather this mechanic not be needed at all.  I'd rather the Devs had more time to work on adding content and such.  However, some people are greedy, lazy, and others just enjoy trolling.  It's pretty obvious that people will continue to do it if something isn't set into the game's code.  It wasn't needed before the sales opened up on Steam, but it sure is now.

 

Also,  Admin mentions historical navies several times when he's talking about thievery and rule breaking.  He does so quite regularly on the forums when making a point as do many others.  I do hope you're not going to jump on everyone that mentions them because the precedent was set on that a long time ago.  Eesh, a moderator even says this place is run like the 18th century British Navy.  So, I would say that mentioning the British Navy is relevant.

[Slamz]

We will have to find another way to solve the breaking boarding by so called friendly players.

 

The attacker who starts the fight owns all ships for his side.

The defender who got hit owns all the ships for his side.

 

Anyone can join the battle but regardless of what they capture, all ships are owned by the above people. If you start a fight and I join in and I win a boarding combat, it's exactly like you had won it. The ship is yours, not mine.

 

If the owner wants to let you have a ship, he can unlock it for you just like now.

 

If the owner leaves, ownership reverts to current FFA rules, anything goes.

 

 

[slightly longer term, it would be nice if there was an interface for distributing loot and ownership among whoever is present, controlled by the owners]

Edited February 4, 2016 by Slamz

[Tryaz]

Well I don't know about everyone else in this thread but I'm really satisfied with the changes from the most recent patch 9.63
I like that missions are locked to those outside your group. Great change, it preserves the feel of being on Navy business when other randoms can't interfere. I like that this wasn't applied to traders and other engagements preserving the privateer feel of those fights. I'd be interested to know the dev's views on stealing the capture of a trader from an ally. Are they any different to their feelings on stealing a capture from an ally in a mission?
 

I continue to have great collaborative experiences with other players (all strangers) in this wonderful sandbox game. I've just closed the client after a great [trader, trader, brig] engagement where friendlies came in to help. I chained the brig as i passed to let the cutters catch up to it and went in pursuit of the two traders. Called a friendly Navy Brig downwind to help with the captures. I dismasted one trader and resumed pursuit of the second - asking the friendly Navy Brig to capture the first. After both traders were captured I'd made some profit and two new friends who I'm sure I'll sail with again. Disclaimer: no griefing took place in this engagement which I began alone. All parties left satisfied and richer, without animosity. No tears were shed because we're all adults here. Traders WERE hurt in the making of this anecdote.

[neoblackheart]

I don't think banning them would be fair BUT not banning or anything the people that shoot them if they do grief you is fair.

Example is this(it actually happened)

Me and my friend were in a mission I was in a snow he was in the rene and we were working on capping a Cerb that showed up in his mission. someone came in and proceeded to board it. me and my friend came up and just broadsided the hell out of him reducing his ship to 0 armor on both sides and back in about 2 minutes. He had worked through about 3/4 of the enemy crew in this time. He sank we board the Cerb and claim it.

[akd]

I don't think banning them would be fair BUT not banning or anything the people that shoot them if they do grief you is fair.

Example is this(it actually happened)

Me and my friend were in a mission I was in a snow he was in the rene and we were working on capping a Cerb that showed up in his mission. someone came in and proceeded to board it. me and my friend came up and just broadsided the hell out of him reducing his ship to 0 armor on both sides and back in about 2 minutes. He had worked through about 3/4 of the enemy crew in this time. He sank we board the Cerb and claim it.

Cool, but green-on-green damage is punished automatically and without recourse. You lost a bunch of XP doing that (green damage is something like double or triple negative XP), and if you do it again, you will probably end up reset or banned.

[Mclovin]

yesterday a pve ship disengaged ... still normal ? thought it is deactivated ?! ?

 

[Aubrey]

Cool, but green-on-green damage is punished automatically and without recourse. You lost a bunch of XP doing that (green damage is something like double or triple negative XP), and if you do it again, you will probably end up reset or banned.

Isn't that exactly what will come with one of the next patches?

I am sure I read something like 3x the penalty - and I agree.

If the penalty is too low, people will just not give a damn if one or two shots hit a friendly, as long as the rest hits the target.

[Macjimm]

yesterday a pve ship disengaged ... still normal ? thought it is deactivated ?! ?

Did you have enough boarding preparation?

[Nukenin]

Instead of all these little changes trying to mitigate a problem, why not change the main aspect of looting in a way that lets the group or person who first entered a battle decide how to distribute a boarded ship or found upgrades etc. This would at least make it impossble for some griefer to "steal your ship". And it would be much easier to manage distribution of a ship later, as it happend to me a few times, that I had to finally capture a ship that my friend wanted to sail later - sometimes I didn' t even had a free slot at my outpost, etc. 

[Darmand]

 

yesterday a pve ship disengaged ... still normal ? thought it is deactivated ?! ?

 

 

Hmm i have not seen any that i have boarded use disengage. Not proof either way but they used to use it quite often on me.

[Macjimm]

Hmm i have not seen any that i have boarded use disengage. Not proof either way but they used to use it quite often on me.

I had a AI trader brig disengage last night. But it was at the beginning of the boarding process and I had not prepped. I didn't get into the boarding screen, was pulling. Don't know if that counts as a disengage.

[VonVolks]

In keeping with the period vibe can I suggest something instead of just banning?

The navy of the period (and indeed now) are totally rank reliant.

So If "grief boarder" is highest rank present, that's just touch luck... Cue cursing the brass hats and gold braid brigade.

If grief boarder is NOT top rank present, then demote them one rank.

If they repeat offend they keep getting demoted. If they are demoted to bottom rank (maybe twice?) then they are banned?

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

The rank idea just encourages bullying and griefing. I agree, it would be very "in period", but I'm not sure it would work well from a fun game standpoint.

[Darmand]

I had a AI trader brig disengage last night. But it was at the beginning of the boarding process and I had not prepped. I didn't get into the boarding screen, was pulling. Don't know if that counts as a disengage.

Naw. that is just them having enough speed and/or distance to stop it before the boarding really got started. After the boarding menu pops up and them using the disengage skill is what has been changed. Or at least what will be changed:) still not seen one use it again today so far.

[JJWolf]

It should simply come down to the mission/instance initiator for PvE.

 

For PVP or NPCvNPC instance creations it should come down to the person who captured it.

[Ghroznak]

Make it the players choice if the battle is to be open, group/friends only or private.

 

That will remove 100% of griefing by ninja-capping ships, and requires 0 effort from the developer other than simply implement the feature.

 

It then becomes a matter of who initiates the battle first and pull the trader into battle. Anyone else who was too late... well... just like the resource nodes in MMO's... if you are too slow and someone else starts mining that ore node, then you were simply too slow.

 

Problem solved.

[traderjack]

msg, moved to a more suitable forum thread

Edited February 8, 2016 by traderjack

[Deadstuff]

looks good

[Jean LaPointe]

I wonder if the admiralty has simular discussions over prizes. It seems the root of this discussion is not really through grief but the fact someone has spend time is softening a target just to have the prize taken from him.

If the prize reward is divided by the time played. The captured ship going to the highest time holder in the battle then any player coming late into a battle to take away a prize from those who have spent the time and effort to soften the target is rewarded with a portion of the prize and not all of it.

Here is a way a squadron can work together, rewarded for their efforts and comrades are made. You can assist or be assisted by others on your team without concerning for loosing a hard earned gain. Anyone who enjoys the exploit of entering into an existing battle thinking they can cut away the entire prize will only be able to leave with the percentage earned from the amount of time in the battle.

This allows for individuals to play the way they like and reward of the prize is based upon the time engaged in the capture of the prize. The one who put the most important into the captured gets the larger cut of the spoiles.

IMHO

[KrakkenSmacken]

I'm sorry but as a general rule of thumb - I DON'T  want other people who are not in my group joining my OW battles on the PvE server. I would like the option to open up the battle if I so choose, or in the case of joining an NPCvNPC battle it is always unlocked.

 

This is an excellent update and a step in the right direction to addressing the issue but it really needs a lockout system on PvE to allow the mission/instance starter to choose to lock out the battle and prevent non-group captains from joining if you so choose.

A lock out, selected pull in, system that applied only to your side of the fight sounds like it should be tried.

 

Instance creator/target gets a list of ships that want to enter on his side, somewhere around the same screen location as call for re-reinforcements, and can select accept/deny within 30 seconds of request. Members already in his group are automatically joined. Allow for a setting toggle to automatically accept/deny/ask by default.

 

You get no say on the other sides forces, so only those on the same team have the ability to lock out to prevent involuntary isolation of weaker players.

Edited February 24, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Pokerjoker]

best change ever!