Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 As many of you know I usually play 10-12 with the Aussies. It schedules in nicely with the other things I need to do in real life. It now also coincides with the best thing ever on Monday's patch: a nightflip of the complete map. I think it makes sense for everybody to experience it. Anyway, this story is not going to be about the patch. This story is about The Nightflip. Lets start with the prologue which for a change shall be done by @Jeheil. I'm hoping for an interactive story, because I like those the best.
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) Chapter 1: Legalities and Disclaimer and that sort of nonsense Skully said: Naval Action, owned by Game-Labs, sold through Steam to the EU market, appears to be in violation of 2016/0152(COD) "REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on addressing geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers' nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC" Article 3(1), (2), (3), (4). Note that the above constitutes a proposal to the EU community and is not in effect yet. As required by Article 3(4), I request Game-Labs to give a clear justification. Thank you. Going by COM/2016/289/FINAL http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:0289:FIN, expected to enter legislation before the end of this year. To the mods, please do not censor this as then I'll be forced to take the advice offered by the EU solicitor and bring this to a different forum. On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Skully said: Should she ever read this, I first want to apologize to the EU solicitor for not heeding her advice, not to post on this forum. Furthermore there is no point in debating this without an EU solicitor present and lets just say that I do not qualify. Lets assume for the moment that Game-Labs is indeed liable because their community refuses to discuss the issue and come to a justified conclusion. If anybody wishes to add more disclaimers, then please let me know in private messages. For now I consider the legal side of the discussion parked. Edited September 10, 2017 by Skully stupid editor
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Posted September 10, 2017 Chapter 2: Defining the Problem What many people may not have realized is that the flip shown by @Jeheil is actually a night flip. There are a couple who realize very well this was a night flip, namely the dev team. On 5/29/2016 at 9:17 AM, Skully said: By now we were doing port-battles so frequently we had it down to almost an art. We spotted the grape bug. And as true Pirates we "abused" this to do port battle in 5 minutes. "Surely they will defend Trux!?" was said. I already was telling the clan, no it will not. Admin was too late with the hot-fix to save Truxillo. And Truxillo fell within a couple of minutes, to be switched over to Pirates 15 minutes later. As the server woke up, they faced a different (west side of) map. Just as we are going to do on Monday. The result: 16 hours ago, Skully said: 16 hours ago, admin said: i still dont understand where are you moving things from and why do you need to move from there. If it was a freetown you had plenty of warning. If it a capturable city - it was capturable before as well. The louder we say, you don't need to do anything, the bigger the panic. Obvious there is a problem with fear of (pixel) loss. (Even in our own Clan.) And then I start tying knots together. On 9/7/2017 at 6:42 PM, Skully said: Both sides are being lazy. The defenders, because they want to hold territory without doing anything. The attackers, because they actually do not attack, but rather complain I was wrong. It's not lazy, it is fear of (pixel) loss. Well, to put it simply fear of pixel loss is unjustified. This game is all about having to lose pixels (for someone else to gain). Yet we do need a form for protection. But lets first take that fear a bit further. Port maintenance implies grinding or lose. It means a passive construct (/ no activity on your side) will result in losing a Port. It'll empower the veterans who can grind easily. A nightflip can be perceived in similar manner. A passive construct (/ no activity on your side) will result in losing a Port. Except, it is not a passive construct. Some player(s) out there is actively attacking your Port at an inconvenient time. On 6/2/2016 at 7:12 AM, Skully said: A lot of them are simply uncontested, because people are unwilling or incapable of showing up. Being asleep I consider as being incapable to show up. So we need to find means of bringing together players willing to attack a Port and players willing to defend a Port. No sympathies to the ones who are unwilling. This has to be balanced by each side required to put in an equal effort. For now I'll leave it at this, so everybody can gather some thoughts. I'm curious, what do you think so far?
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Posted September 10, 2017 13 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said: ??? 29 minutes ago, Skully said: What you can not understand, you can not question, you can only learn by experiencing.
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Peter Goldman said: ??? Ah I forgot the short summary: The barrier of PB 17-22 on EU server must be removed. Not because players like or dislike it. Not because Game-Labs might want it or not. But because it is (likely) illegal. Discuss a potential mechanic that makes the barrier obsolete. Edited September 10, 2017 by Skully
Guest Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) Doesn't that mean that the maintenance time is also discriminatory against whomever is hit by it? Edit - Also, " The requested document does not exist. " Edited September 10, 2017 by Guest
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Posted September 10, 2017 7 minutes ago, Aegir said: Doesn't that mean that the maintenance time is also discriminatory against whomever is hit by it? In a sense yes, because it could be rescheduled and some folks have raised this in the past. It is however a necessary evil of the current system which can only be applied in a convenient time for the dev team. Out of that window the hour(s) of least impacting a number of players has been chosen by dev team. I am all in favor of having a 24/7 game, but that is not viable cost wise. (Legally allowed justification.)
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Posted September 10, 2017 17 minutes ago, Aegir said: Edit - Also, " The requested document does not exist. " The comma sneaked in. Fixed.
Rune Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 but as long as they supply a global server they are not are in violation right ? 1
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Posted September 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Rune said: but as long as they supply a global server they are not are in violation right ? I am an EU customer playing 10-12. The offering contains no statements that particular content is not accessible during certain periods. Yes, this is Early Access, but that is no excuse to bypass laws. There are a couple of more arguments I could throw up here, but again this would only make sense in an ECC case handled by an EU solicitor. For us it makes more sense to focus on game mechanics as opposed to legalities.
Rune Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 Article 3 Access to online interfaces 1.Traders shall not, through the use of technological measures or otherwise, block or limit customers' access to their online interface for reasons related to the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of the customer. 2.Traders shall not, for reasons related to the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of the customer, redirect customers to a version of their online interface that is different from the online interface which the customer originally sought to access, by virtue of its layout, use of language or other characteristics that make it specific to customers with a particular nationality, place of residence or place establishment, unless the customer gives his or her explicit consent prior to such redirection. In the event of such redirection with the customer's explicit consent, the original version of the online interface shall remain easily accessible for that customer. 3.The prohibitions set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply where the blocking, limitation of access or redirection with respect to certain customers or to customers in certain territories is necessary in order to ensure compliance with a legal requirement in Union law or in the laws of Member States in accordance with Union law. 4.Where a trader blocks or limits access of customers to an online interface or redirects customers to a different version of the online interface in compliance with paragraph 4, the trader shall provide a clear justification. That justification shall be given in the language of the online interface that the customer originally sought to access. this is what your talking about right ? 1
Rune Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 article 2 (f) 'online interface' means any software, including a website and applications, operated by or on behalf of a trader, which serves to give customers access to the trader's goods or services with a view to engaging in a commercial transaction with respect to those goods or services; you still have access to the game and EU server and all the content with in it, so i don't see how this should apply to this law
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Posted September 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, Rune said: you still have access to the game and EU server and all the content with in it, so i don't see how this should apply to this law Does EU server impose a restriction of 17-22 on Port Battles?
Kloothommel Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 This is about trader software. For economical markets. Skully, get bent. 2
Rune Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, Skully said: Does EU server impose a restriction of 17-22 on Port Battles? yea but you can still access it and there is another server with out that limitation the law is about online interface not content within that interface 2
Kloothommel Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 5 hours ago, Skully said: Lets assume for the moment that Game-Labs is indeed liable because their community refuses to discuss the issue and come to a justified conclusion. It has been discussed in dozens of threads. Stop crying and powerhousing and accept that a part of the community wants timers on 1 server. As there is also a global server, discrimination isn't valid as an arguement, since the content Gamelabs is offering is available there as well. Community content is NOT their responsibility. So if global is crap, not their fault, neither is the relative success of the EU server anybodies fault. Nice try. 2
Kloothommel Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 Quote Proposal for a REGULATION... Proposal. So not even law. Nice try. 1
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Posted September 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, Rune said: the law is about online interface not content within that interface Quote by virtue of its layout, use of language or other characteristics In other words, content.
Kloothommel Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Skully said: In other words, content. Offered content vs player made content. And again: Same content is also offered without restrictions. Your agruement is void. Edited September 10, 2017 by Cornelis Tromp
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Posted September 10, 2017 12 minutes ago, Cornelis Tromp said: This is about trader software. For economical markets. Skully, get bent. Game-Labs was already forced to concede one case to me. Do not force me to make it two please.
Rune Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 7 minutes ago, Skully said: In other words, content. here we hit early access. we knew that changes would be made and they made another server without this limitation.
Kloothommel Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 9 minutes ago, Skully said: Game-Labs was already forced to concede one case to me. Do not force me to make it two please. 13 minutes ago, Cornelis Tromp said: And again: Same content is also offered without restrictions. Your agruement is void.
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Posted September 10, 2017 8 minutes ago, Rune said: here we hit early access. we knew that changes would be made and they made another server without this limitation. 3 (2) redirection requires explicit consent. Did all players that were forced to move give their consent?
Kloothommel Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Skully said: 3 (2) redirection requires explicit consent. Did all players that were forced to move give their consent? Quote When you buy an Early Access game, you should consider what the game is like to play right now. Look at the screenshots and videos to see what the game looks like in its current state. There are a lot of ways a game can go as it develops over time, so if you aren't excited to play the game in its current state, then hold off and wait until the next update--it shouldn't be far off. http://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/?l=english In other words, Skully, Uninstall and come back later. Thanks for playing. Edited September 10, 2017 by Cornelis Tromp 3
Skully Posted September 10, 2017 Author Posted September 10, 2017 33 minutes ago, Cornelis Tromp said: Skully, get bent. 10 minutes ago, Cornelis Tromp said: Your agruement is void. So is your language.
Recommended Posts