who need enemys with nation like this

[TracyLords]

Amilkar{PRIV} just to say you can keep the loot i dont care next time we in batlle i wont help you i watch enemy sink your steeling arse with smile.

He loots elite wasa i taged and killed and leave without a word.

[Slim McSauce]

How toxic of him to steal your loot, though you are on the same side you should be working together.
I would petition to your admiralty to have him labeled as a thief and a pirate to be taught a lesson.
This should be possible in the sandbox. It makes more sense than having a pirate "nation"

Edited October 1, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Hawkwood]

Maybe they just don´t need you in that nation........

[Eyesore]

i just leave the battle when i see it a PRIV-player.  Some like to sail downwind all the time  😄

[Salty Sails]

No case for tribunal... 

[TracyLords]

46 minutes ago, Salty Sails said:

No case for tribunal... 

i know nothing cant be done its posted to show every1 what a idiot he is nothign else. I dont expect loot or anything from him if he cant kill his own elite wasa i can i so no worries there just posted so other know what we dealing  with when it comes to him.

[Tac]

Should of just sank him mate.

[Angus MacDuff]

4 minutes ago, Tac said:

Should of just sank him mate.

Cant do that.  He cant be forced to stay with tagging because he's a 'friend".

[Tac]

14 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Cant do that.  He cant be forced to stay with tagging because he's a 'friend".

I would of warned then sank him before he got it or leaked him , either way.i have no time for that crap. Zero tolerance.

[Captain2Strong]

I don't think that he will get scared by your post on forum or that anyone cares at all
...oh... and I don't think it's against the rules! ... so that's just fine!

Edited October 2, 2019 by Captain2Strong

[Captain2Strong]

7 hours ago, Eyesore said:

i just leave the battle when i see it a PRIV-player.  Some like to sail downwind all the time  😄

damn, I didn't know that they behave as bad as this!

[[MCC] Die Antwoord]

Never seen this kind of behavior from anyone on the dutch side but like I always say there are idiots and arseholes in every group/clan/nation.

[Raekur]

6 hours ago, Tac said:

I would of warned then sank him before he got it or leaked him , either way.i have no time for that crap. Zero tolerance.

Considering the admins position on it and that there has been no actions by the admins towards permitting players to defend their ships, I would tend to agree with you. Though keep in mind that you would face a tribunal against you for doing so, but I guess (like in the case of a player asking what to do in order to protect the gold first rate he had) it is better to face a loss of rank verses losing a ship that (per admin "might") be replaced. Losing a rank even at the highest level would take far less time to earn back then the grind and resources spend trying to rebuild a gold first rate with upgrades. So the admins need to really sit down and think on this position of you are not permitted to defend your ship from green on green and on loot stealing. It should be that if someone enters your battle you should only have to tell them ONCE and ONLY ONCE to leave or they will be fired upon. Granted, there is nothing wrong with the person that enters asking permission to get some exp (if he is a low rank) but if he is not and is of the higher ranks then there is no reason for him not to leave. There may be the occasional time when it is nothing more then someone joining with the intent to help, but then leave when asked nicely to do so. So if someone does enter your battle, be nice and ask them to leave and that you want to do the mission solo. If they dont leave then issue a warning that if they close you will fire on them. Personally I see nothing wrong with this action and the admins need to understand this. If they are not going to give the initiator of the battle an option of denying players from joining their side, then the only action a player can take is to communicate their intentions and then if needed open fire on the intruder.

[Slim McSauce]

Then comes the issue of once warning is given, an all out green on green battle happening which possibly sparks the beginning of green on green clan or even nation conflicts. None of this being mechanically supported in game would spell disaster, friendlies joining other friendlies, giving them warnings to leave and then sinking each other claiming rights to loot, XP, or battle join rights.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Tac]

39 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

Then comes the issue of once warning is given, an all out green on green battle happening which possibly sparks the beginning of green on green clan or even nation conflicts. None of this being mechanically supported in game would spell disaster, friendlies joining other friendlies, giving them warnings to leave and then sinking each other claiming rights to loot, XP, or battle join rights.

In my experience you can choose to play with shady shenanigans or you can try to play with a certain amount of respect, those that try to play like little shits i have no time for steeling loot like this or in other cases like using alts to increase the BR as has happened on a few occasions i will always aim to sink and i tell my guys to do the same.

I always record it and have never been in a tribunal yet because of the shame they would bring on themselves, i have no qualms about it what so ever.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Tac

[Raekur]

1 hour ago, Slim McSauce said:

Then comes the issue of once warning is given, an all out green on green battle happening which possibly sparks the beginning of green on green clan or even nation conflicts. None of this being mechanically supported in game would spell disaster, friendlies joining other friendlies, giving them warnings to leave and then sinking each other claiming rights to loot, XP, or battle join rights.

Well the person who tagged the target "should" be the only one with the right to decide who stays and who should leave. I can see where someone else joins a battle and tries to say that the originator should leave but that is just equal to joining a battle and sitting back doing nothing and then sailing up to steal the loot. The intentions of the person who joined a battle should become rather apparent within the first few minutes of the battle. But either way, during that time the originator can issue the request for the person to leave and then they will know or at least have a very good idea of what the reason are for the person joining the battle. Regardless, the admins need to append the rules to include situations like this due to the increase in frequency of them occurring. Ignoring it will not make it go away but WILL increase the amount of investigations the admins will be required to do from the otherwise avoidable tribunal threads.

[Slim McSauce]

1 minute ago, Raekur said:

Well the person who tagged the target "should" be the only one with the right to decide who stays and who should leave. I can see where someone else joins a battle and tries to say that the originator should leave but that is just equal to joining a battle and sitting back doing nothing and then sailing up to steal the loot. The intentions of the person who joined a battle should become rather apparent within the first few minutes of the battle. But either way, during that time the originator can issue the request for the person to leave and then they will know or at least have a very good idea of what the reason are for the person joining the battle. Regardless, the admins need to append the rules to include situations like this due to the increase in frequency of them occurring. Ignoring it will not make it go away but WILL increase the amount of investigations the admins will be required to do from the otherwise avoidable tribunal threads.

When the first green on green battle is had because someone broadsides another for not leaving their battle, and that person decides to fire back, potentially sinking their aggressor in self defense, who will be in the wrong? The rules on this need to be laid out because it's only a matter of time.

[Thonys]

just a message for all foreign powers that have an opinion about this
when these crimes take serious forms, the dutch admiralty will consider appropriate measures at a higher level and will appeal to the clans.

and appropriate measures will be taken. crimes against the nation will be punished. even if the gods think otherwise.

One for all, all for one

our norms and values are dear to us
we do not live in a republic of bananas

Edited October 1, 2019 by Thonys

[Raekur]

1 hour ago, Slim McSauce said:

When the first green on green battle is had because someone broadsides another for not leaving their battle, and that person decides to fire back, potentially sinking their aggressor in self defense, who will be in the wrong? The rules on this need to be laid out because it's only a matter of time.

I agree that some specific rules need to be clarified on the matter. If the originator of the battle requests that the other person leaves and then chooses to open fire on the intruder and the intruder happens to win then neither are in the wrong. This might sound a little off but consider that the originator had the choice to decide that opening fire on the other ship or just leave. There is no mechanic that can be installed short of a request to join the battle that will prevent this. There is no other way and even this option will put the originator of the battle at a disadvantage as he has to respond to the request unless the default is no after 10 seconds. At least with the prompt he can select who he wants to join and deny those that he does not want there. But as I stated, it comes at a cost of being interrupted every time someone enters the join circle. So it still leaves a chance for someone on the outside of the battle an opportunity to be a little prick and keep dancing in and out of the circle. 

[Slim McSauce]

5 minutes ago, Raekur said:

I agree that some specific rules need to be clarified on the matter. If the originator of the battle requests that the other person leaves and then chooses to open fire on the intruder and the intruder happens to win then neither are in the wrong.

I agree, let the games begin!