Rogue clans

[Armored_Sheep]

Thanks to Profilic DLC, players can switch nations. A clan that was defeated by one nation can switch to that same nation and start disrupting nation diplomatic relations.

What if the owners of the ports who don` t like such rogue behavior can black list rogue clan so their players are not allowed to set outposts at their ports?

[Lt Sekiro]

Clan can already block crafting in own port ( no port bonus), no need more.

You can't block the gameplay of a player cause you don't like him

 

[BoatyMcBoatFace]

7 minutes ago, Lt Sekiro said:

Clan can already block crafting in own port ( no port bonus), no need more.

You can't block the gameplay of a player cause you don't like him

 

yet this is exactly what admin said they want to put in game "soon" (players chat banning other players with no oversight or justification)

 

so why not, lets make it so players can literally ban others from game! 

[iR_Willow]

I think what he is saying is concerning rogue clans switching a nation without being properly inducted into that nation.

Would be nice that once you apply for a new nation with the prolific forger dlc, it will take the clan leaders of that nation to decide to welcome said player in.

Until than your neutral and can't raise hostility.

Not because it's pressured on the  individual player, instead to support RvR and to slow down spies and corruption. Maybe a tribunal to judge clans to if they are conspiring against a nation and the choice to oust or keep them from the nation. Basically a True civil war can be had ;o

 

Of coarse alts bypass this :/

[Vizzini]

allow clan vs clan and this wouldn't be a problem

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Vizzini said:

allow clan vs clan and this wouldn't be a problem

I've always been against this on a historical principle, but since realism and any semblance of historical pretext is thrown out of the window I can't argue against it anymore.

Remove nations entirely, make a map situated in a fantasy area, or Indonesia that has a much better topography than the Caribbean in gameplay terms.

And remove port bonus' so that friend or foe can still play the game even if they lose a war. When did the game become a game of breaking the other players ability to play entirely? Oh right. I seem to recall one-porting of nations all the way back to 2016..

[Capitalism]

Bring back outlaw battles for all.. There should be no "green" in battles, only the flag you choose to fly.  

[Mouth of Sauron]

@admin how about hostility missions can only be pulled by clans who are on the friends list of that port owner.  Should solve a lot of the rogue clan bullcrap.

[Liq]

8 minutes ago, Mouth of Sauron said:

@admin how about hostility missions can only be pulled by clans who are on the friends list of that port owner.  Should solve a lot of the rogue clan bullcrap.

also suggested before but this opens more exploits, e.g. a nation using an alt clan in a hostile nation and capture a port next to a free port and thier main nation ports, which then blocks the hostile nation from advanding

[GrubbyZebra]

On 4/11/2020 at 10:20 AM, Lars Kjaer said:

I've always been against this on a historical principle, but since realism and any semblance of historical pretext is thrown out of the window I can't argue against it anymore.

Remove nations entirely, make a map situated in a fantasy area, or Indonesia that has a much better topography than the Caribbean in gameplay terms.

And remove port bonus' so that friend or foe can still play the game even if they lose a war. When did the game become a game of breaking the other players ability to play entirely? Oh right. I seem to recall one-porting of nations all the way back to 2016..

The problem was they allowed both clans and nations, with no real link between the two. IMO, they should have done clans + an alliance system between clans and that is what defines a "nation". 

 

[Nixolai]

What about the "rouge clans" get a xx days of cooldown for all players in the clan, so they cant make a new clan straight after they have been declared rouge?? And when the cooldown runs out, it can be set again if the clan is still rouge.

Edited April 13, 2020 by Nixolai

[van Veen]

Please don't propose any system in which players have power over other players. We already have friendlists. No need to add more restrictions from players. This includes voting. 

Any such system will be exploited and used in a toxic way. If limiting it to clan leaders, it will be all the same. Every alt will just setup a one man clan for the vote. 

What we really need is a reputation system. What you do in game should affect your reputation. Damaging the reputation with your own nation should then make you an outlaw/pirate. 

[Barents]

13 hours ago, van Veen said:

Please don't propose any system in which players have power over other players. We already have friendlists. No need to add more restrictions from players. This includes voting. 

Any such system will be exploited and used in a toxic way. If limiting it to clan leaders, it will be all the same. Every alt will just setup a one man clan for the vote. 

What we really need is a reputation system. What you do in game should affect your reputation. Damaging the reputation with your own nation should then make you an outlaw/pirate. 

I totally agree on your first part, but i have doubts about the second part.

Who would define what "damaging the reputation" with your nation is? To be able to damage the reputation of my nation i first need to know who is friend and who is enemy. Who/what defines that?