Welcome to the Achaea Forums! Please be sure to read the Forum Rules.

General Seafaring Ideas and New Ship Commands

124

Comments

  • ShirszaeShirszae Caer WitrinPosts: 2,827Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I do believe she means the fact that you keep on killing us over and over whenever we boarded, not the fact that you killed us once or twice. I am somewhat divided on that respect. On one hand, I don't begrudge the fact your group killed us, because we really were the aggressors on that one. However, I do believe killing people over and over and over and over probably veers closer to being against the rules than being within them. After all, that helpfile clearly states that while SHIP vs SHIP is openpk, once you actually engage the people within the ship in adventurer vs adventurer combat, it ceases to be openpk, and you are not actually, under any circumstance, allowed to just kill anyone on and on and on and on.

    Those are my thoughts, though. Someone will have to ISSUE at some point and see whether I am right or not. Probably when someone gets sufficiently tired of your shit.



    And you won't understand the cause of your grief...

    image

    ...But you'll always follow the voices beneath.

  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAPosts: 2,830Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Shirszae said:
    I do believe she means the fact that you keep on killing us over and over whenever we boarded, not the fact that you killed us once or twice. I am somewhat divided on that respect. On one hand, I don't begrudge the fact your group killed us, because we really were the aggressors on that one. However, I do believe killing people over and over and over and over probably veers closer to being against the rules than being within them. After all, that helpfile clearly states that while SHIP vs SHIP is openpk, once you actually engage the people within the ship in adventurer vs adventurer combat, it ceases to be openpk, and you are not actually, under any circumstance, allowed to just kill anyone on and on and on and on.

    Those are my thoughts, though. Someone will have to ISSUE at some point and see whether I am right or not. Probably when someone gets sufficiently tired of your shit.



    Like I said, you attempted to return and save your ship after attacking with multiple ships. Of course the entire hostile crew manning your ship would kill you. In that scenario you do have the option of opening negotiations, or surrendering as you've clearly lost. Repeatedly showing up to die, is kind of on you at that point.
    image
  • TahquilTahquil Posts: 3,790Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    A ship is considered personal/organisational property. The tresspassing pk laws are in work.

    If Jinsun was aboard Jinsun's ship and the group kept going to Jinsun's ship Then Jinsun has every right to kill them over and over.

    If Jinsun boarded the other ship which was the property of the group he has to have reason to kill them more than a couple of times. Because they were there is not good enough. If they ship returned and began attack Jinsun, that is good enough.
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAPosts: 2,830Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I still vehemently disagree. I see why you feel that way, but, generally speaking, if you attack my ship, my gloves are now off. If you die and come back, we're going to kill you again to prevent you from stopping us sinking you. Otherwise it wouldn't make much sense for us to be all "Oh, you wanted the ship back? All is forgiven, have a lovely day!" That would make such moronic RP, I'd risk the issue just out of refusing to ruin my character.
    image
  • AnariaAnaria Posts: 180Member ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    edited September 2015

    Tahquil said:
    A ship is considered personal/organisational property. The tresspassing pk laws are in work.

    If Jinsun was aboard Jinsun's ship and the group kept going to Jinsun's ship Then Jinsun has every right to kill them over and over.

    If Jinsun boarded the other ship which was the property of the group he has to have reason to kill them more than a couple of times. Because they were there is not good enough. If they ship returned and began attack Jinsun, that is good enough.
    I almost agree with this. But I feel that in the case of ships, it should be up to the defenders (the people boarded) to decide whether or not to attack the boarders. The boarders will ALWAYS be able to make the argument that they felt justified in attacking those on the ship, which is directly against the spirit of the rule as it is currently written regarding pk on the sea.

    Here again is the rule as it is currently written:

    7. The Oceans. In simplest terms, ships can be attacked at any time, by anyone on the seas. This 
    does not extend to player versus player combat on a ship, which must adhere to the guidelines above. 
    (It is not considered player versus player combat if collateral damage is taken in consequence to 
    ship versus ship combat.)

    None of the "guidelines above" allow the boarders to attack other adventurers on the ship even once except for:

    1. There must be a justifiable role-play reason for every attack and death.

    This does not mean you can attack other players repeatedly just for being a
    member of an opposing organisation. Neither can you justify your behaviour by
    claiming something like "my character is a psycho killer!" A player must have
    done something serious to you to warrant an attack, and they must be aware of
    the conflict before you attack them.


    The problem here is these two rules are in direct conflict. The boarder can always make the claim that because the other ship fought back, they have a justified in-character reason to cross the line of ship combat into regular PK. The argument that "They can always surrender" is invalid because it totally ignores rule 7 which allows ships to fight without character vs character combat being automatically authorized.


  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAPosts: 2,830Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    See but you're changing the metric here because your original argument didn't hold water. You're "moving the goalpost." no one boarded anyone for "fighting back." Just like you can't go back and kill people who defended for "defending." I don't do that, the pirates are told not to do that, and are encouraged to be diplomatic and even offer tokens. When a ship outright attacks my ship that is verbatim "A player must have
    done something serious to you to warrant an attack, and they must be aware of the conflict before you attack them." 

    To argue that the person attacking your ship is "unaware of the conflict" is just so mindbendingly moronic that it can't be a defensible position. Sure, that's an ad hominem attack, but then again, we're not expecting you to maintain your own logic or apply any real thought to the situation that you brought up.
    image
  • AerekAerek East Tennessee, USAPosts: 1,813Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Yeah, but that amounts to asserting your right to not only exact revenge, but then to "rub their faces in it", which I don't think is in the spirit of the rules. If someone attacks you on the mainland, you can kill them once, but you can't then hunt them down and kill them again and again to teach them a lesson, which is essentially what you're advocating. You're within rights to board and kill someone if they attack your ship, and you're of course within rights to try and sink the ship afterward, but repeatedly boarding and killing them to ensure you sink the ship starts to toe that grey area where your reprisal far outweighs the instigating slight, which is what the rules are designed to prevent.
    -- Grounded in but one perspective, what we perceive is an exaggeration of the truth.
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAPosts: 2,830Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    To be honest, I don't really have any interest in killing someone multiple times. The mechanics being that  a person can feasibly die, embrace and ship return with enough time to ship return and dock their ship before you can sink it, no I'm not going to just stand by and let the person that attacked us have their ship back with 0 negotiation or resolution. Maybe mechanically, things need to change, but I'm not going to start doing stupid RP so that that people can prevent their ships from being sunk -after- they attack me.
    image
  • TahquilTahquil Posts: 3,790Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited September 2015
    As a side note: forceboarding a ship, killing the player crew and hanging around waiting for them to return and killing them again, then hanging around on board to kill them again (and so on) would be pretty griefy and near akin to kill room strategy.

    Note saying that was how it went down in this scenario but I was just musing on it. You could literally sit on a person's ship for hours and deny them access. Kinda like raiding I suppose.
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAPosts: 2,830Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited September 2015
    Tahquil said:
    As a side note: forceboarding a ship, killing the player crew and hanging around waiting for them to return and killing them again, then hanging around on board to kill them again (and so on) would be pretty griefy and near akin to kill room strategy.
    I know you said side note, but that wasn't what happened last month. After we boarded, my ship docked, and they had the harbour blocked so we couldn't actually leave to sink. I had another ship docked up at the next harbour so I went up to grab it. Even after all of this, we still weren't able to sink because my crew eventually left and Shirszae has shield and I don't have wavescythe.

    Also, you can actually sail and dock while graced. I'm not sure why they didn't just do that in this scenario. They totally could have made it to the next port under grace.
    image
  • AtalkezAtalkez Posts: 4,131Member, Secret Squirrel @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I think killing someone should (if at all possible), be left out of ship combat in general. Forceboarding is only really fun for the aggressor (me), and puts the defender at a significant disadvantage. Having to fight both the ship firing on you, -and- the person on your ship trying to steal from you/kill your crew/kill you without a group of your own, doesn't seem like much fun to me.

    I understand both sides of the argument in regards to killing someone repeatedly, and I don't believe you should have to worry about dying more than once. However, I also say that you should not be able to issue any commands to your crew while graced. Jinsun has a good point in regard to praying>come back>resume your defending with impunity. 

    I personally would be happy with disabling your ship long enough to board/plunder and leave. There are plenty of ships to sink that deserve it, and will stick around for you to do it, without having to sink every non-comm ship you come across.

    With that said, I find it kinda shitty that the HELP PK #7 clearly states that the Ocean is an "open world", yet we have Cities/Houses that consistently enemy you for doing anything on the Ocean. To me it's the same as Annwyn, Underworld or in some respect completing a contract. Unless the vessel is organization-owned (if even then), the matter should stay between the two captains and their crews.


    You hug Aurora compassionately.
  • AnariaAnaria Posts: 180Member ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    edited September 2015
    Jinsun is badly misrepresenting the details of what happened. But there is just no profit to be had in engaging in a debate about the particular incident which is why I have been carefully avoiding it. Simply put: The incident itself does not matter.

    What matters are the rules from this point on, and since we clearly have a pretty un-resolvable difference of opinion about both the letter and the spirit of those rules, I put it to the Garden for their consideration. If the Garden comes back with the answer that you are allowed to PK people in a ship combat situation then I will have to abide by that. If they say something else, you'll have to abide. 

    Just keep in mind, weapons have short ranges and it takes a very long time to sink anyone who is actively fighting. If boarding and killing the player crew is an acceptable tactic, that is what ship combat will pretty much be.


  • AtalkezAtalkez Posts: 4,131Member, Secret Squirrel @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Anaria said:
    Jinsun is badly misrepresenting the details of what happened. But there is just no profit to be had in engaging in a debate about the particular incident which is why I have been carefully avoiding it. Simply put: The incident itself does not matter.

    What matters are the rules from this point on, and since we clearly have a pretty un-resolvable difference of opinion about both the letter and the spirit of those rules, I put it to the Garden for their consideration. If the Garden comes back with the answer that you are allowed to PK people in a ship combat situation then I will have to abide by that. If they say something else, you'll have to abide. 

    Just keep in mind, weapons have short ranges and it takes a very long time to sink anyone who is actively fighting. If boarding and killing the player crew is an acceptable tactic, that is what ship combat will pretty much be.


    In fairness, if ship warfare is built to emulate real ship warfare of the colonial times, force boarding and incapacitating the captain/crew absolutely was a very viable and required tactic.

    Gotta get that cargo!


    You hug Aurora compassionately.
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAPosts: 2,830Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Anaria said:
    Jinsun is badly misrepresenting the details of what happened. But there is just no profit to be had in engaging in a debate about the particular incident which is why I have been carefully avoiding it. Simply put: The incident itself does not matter.

    What matters are the rules from this point on, and since we clearly have a pretty un-resolvable difference of opinion about both the letter and the spirit of those rules, I put it to the Garden for their consideration. If the Garden comes back with the answer that you are allowed to PK people in a ship combat situation then I will have to abide by that. If they say something else, you'll have to abide. 

    Just keep in mind, weapons have short ranges and it takes a very long time to sink anyone who is actively fighting. If boarding and killing the player crew is an acceptable tactic, that is what ship combat will pretty much be.


    To be honest, I really at this point just want to hear what fairy tale you've cooked up about "what really happened."
    image
  • AnariaAnaria Posts: 180Member ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    edited September 2015
    Atalkez said:

    In fairness, if ship warfare is built to emulate real ship warfare of the colonial times, force boarding and incapacitating the captain/crew absolutely was a very viable and required tactic.

    Gotta get that cargo!

    Except for the fact that there is no way to plunder another ships cargo, and such a system could easily involve crippling the ship through combat and need not involve PK at all (you seem to have suggested something to that affect in an above post). It might also be permissible to implement something like the warfare system we have with the Legions where a boarding ship sends denizens to fight denizens under the command of the captains.

    Right now, at this moment in time, the only reason to kill someone on another ship is to kill them. Although it is a real world tactic to be sure, it is (in my view at least) highly incompatible with Achaea's rules. Plus it pretty much replaces the ship combat system which anyone can learn and jump into with the PK system and all of its complexities and artefacts which for the most part, only a small select group of players can really participate in. Which I feel would be terrible for the game.

    But like I said, you raised an interesting idea in your earlier post that could definitely be expanded upon. 
  • TharvisTharvis The Land of Beer and Chocolate!Posts: 3,107Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Jinsun said:
    Anaria said:
    Tharvis said:
    <snip>

    Also, the PK rules are pretty clear that you can't just roll up on someone, board them, and kill them for no reason. I.e. if I see you fishing, and I just sail up, cross over, kill you and laugh. <snip>
    soooo.. me and kasa forceboarding an autofisher to loldevour them was technically not allowed? Woops.
    Aurora says, "Tharvis, why are you always breaking things?!"
    Artemis says, "You are so high maintenance, Tharvis, gosh."
    Tecton says, "It's still your fault, Tharvis."

  • TibithaTibitha Posts: 742Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited September 2015
    Atalkez said:

    With that said, I find it kinda shitty that the HELP PK #7 clearly states that the Ocean is an "open world", yet we have Cities/Houses that consistently enemy you for doing anything on the Ocean. To me it's the same as Annwyn, Underworld or in some respect completing a contract. Unless the vessel is organization-owned (if even then), the matter should stay between the two captains and their crews.
    Hrm no, I don't agree with you there.

    It says your ship -can- be attacked at any point but Oceans aren't listed with the other Open-PK areas. So the way I see it, you don't need a justifiable reason to attack someone, but no where does it say you are exonerated from the consequences for your actions. (They just can't issue you for repeatedly attacking them without reason).

    Even from an RP point of view that makes zero sense, "Oh, you regularly sink City ships but you're not an enemy of Targossas for... reasons." Added to that, Cities are allowed to enemy because they dislike the look of your face, so why should piracy be sacred?
    AnedhelAnariaShirszaeSiduri
  • SiduriSiduri Posts: 1,437Member @ - Epic Achaean
    edited September 2015
    Just a side note, treacherous planes to do not exonerate you from enemy status, they merely exonerate you from being slain later, being hired on, or being issued.

    Enemy statuses are another entirely different pair of sleeves, as they are something very passive that only represent an org's refusal to receive you in their city. It is a sign of distrust, and this distrust doesn't even need any reason beyond the laws of the city.

    Addendum: As I told @Lillisy, if you had attacked a personal ship, you would not have been enemied. But you guys attacked a navy ship (CTS prefix) flying the arms of the City, and doing a trade run for the economic prosperity of the city. No weapons were fired, your group had zero cause to board and kill me (I was alone), and you ran away with city property (ammo). Don't want an enemy status, think before attacking org property.

    image
    Shirszae
  • AtalkezAtalkez Posts: 4,131Member, Secret Squirrel @@ - Legendary Achaean
    If you want to take that stance on City/House owned ships, I can get it.

    That doesn't mean you should enemy someone for attacking your friends ship, though.


    You hug Aurora compassionately.
    Siduri
  • SiduriSiduri Posts: 1,437Member @ - Epic Achaean
    edited September 2015
    Atalkez said:
    If you want to take that stance on City/House owned ships, I can get it.

    That doesn't mean you should enemy someone for attacking your friends ship, though.
    No, of course not. And that's not what happened as far as Targossas is concerned.

    image
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAPosts: 2,830Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    See here's what I don't get: you want to wave this banner of "Navy ship if you attack we can enemy you file bounties and take whatever other measures we want to punish you." And in the same breath say "you have no reason to kill me." you're on an enemy naval vessel which as you said was supplying the city.... Yeah I'd risk the issue. Not gonna play along with your special snowflake no conflict view of being in the navy.
    image
  • SiduriSiduri Posts: 1,437Member @ - Epic Achaean
    Jinsun said:
    See here's what I don't get: you want to wave this banner of "Navy ship if you attack we can enemy you file bounties and take whatever other measures we want to punish you." And in the same breath say "you have no reason to kill me." you're on an enemy naval vessel which as you said was supplying the city.... Yeah I'd risk the issue. Not gonna play along with your special snowflake no conflict view of being in the navy.
    Uhhh... someone's a little jumpy, I see. I was addressing @Atalkez, because he raised a concern that was sort of valid in certain circumstances, and precising this wasn't the case in this one.

    You? As far as I know, I've issued no one, hired no one, and took the death with grace. You were accusing us to have 4 ships attacking you, which is a lie since my ship was -not- attacking you. You can ask @Lillisy, or anyone, and you're guaranteed to be told there was zero whining on my part. Just can't tolerate lies, is all, and that's the only reason I'm even talking to you.

    image
    Anaria
  • KlendathuKlendathu Eye of the StormPosts: 2,627Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Let's make friends and have a sing-song, shall we?



    Tharos, the Announcer of Delos shouts, "It's near the end of the egghunt and I still haven't figured out how to pronounce Clean-dat-hoo."
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAPosts: 2,830Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I never said yours was one of the four ships. While we were chasing the Seaquen, the Herald of the Void, The Scarlet Mistress and the Duir Dfontis were following us and firing flares. Yes, I counted it as four because I was already fighting the one and the Herald of the Void had actually started attackin earlier when I was fighting a different ship, but like I said we had plenty of reason to board Shirszae or Anaria and kill them because they initiated the attack on us. I also never said you complained or threatened to issue. I'm just saying its oxymoronic that you want to sail a military vessel and use it as a political extension of the city and then claim that you can't be killed if the ship gets taken. For most orgs like houses, I will negotiate and we do have contracts with two houses. I'll even negotiate with targossian private vessels. I'm not ever going to negotiate with a targossian naval vessel because it makes 0 sense as roleplay
    image
  • SiduriSiduri Posts: 1,437Member @ - Epic Achaean
    Jinsun said:
    I never said yours was one of the four ships. While we were chasing the Seaquen, the Herald of the Void, The Scarlet Mistress and the Duir Dfontis were following us and firing flares. Yes, I counted it as four because I was already fighting the one and the Herald of the Void had actually started attackin earlier when I was fighting a different ship, but like I said we had plenty of reason to board Shirszae or Anaria and kill them because they initiated the attack on us. I also never said you complained or threatened to issue. I'm just saying its oxymoronic that you want to sail a military vessel and use it as a political extension of the city and then claim that you can't be killed if the ship gets taken. For most orgs like houses, I will negotiate and we do have contracts with two houses. I'll even negotiate with targossian private vessels. I'm not ever going to negotiate with a targossian naval vessel because it makes 0 sense as roleplay
    Oh, yeah. In that case I take my comment back, since I've missed that part.
    I was also precising that I was non-hostile at that moment in the context I felt implied that I was among the fighting ships, and wanted to clear that up.
    Not raising any 'can't touch me' flag here.

    image
  • TibithaTibitha Posts: 742Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I'm still not convinced you -can't- kill someone for sinking you. If you sink my ship, there's a pretty good chance I'm going to either hunt you down back on mainland (or failing my ability to do so) hire on you. I have solid RP reason for doing so, not only did you probably kill me, you killed my men and you cost me a buttload of gold. You're paying for it one way or another. (The Oceans are NOT listed as a Treacherous Plain).

    I repeat, you -can- attack anyone, but doesn't no where does it state that it is consequence free (until Someone explicitly states otherwise).

    I don't know what happened with Jinsun though, but that seemed a bit beyond simply murdering someone for sinking his ship. I think that's a different kettle of fish and I won't comment on it.
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAPosts: 2,830Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited September 2015
    To clarify: I sank one ship and was chasing another. During that time 3 ships started tailing and firing at me. We were out of figurehead and it was just me and a non sailor so I called up some of our crew and docked at aalen to give it a desperate go. We came back out fully crewed to lap the harbour and see if they'd chase us back in. When we got back out we saw the CTS Greydawn. Being kinda gutsy, we Swang close and fired a deck. I sent Atalkez alone to board and clear it. Then we saw the Herald of The Void and The Scarlet Mistress and they immediately resumed pursuit. We circled back to aalen harbour and got in to block it, landed a deck on the mistress and sent the crew over while I docked to repair. They blocked me from getting out, however so couldn't use that ship to sink.

    it wasn't any attempt at later inland vengeance or wanting to keep killing them and was more a function of "you attacked us, we're sinking this ship. We're going to hold it secure for a moment while we finish what we're doing."
    image
  • SkyeSkye The Duchess BellaterePosts: 2,604Member, Seafaring Liason @@ - Legendary Achaean
    And this is why we can't have nice things.

    Open/Free-PK anything remains a bad idea to me except for worldgames/ctfs where the madness is restricted to a couple of hours.

    People just lack the restraint to participate in such an environment without losing their shit/playing the numbers game/knowing when to call it quits.


    MelodieAnedhelAnariaValkyn
  • KresslackKresslack Florida, United StatesPosts: 5,639Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    As I recall, it's been confirmed they're going to (one day) work on a change of highlight for the little box that represents the ship you're on, compared to the other little boxes around you. The only time that really gets confusing is when two or more ships are stationary near each other. Otherwise if you're moving, and have shipwarning up, shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

    Also, seems as if the ocean combat debate get recycled each year when someone (usually being unprepared or unlearned in the ways of seafaring) gets sent below. I don't have an issue with open-pk seas, never have. The reason for that is because there already exists a need to stay aware and competent when at the wheel or the weapons, due to the potential of encountering hostile sea creatures. 

    Ship vs Ship combat is not comparable to anything else. If anything It's PvE until boarding occurs, in which case it transitions to PvP (via trespassing, defense, etc). Boarding planks are also really easy to get rid of, and always have been. They also have a limited range.

    Bottom line is, if you're setting out to sea, whether to cause trouble or just to explore, you do so (or rather should) with the expectation that conflict is highly probably, whether from another ship or a sea creature. Taking four ships out to meet one is a faulty strategy anyway (if that's what happened, only skimmed through the last couple of pages). It spreads thin crew members which could otherwise be reloading for quicker fire rate or forming a boarding party.

    Four people working together on one ship are often more effective than four people on four separate ships. Ask Artanis.


  • ShirszaeShirszae Caer WitrinPosts: 2,827Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Soon(TM) cannot come soon enough :anguished: 

    And you won't understand the cause of your grief...

    image

    ...But you'll always follow the voices beneath.

    YaeTibitha
Sign In to Comment.