Dropping fleet danger

[not a pirate]

pesky Juicy coming along to steal me ships

guess the pest will visit you soon LOL

[William Pitt]

Sooner than expected.

[ChaIbaud]

I don't see your point Delrio. The scenario and plan you detailed follows the definition of manipulation:

control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly

[Admiral Nelson]

irate snoberts

This be a anagram mates!

Notice, the first words actually makes two words,savvy'?

I rate

Then, the second word has to be' another pesky anagram.

Sir Roberts

So, Chalbaud says:

I rate Sir Roberts

Wait... You are me, and I am you so surely it be fine to be me?

[DezNutz]

irate snoberts

This be a anagram mates!

Notice, the first words actually makes two words,savvy'?

I rate

Then, the second word has to be' another pesky anagram.

Sir Roberts

So, Chalbaud says:

I rate Sir Roberts

Wait... You are me, and I am you so surely it be fine to be me?

Yeah, except that it isn't an anagram. Trying looking up the definition of anagram, and you will see why it is not.

It is however a hilarious analogy on the name "Pirate Roberts"

[Captain Jack]

I am not fond of replying in such topics. There is a topic that deals with all these:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=515

I had no intention to post here as a result. However, I received multiple PMs that asked me to do so and I will respect this.

Let's see it in detail:

Code: Select all

1. I drop my gold to 0
2. I attack a fleet through skirmish/allow a fleet to attack me(this means that I am not removing their danger)
3. I have 5 separate tabs open with commandeers ready to be cast on the ships.
4. After I skirmish/get attacked I quickly commandeer back my ship.
5. Put them back in a new fleet. No danger.


-What if the fleet had 0 danger? Would we be revising this?
We would not. There is nothing illegitimate in this process. So we only explore if this tactic is legitimate or not only when the fleet has danger.

-So why if the fleet had danger makes any difference?
It actually makes no difference. The danger is fleet specific and during this process, through the loss of all ships, this fleet is dispersed.

Why the fuss now?
There is no actual fuss. There are just easy assumptions. An experienced player would not fall for this easily. This tactic is not good after all. Here is why:

-Countercurse/mindbar defeats it.
-There is no guarantee that the attacker will blindly attack without noticing the commandeers in between.
-There is no guarantee that the attacker will be slower than the defender in securing the ships.
-There is no guarantee that the defender will spot the attacks on time or the attacks will take place when defender is waiting for the attack.
-There is no guarantee that the defender will be able to save his ships after commandeering them (the attacker can still commandeer/ravage them back or plunder them again with ambush, as the defender still has 0 gold).

Therefore, as you obvious see, we are speaking of a contest between the attacker and the defender to win the fleet. There is nothing to penalize here.

Surely, it seems like a way for the defender to get rid of a high danger fleet and keep his ships at a smaller cost than what one would expect. Still, it's a strategy that can be defeated.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I will still redirect you again here:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=515

As all you need to know, it can be found there. If this topic was started by Meliva the community would react in a more positive way. Del Rio started it and everything thought this guy is trying to cheat again. Fair but hear me out. Del Rio has made many rules violations in the past but they were all penalized. All the multi-accounts he made were banned and he was forced to start a new account with no compromises. His new account started from zero. I put this in bold as there have been multi-accounts in the past that were treated with less strictness. Del Rio enjoyed no leniency to his latest account as he has spared this leniency on a previous occasion. Point is, that now Del Rio is clean. Bringing up a past for which he has "paid" is not helping out. Of course, no one can tell anyone to have no doubts but at least let's try to help him than condemn him. As I said in PMs, everyone has the right to mistake, especially a younger player that do not realized that what he does is not right.

I want to take it one step further. Most games out there have issues in administrating their own games and enforcing their own rules. So, when new players flock here, they are used to these standards. Most think that they can breach the rules without issues. For example, we issue many bans on multiple accounts on per month basis. The majority of these bans are towards newcomers. Once they realize that this game has an active administration that cares, the majority of them will not cause a single event ever again and administration will not trouble them again.

So, rest assured that in one way or another, PG is effectively administrated. If ever anyone manages to bend the rules without us noticing, it would not be for long or it would not be for anything considerable. I will close with this quote:

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

[Grimrock Litless]

Tho, what IF the player attacks an inactive?
You are not forced to attack one player to do this "Strategy", anyone is fine, so your defeat the strategy thing seems a bit tad off.

[Haron]

I'm glad you commented on this, Captain Jack - I completely agree!

With one possible exception - let's look at one particular detail:

" 2. I attack a fleet through skirmish/allow a fleet to attack me(this means that I am not removing their danger) "

Dropping your gold to 0 and "baiting" someone to attack you should be fine, for the reasons you described above. However, there's an alternative presented here: Drop your gold and then skirmish some strong fleet, PURPOSEFULLY losing that skirmish. Probably even sell your cannons, just to make sure. If you do this, you engage in a battle with the purpose of losing (and losing a ship), which I assume is against the rules - despite not lowering the target's danger. Also, this would make you almost guaranteed to be able to commandeer your ship back, since in this case, no-one is attacking you, and thus no-one is prepared for getting the ship, and have to secure it. Surely THIS would NOT be OK, although baiting someone to attack you, WOULD?

[William Pitt]

It's a legitimate strategy. Both sides can /will lose something.

Discrimination against a person does not define who they are,it defines who you are.