Lord_Howe

Wow... its a miracle... a Slamz post I can sortof agree with No-one, no matter what sort of PvP badass they like to claim they are, wants to fight (and inevitably lose) against insurmountable odds. One battle every now and then, just for the glory, sure... but not often. Equally, not many will get fun for very long fighting in a huge fleet that basically cant lose. I'm not sure how the game can get the more even and exciting fights going more often, but that's what it needs in order to have a healthy PvP environment. I've seen suggestions that BR ratios be used as a multiplier of the end-battle reward, so that a team that outnumbers their opponent 2:1 gets only 50% of the normal reward while the underdog 1:2 team gets double. Something like this might be in the right direction to encourage people not to stack teams in combat, but im still not sure how you get the right mix of people in the right area at the same time, short of pre-organized battles. I think POTBS at least made an effort for port battles by inviting players based on their contribution to the conflict (they could then teleport to the battle), and by allowing a long schedule lead time for the fight so that people could make sure they were available. Don't know how you would apply that idea to open sea battles though.

You have all used your elite social skills, witty repartee, and pleasant company, to win us over. Congratulations... enjoy fighting one another on your almost empty server

The French have been hold up in the corner of the map for most of the game. The antilles is a relatively fun area precisely because you don't have to sail for an hour to get anywhere. I think that as you have to travel further and further to do anything you will discover just what the brits did.... its not fun at all. The map is certainly not the same game for all nations. I do wish you the best of luck though. There are undoubtedly plenty of ports that you guys can expand to

And I honestly wish you an enjoyable time. I doubt I'll move either, though possibly not for the same reasons. I'm certainly hoping that we get some improved systems in place (port battles for one) and a new influx of players as the game gets fleshed out. But I also hope that peoples attitude changes, so that we don't drive any new players away just as fast. Competitive is fun... anti-social and disrespectful is not.

While you are busy ridiculing everyone else you might want to take a look in the mirror. People are looking for a more enjoyable experience. ...perhaps they want more, or better PvP than you could provide ...perhaps they just want a huge map that isn't mostly empty space ...perhaps the just want to be somewhere that you aren't. What makes you think you are qualified to judge anyone else's reasons? What business is it of yours anyway? So sick of seeing the endless flood of immature finger pointing and name calling... no wonder players are leaving in droves.

You really cant help yourself can you? I have seen French players run away just as often... but i dont judge their pixel battle bravery based on it, lol

"My nation was brave.. every one else is a coward" Funny how you hear the exact same thing from every nation, lol

Moving yourself may be fine for those that just want to fight. For those of us that have spent hundreds of hours getting out trading and crafting set up it is nowhere near as painless. Cant see myself bothering unless they provide a way to move with our BPs intact (critical), and some materials/money to allow us to keep going.

I'm sorry you feel the British forces should have stayed after they already won the battle. Apparently everyone except you knew the game mechanics, and knew there was no reason to stay, since any sinking ship could simply hit the 'Leave Battle' button. People aren't cowards just because they don't fight the way you want them to. If you had made some different tactical choices, you probably could have forced more of a ship-to-ship engagement prior to losing the towers. You haven't seen us here complaining about you winning at St.John.... we gave it the best shot we could with what we had available, and you beat us fair and square. But to childishly claim you "Let" us attack your Victory at St John?.... You didn't expect an enemy that was outnumbered 5:1 to come straight at you at the first tower, and your Victory that had PARKED to cap the tower got taken by surprise and barely got away (with half his crew dead). We tried to get him... we failed. How about instead of trying to make out it was some clever ruse on your part, you simply acknowledge that we were a lot more aggressive than you expected such a small defending force to be? Would that be so difficult? We were there to defend, and we were ready to fight to the last man to stop you getting it... perhaps if you hadn't speed capped the towers you would have had time to actually fight our seven ships with your 10,000 BR fleet instead of ending the battle?

I used to think this was a bit of a cheesy tactic. However, I recently watched a program covering the period of the Anglo-Dutch wars, and apparently the primary tactic of the dutch navy (in the early years) was indeed to close rapidly with the enemy and then overwhelm him by boarding. This tactic changed as the British brough bigger and better organised 'Lines' to bear, where the sheer firepower would overwhelm the dutch ships before they could get close enough. I therefor think its a pretty valid tactic on the whole, though the 'Ramming straight into the enemy to stop him' still seems quite wrong to me.

I have not experienced this situation, but I rather like the idea that if no-one on either side has been hit by the enemy for perhaps 10 minutes, then there is in fact no longer a battle going on, and the battle should end. 10 minutes should be enough for anyone that is catching up to a fleeing enemy (that might still fight) to get them back into a shooting match. If they manage to keep away for that time then clearly they are not returning to try and regain their teams captured ship.

Pot -> Kettle

I was observing that its a pointless measurement that doesn't provide any rivalry between nations, since it only indicates how Undefended ports are. Neither off topic, or a complaint. If you feel the need to report that, well grats... enjoy yourself.

It's a pointless challenge. Capping an undefended port take 12-13 mins. What are we trying to prove... which server has the most undefended ports?

From my own perspective i would agree. It is clear that when you changed your minds and headed back to the towers on the right (attackers perspective) you executed a turn to the right... You couldn't turn 180 at this point, as you would have been directly into the wind. A right turn put your line heading approx 315, back towards the second tower (again, from attackers perspective). You were essentially yielding ground at this point. Every minute you kept this heading put you further away from the Brit start, and left the port towers less defended. When WIS defended St John, we started in almost the same way. However, we executed our turn left to 45, engaging you in front of the first towers. Alas, our numbers were too few. I suspect a similar turn by the French fleet, being much closer in BR to the attacker, would have forced a full-on battle, though it would have initially allowed the lead elements of the Brit line to shoot at you instead of vice versa.