Sid the Infected

You got to be kidding me. What a great laugh I had. 90% of the activity on the server. HA!!! What arrogance to think such a thing. What I really see in this post is that BLACK got camped by every major nation at mortimer and they quit. Even Koltes disappeared. (all respect to ya Koltes, no offense meant) Funny thing is that you all suggested we do just that. Anyway. Your disappearance wont matter because most people have beat you to that punch. Nobody want a 3 hour grind, a 2 plus hour build up to a PB to only watch 15 or 20 show to loose their 1 dura ship that they grinded for weeks to get. Again, thanks for the jolly laugh. Goodness... what will be next?

I think this is a new thing to be tested and maybe should be tested but I have grave concerns about some consequences of the idea.... 1. It discriminates against small clans - Not all clans want to be large. Some are made of close friends that still want to participate in all aspects of the game. Solution: War companies should be an alliance of clans. So a new structure must be used. Example: For instance Tattered Flags is a clan created by Thomas Pain and VCO is a clan ran by Christendom. Their clans exist as is. After the patch T. Pain and Chris get together and choose to start a war corporation called Brits Unite. They then enroll their respective clans in "Brits Unite" Their clans exist as separate yet equal parts of the the War corporation. Now smaller clans have the ability to take part in PBs as well as part of the greater clan alliance called a War Corporation. Solution 2: Smaller port battles. No more 25 v 25 fights 2. A negative side effect of this may be that more wars take place within a nation then against other nations. If this is what players really want than they should play your other game, Ultimate General. Solution: This is more appropriate to the pirates than the nationals. Make it so. Solution 2: Design a penalty to a war company that challenges another war company but fails. Think of it this way..... The nation is at peace, both inside and out. War company A gets greedy and thinks it can take a lucrative port off of War company B. So they go rogue and attack A's region. This angers the population of the nation which makes them essentially kill on sight to every other clan or war company that is out there. This last for 24 hours until the PB. War company fails and the nation remains angered at them for say a week and they can be killed on sight. If they win the PB then the nation realizes they are a powerful clan and it is better to stay at peace with them then to view them as hostile. B keeps the port and they are no longer considered rogue and are protected by green on green. This would require that nationals cannot attack each other unless hostilities are declared between one War company and another.

You could sail a quarter of the way around instead and hit pirates instead. France seems to always be "between the Devil and the deep blue sea" (look that one up. It comes from the age of sail). They have very "hard borders" and can only effectively expand in two directions and in both of those cases, with different nations. Contrast that with Britain which has at least 6 easy directions to pursue at the start of a map and most of those ports will be undefended. (gulf of course) A small France therefore is nearly required to make arrangements with others. At least on one of their borders. Working towards an agreement with France is premature although their is never anything wrong with talks. You would probably be surprised with some of the info I could divulge about western Haiti if I was so disposed to do so. A trust must be built first before any kind of gulf presence could be fathomed.

I for one have no pre-wipe preconceptions. I never played on pvp2. I was a Pvp1 guy and other than knowing that at least two of the largest factions and maybe even three were allied, I know very little about pre-wipe politics and history. That being said, not all of my concerns were developed through personal experience. Some of my "understandings" came from the talk of others that play longer hours than me so their preconceptions may have contributed to my current ones. Still, seeing the French go after the pirates would open my heart to them quicker than promises to do so.

France has sided with the pirates for so long and it is believed that many Pirate alts are in fact France so I think you can understand why Brits and even the US would not be quick to allow you New Orleans. Alliances are not necessary but no nation can handle being attacked by all others. BLACK would be hard pressed to defend if, simply, the Brits and the US attacked two ports at the same time.

Not a bad plan for any of the smaller nations but impractical without more people or some very dedicated ship builders. In this needs to be time to collect resources and to grind the money to buy the ships if you don't have a benefactor or clan providing them. I definitely like the idea of sending out squadrons into pirate waters as well as the training Portbattles. What would be nicer of course is for the devs to return unlimited skirms with no loss so we can train more easily in small and large battles, demasting, raking, etc. This would be more beneficial to the game but of course your suggestion is considering current game mechanics. I am so tired of rvr time sink. I would love to turn the clan into a privateering bunch.

The problem with Britain and any other naval game with Britain is that it attracts the role players who are there simply to feel like Admiral Nelson. The nation gets inundated with them and so it has a large number of carebears compared to other nations. The US nation seemed to have this problem to. You can take the charted numbers and cut them in half and maybe you get close to the number of players that will consider pvp or rvr.

Look, I don't mind all the roll playing and that you think you have beat a nation after a couple of wins. That is your own delusion. At the moment you are winning the war and I understand why you believe that nothing would change if you continued but winning a war is not a won war. Now if we capitulate to an offer then by all means claim victory or if you beat us back so that you control more than us then fine. Make your declarations. Withdrawal from conflict. If we don't strike back then you can run around claiming victory. But this is a side point. I am not gonna participate in your delusion that what you put on the table was not an offer. Come on. It required action on our part. That is not a statement of intention, its a statement of demand. Backing off of that could be considered negotiation. And you know what... that is fine. Everything in life is negotiation. You shot for the moon in hopes that the Brits felt as defeated as you believed we were and found out that they have no interest in giving everything away to save their precious ships. What all this really has highlighted is the broken shipbuilding mechanic imho. If we are only able to muster 20 guys against 25 and our PB caller is on vacation we risk the loss of a dozen ships or more. To loose those ships to a fight that is sketchy for us at best means that we may be out of a PB fleet for a week or more while those ships get replaced. In the meantime we get rolled because we have a PB fleet of 12 instead of even 20 if we choose to fight undermanned. It means that the loosing side at the beginning of a war is at such a huge disadvantage unless they have multiple fleets of PB ships and can win the second round, because they no longer have the ships to fight back and a bad loss in one PB can mean the end of a war because the replacement time for those ships can take weeks.

To BLACK players: Your concern about our response has minuscule interest to us as well. If you demand terms and another nation responds with a counter offer and you reject it, so be it. By making a counter offer the nation you approached has given you their answer to your demands which in this case are ridiculous and their response is a resounding NO. If they offer something in return they are allowing you to stay in the discussion or not. Either way, we don't care and that is your choice. Nobody in this game matters enough to worry about demands such as yours. If you approach others with less arrogance maybe you would be taken more seriously. GB from what I can see has been beaten back a bit but is in no way defeated. All discussions like these are negotiations. If you are not interested in that then you can shove your troll post up your ass. Even if there was a threat of being one ported, I would never agree to a surrender that allows you to have a pvp ganking port deep in our trading territory, the removal of control over ports that we either captured in legitimate war with another nation or negotiated the transfer with another nation. That is none of your business. Nor would I ever accept an agreement that allows you to place your friends in our back door so that when you decide to push your weight around again, you can attack us from both sides. You are the one that says you don't want to ruin the game for anyone. Prove it. Note: this is my opinion and not an official statement from my clan or my nation.

I think the offer is unreasonable and needs to be toned down. We will see what Brits decide. I've been victim to to many "one ports" to care. Ill still play the game. It will drive the population down drastically so lets see if Duncan really means he cares about the server population.

1. Get rid of "Victory Marks" for ships and convert to "Victory Marks" for mods. To much advantage to the large nations that win often. 2. Ships need to be cheaper to build if they are only one dura. No one wants to risk their ships anymore. Another option would be to have the multi-dura ships again but with a 24 hour cooldown after being sunk. Ship lasts longer making players more comfortable with risk, yet gives real consequences for a loss on a day to day cycle. 3. Need to tweak some ships and mods. Bellonas shouldn't be able to hit cap as I have heard they can.

Boring response. First, Ballz of Steel, the player you were speaking to, was screening in an aggie. Everyone, I'd say is working hours ahead of time. I imagine next time we start a PB with you, your team won't have any screeners present or will you?

I don't think this is a bannable offense as it stands but I do think that devs need to create a rule that makes it so and I do think that it smacks of cheating. Before this split the Danes on the other server would log out at sea so that they couldn't be screened out (so its not surprising that Anolytic is supporting the rats here). This "cheat" or whatever you want to call it was fixed by adding the 30 minute clock when logging at sea. If this change doesn't highlight the devs will that these types of techniques should not be used then I don't know what would. Taking the devs attitude toward that change I think its very reasonable for players to call shenanigans on what the pirates do now which is essentially the same thing.

Im neither lieing nor mistaken. You may of not been there but your clan was. Koiz, your arguments fall short for lack of detail. I've never claimed we have done everything right but I'm not sure what we did so wrong. You claim to have warned us and said how stuff wouldn't work but it worked much better than anything you put together, committed to, or tried your best at. The same exact set up is working just fine in the Brit nation and it worked just fine on pvp1 so maybe there is a different reason for the struggles the USA had. I'd submit that it had to do with clan leadership overall. From leaders who felt their power was being threatened with the pvp1 newcomers or from clans that say hello kitty to anyone who even thinks of organization to clans like yours that simply didn't try. We can piddle with details like what ships you brought or what ports you participated in but the overall question is still unanswered by you and that is, what did your clan do to try and make things better. You have already admitted to your beef with Lionshaft. Is that why your clan sat on the sidelines instead of working closely with, while trying to be a positive influence on the system? From what I can tell, your departure to the rats hasn't effected the USA one bit. It doesn't appear that they have felt your departure in the least. That says more about your group than it does about them.

Whats funny is that the two groups going back and forth right now are not in the USA anymore. The USA seems kinda quiet right now. Its the rest of us using this thread the most.