Nathaniel

Congratulations! Very good fight and well deserved for all the determination. Hope you put the casino hours on the same timer, otherwise there are so many lures out there...

Like the Bahamas port of St. Nicks? But you are correct in so far as the danish proved a bigger obstacle at that point for us getting east. There were fun but costly bloodbaths for both sides at Bani and El Soco.

Eh, and there i was thinking all this were plans of Bubbles himself, preparing some devious mischief.

Why should there be a Russian server? This game operates on "as few servers as needed" basis. Even if the Russians would have a separate server, who would stop them to play on pvp1 like the Americans do? While there may be arguments that some gameplay mechanics could change, i also think that not all sandboxy solutions have been tried up yet. Basically (and here i speak in a wholly personal capacity) Sweden has three choices: 1. Wait for France and GB to recapture it's ports (which, as Fredrikstedt today has shown to us, might be a long process), 2. succumb to the enemy and basically become a peacefull danish protectorate or 3. ask one of your more populated allies for 4-5 ports in a safe location on the other end of the map to rebuild your strengh.

Gerade der RUS clan von Varaborn und Babay hatte anders als Klavas andere Russen eine ganz andere Grindpolitik. Sie ignorierten mehr oder weniger den Großteils des PvP Contents und saßen die ganze Zeit am Grinden um nur vor kurzem rauszukommen.

All hail Babay the great! The lord of the grind, master of Klava, thunder of the seas!

Well, it's a game, we have a new fictional nation and have to live with it. And a very coordinated one at that. Not that different from "historic" Crusader Kings 2 or Empire: Total War. I congratulate our enemies with their victory and promise a mighty comeback in due course.

PvP 1

Yes, agree. I also don't quite get the argument a dev made recently that EVE-style warheouse thefts should not be possible. But why shouldn't they? Guilds already utilise spies and diversion and keeping your warehouse safe should be a big part of your clan security politics, as it is in EVE.

And look at how ports again change hands absolutely undefended twice a day? No, thanks.

The tactic is certainly viable but it wouldn't hurt to not wait for land and introduce some of the plentyfull restrictions that were proposed for that since dedember, like tying BR to crew and reducing the circle after all towers have beeen destroyed.

He probably means the fort a few posts above.

I both completely agree that players use this tools for incredibly precise navigation and that there is no need while the coordinates (usefull for bug reporting of course) should be visible to the player reporting it. What we have now is basically an auto map tool that is only usefull for the select few. I feel a complete hyppocrite seing how rookies are told there is no way to know your location while using Shrouded's beautiful map every day. I lke however both the community created maps as well as the need to read coordinates and then find your location on the map, calculating your course to the known coordinates of a town. As such the solution would be simple: let the coordinates stay, remove them out of the bug report tool so that they are easy to get for even a new player, but make them less (a lot less) precise and, for example, obtainable only at noon.

Looks like a great fight, congratz both sides! And, as an aside, and i don't mean it as patronizing, god, you guys on both sides look heavily fallen behind in the grinding contest

So that in exchange for some islands in the east the British Empire now boasts the mighty island of Haiti is of no relevance to you? Instead of taking pride in His Majesty's diplomatic abilities you try to unsettle the King's peace? Daring, Sir, daring.

Might i ask, out of sheer curiosity and passion for indepth objective journalism, what exactly where the US offering the French in return for all of Loisiana?

If the mission entrance changes are here to stay i would be highly in favour of such a system since otherwise the enemy gankers will know they will never encounter more than 6 enemies. Also make grouping up easier, such if someone is ganked in the mission instance it might be not the most approrpirate to invite 24 players manually. Solution = make /join XYZ open a small popup window on the group leaders side to accept people quickly. This will also help large guild squadron organization.

I'm a staunch adversary of any avatar systems for the game (avatars, i.e. the ressource drain associated with them ruined PotBS in my opinion more than anything else) but i really could see how the current rock paper scissors game could evolve into something comparable to Sid Meyer Pirates' land action - i.e. strategic, turn based commandeering of your troups to various part of the ships with option similar to what we have now. I would however consider it a way lower priority than anything discussed in the priority poll.

Not saying such names should be tolerated, however i need to point out that if the OP pasted the nickname correctly that might be a (misguided) attempt at wordplay rather than a straight nazi immitation. The nazi rank is Obersturmbannfuehrer, wheras the guys nickname seems to be Obersturmbahnfuhrer, therefore transforming the original meaning of "Supreme shockgroup leader" to a probably ironic "Supreme shock train driver". Again, i am not finding this particular attempt at irony particulary successfull, nor am i sure the irony was intended, but it's worth to keep that in consideration when making a decision.

I really hope that there is a potential merger system already thought out and ready to be deployed relativly quickly. I think the knowledge that server bases can be merged relatively fast again will ease the anxiousness of most captains. Too many times have i seen, how big MMO developers first open a lot of servers, which is ok, if you are prepared to merge them quickly after the initial tide retreats. But one time after another it took them then a year or maybe even more to devlop a transfer system which they knew would be needed from the get go. I really hope we can avoid this pitfall.

That may be true, but it's still no excuse for the most boring way of getting XP also being the hands-down fastest. If i remember correctly the devs always said missions are only there to have a way of finding an enemy when there aren't any open world ships to be found. Why then do they still give so much bonus XP and incentivise solo play?

As soon as you reach a snow/mercury doing PvE missions is faster as well as even less risk. If people want to continue pvping in cutters, let's them. We need more incentives for people in larger, expensive ships to come to small battles or even better to try to XP on eachother in open world, not reduce this incnetives for the very new.

They have said they will put it back, they haven't said they will put it back to where it was. If they would have wanted to compensate for removing assist/kill XP, they would've increased XP per damage. Also it remains to be seen if even after they reintroduce it missions still will be the fastest way to level after rank 3. Because there is a high chance they still might be. For that is the way more pertinent problem. I don't mind the grind as such, bigger ships should take some time to get into, but why should the fastest way to level also be the most boring?

The sad truth is that any PvP fight (if it's not completely arrangend to fight ships of the same class) will reward you less XP per hour than grinding missions. And that's already the main problem that's easy to fix. Make PvP really the fastest way to level (no, the current 50% bonus is not nearly enough to compete with mission grinding) on pair with group PvE against really superior forces (grant a bonus if you are heavily outnumbered) and then we'll bring the challenge back into the grind. Right now it's just do 10.000 missions for any player with competitive ambitions.

Isn't there some kind of trial / refund after 2 hour option in steam?