NethrosDefectus

Prime time multi flipping is the main cause for the change in the first place if I remember correctly. So no I am not a mind reader, I just go use past experience to make my assumptions.

You would continue to multi flip even in the timers were changed

Are the nations that took ports today going to now attack other ports individually? No, they are going to keep multi flipping now that they've found something that works. All of these nations have got enemy ports right next to them yet they complain about there being no RvR content for them and use that as an excuse for needing the entire server to help them take ports. The 3 ports successfully defended today had plenty of numbers on both sides (think one lacked as many yanks as there could've been) which just goes to show there are people online to fight during that timer and therefor it is perfectly valid.

What godforsaken unrealistic rare upgrades are these? Have you seen my loadout? The only RARE upgrade I have on that ship is Copper Plating which I only have on there to give me a chance to keep up with the F/F ships, and even that is not rare anymore. Everything else is easily obtained from the Admiralty Store. And on the subject of these upgrades that PvEers claim are the only reason PvPers are able to sink ships. Where do these upgrades come from? They come from PvE. PvEers then sell them to PvPers for huge amounts of money and then complain about the upgrades. (That's a lot of "ers")

The battle started nowhere near a fort, it took the player a good 30 minutes to reach it, he was only able to because I was attempting to preserve my ship and not use up most of my repairs trying to go broadside to broadside with a ship with superior firepower and thus cutting my trip short because after the battle I would've had to sail all the way back to port to resupply.

The two are not connected, the AI are a deterrent to people who want to camp noobs all day. The forts are a way for people to avoid combat in open world

Which error was this? In fact I don't care, I suggest people only post if they have something to say relevant to the subject matter of the thread.

It was me in a Trinc vs a Bellona alone. Where do you get this 3v1 Idea from? The only 3 v 1 I remember today is when 3 of you attacked @Percival Merewether and lost a Bellona and two other ships had to run And as far as I am concerned a Kommandor in open water is a valid target any day.

For large ships to hide from smaller ships? I can see the forts around nation or even regional capitals but not at every port.

I am talking about OW PvP that is regularly nowhere near safezones. All too often when out hunting I find the enemy heads for and hides under the fort despite being in the larger ship. I have even known players to use another nation's fort to sink themselves denying me the kill.

They are not needed, all they are used for is for big ships to hide under from smaller ships. I fought a Bellona 1v1 in a 5th rate and he ran and sat under the forts. At least restrict the "active" forts to nation and county capitals perhaps.

It should stay as it is, people should have to choose. If they want one advantage then they should sacrifice the choice to have something else in exchange

I believe the Caribbean server crashed just after 09:15 server time

All this is going to do is move the camping from safezones to free ports. You need to do more to encourage people to actually go out and look for ships. People will just sit outside the free port waiting for lone ships to come in. For example, I (generic player) would pick a mission up at Aves, La Mona and La Tortue. I would then just keep popping out of out those 3 ports until I see someone to attack because why would I need to bother actually going out to look. The way I see it is that all this will do is move the issue, not solve it

Interesting, I shall look out for that. So possibly a UI issue where keyboard presses are being registered by that particular window erroneously?

I have noticed that it happens more often when you've reset the tag once yourself

VERY often when I tag someone the countdown will get to 0 and then reset to 15 again. This happens a lot to me and I know others have mentioned it. Is there a plan to fix this as it is extremely irritating when it happens as it often screws up a perfectly good tagging position

Several players, including myself told you in nation chat MANY times that the tutorial in game is for testing purposes only and do not give any reward. It was also pointed out to you numerous times that the rewards mentioned in the steam post you kept referring to clearly stated that it was an upcoming feature, not a present one.

Damn carebears!

The very first reply to my original post was YOU "attacking" traders for the way they choose to play.............. The game needs to encourage players to challenge themselves, how will players ever hope to get to the likes of RUBLI (as you mentioned them) by only attacking traders. It is no different than the players who will only fight in a group, that is fine but they will never learn to fight by themselves if they don't try. Moscalb and MANY others got to the position they are in now because they challenge themselves and seek out the hard fight. I do however feel that the conversation is going away from the original topic and I would ask that the moderators try and ensure people stay on track.

Well said

No as a PvP player, I and most others are interested in PvP. The marks are just a bonus. What difference does it make to you if someone is able to hit the money cap. The person himself said he did it by avoiding PvP hotspots. People who want to avoid PvP will always find a way, as is their right. (But that's another discussion) You don't see an issue with being able to overload your ship like that? That is something that needs fixing, @admin needs to make it that you can't close the inspection window if your ship is over loaded. I agree that trade goods as a whole need working on and it should always be more beneficial to transports useful resources but I believe that is something the devs are working on currently. As far as I can see the only reason for being against this change is if someone relies solely on traders for their PvP Mark income. And if that is the case then they should perhaps consider diversifying their skillset

Not at all, the system would still allow you to sink them if you want. And there is no saying they HAVE to surrender for inspection

It has always seemed strange to me that trade ships give Marks when sunk, both Combat and PvP Marks. I mean let's face it when a trader is sunk, you can't really call it combat and it isn't really proper PvP either. It should always be more beneficial to try and take the cargo than to use them to farm marks. My suggestion is this: No longer have trade ships give marks when sunk, instead make the cargo the desired reward. It could perhaps be beneficial to add a system whereby a trade ship when pulled into battle can "surrender itself for inspection" which would enable the attacker to pull alongside and inspect the cargo and then decide if they would like to take the ship and its contents or return the ship to the owner and let them on their way (or sink it if they are that way inclined but for no reward). If I am hunting in say, Spanish waters and I inspect a ship's cargo and find it contains a hold full of cognac then there is no way I am going to cancel the trip and haul that all the way back to a free port. Currently my only option is to scuttle the ship for a few PvP marks. I mean let's face it, if someone is going to the trouble of transporting tea or cognac across the map then they clearly NEED the gold from that trade and all I've done for the sake of a few marks is set them back to square one. Instead this system would allow me to let them carry on transporting something which is of no use to me anyway. A hold full of teak on the other hand would be a different story and worth taking. I've rambled a bit, but I think you get the idea

We should think ourselves lucky, there are games that are much smaller in scale that need a 4 hour restart cycle