Hugo van Grojt

Reposting because I STILL have not seen any meaningful counter-argument to my analysis from the flame warriors in here for several pages: To who it may concern, I am writing this response as a player not as the ingame character Hugo van Grojt, just to be clear. I am, personally, fascinated by the majority of posts in this thread and the frequent lack of logic. So let's do a proper analysis of the dilemma, trying to be as objective as possible: The main argument presented by DRUNK and their supporters is essentially the following: "Any player should be allowed to play the game as they see fit. Nobody should be allowed to dictate how these players play the game." So, before we go into my argument, let's define and establish some core elements. Let's look at the various primary ways, a player may want to play the game: 1. you want to play as a trader/crafter 2. you want to play PVE (mission running and such) 3. you want to engage in small scale open world PvP (raiding, ganking, et cetera) 4. you want to engage in port battles and SOL fighting 5. you want to participate in the RvR aspect of the game (national wars) Additionally, let us briefly look at what the role of a clan is within the current game mechanics. By joining an ingame clan you, as a player: 1. get a clan tag in front of your name 2. get access to a clan chat and clan mail That is it, as far as the game is concerned. Nothing more. But what does joining a clan mean for most players? (my personal assumption!) By joining a clan, 1. you join a group of players that most likely share your interests and goals in the game 2. you give authority to the leaders/officials that the clan members elect to lead. 3. you accept that these clan leaders speak on your behalf during RvR negotiations or national council meetings - for lack of a better system. If you do not agree with your leadership, you are free to leave the clan or join another one that suits your interests better - and many people actually do that if they are discontent with their leadership. Okay, now we have established a baseline and the core assumptions. Now, let us explore the original argument using the ingame faction Sweden and Denmark as example: - The majority of players for each nation (organised in the biggest clans, that share a common vision) have agreed not to attack the ports of the opposing faction. - Some smaller clans disagree with that majority decision and attack ports of the opposing faction using the argument "We just want to play the game as we see fit!" How does the peace decision by the majority of players of each nation prohibit you from playing the game as you want? 1. you want to play as a trader/crafter - you can still do so within the confines of the ports your nation owns 2. you want to play PVE (mission running and such) - you can still do so within the confines of the territory your nation owns 3. you want to engage in small scale open world PvP (raiding, ganking, et cetera) - you can still do so, seeking out enemies that your nation is actually at war with - plenty of opportunities to be had there 4. you want to engage in port battles and SOL fighting - you can still do so, your clan or group of players is free to organise and independent attack on a port of the nation that your nation is at war with. For example, nobody will likely stop DRUNK from attacking a British port. 5. you want to participate in the RvR aspect of the game (national wars) - this is the ONLY part of the game where you are limited. If you absolutely want to wage war against the Danish/Swedish, you actually need to convince the majority of players playing the RvR game that this is the right way to go by increasing your clan member numbers or gaining support from other clans. So, by using some logic, we have established that majority decisions concerning national wars DO NOT prevent players from playing the game as they want. Even if the majority of citizens of a nation agree on having peace between Denmark and Sweden, the players of DRUNK and other small clans still have PLENTY of opportunities to trade, PVE, small scale PvP, do port battles to their hearts' content . The only limit that DRUNK have, is that they should not attack ports that belong to the Danish nation. That is the only limitation of their gameplay experience. My personal opinion in this case is that the interest of the many outweigh the interest of the few in this regard. National wars are a huge community effort that the majority of the citizens of each nation participate in. The enjoyment of the RvR aspect of the game by the MANY should not be nullified by the FEW using the liberty argument. Or to use a real life example: If you absolutely feel that you can only be free if you run around outside naked, you can do so by moving to the countryside and run around in the forest all you like. But if you do that it in a city you should expect to be arrested because the majority of the city dwellers do not want to have to look at your naked ass. If you defend the right to run around naked in a city because of "freedom" or "liberty" - you are just a troll. TL:DR Given the assumptions above, it is my strong belief that DRUNK and their supporters do not defend the right to play the game as they want, but rather the right to troll the majority of their nation's playerbase in the RvR aspect of the game. Therefore, a backlash by that majority of players is understandable and I am personally in full support of the majority here, because that is how communities work.

Swedish port attack windows as of March 29, 2016 Swedish Southern Bridgehead 10-12 Pampatar 10-12 Galdonas 14-16 La Blanquila 14-16 Carupano 14-16 Nueva Barcelona 18-20 Macanao 20-22 St. Georges Swedish Northern Waters 16-18 Basse-Terre 20-22 Charlestown 20-22 Philipsburg 20-22 Codrington 20-22 Oranjestad 20-22 English Harbor 22-24 Terre-de-Bas 22-24 Basseterre 22-24 Saint John's

Your arguments are ridiculous. You claim the right to play the game as you see fit - and at the same time you deny the majority of the citizens of Swedish nation the same right. Because these citizens DID elect a government of some sorts, they DID elect leaders that represent the majority of the Swedish playerbase. Otherwise, people would have left KF and HRE in large numbers already. By not accepting this elected government you are effectively not accepting the right of other players to play the game as THEY see fit. And there is more of them than there is of you. So who is the bad guy here? So, stop the hypocrisy. I rest my case.

To who it may concern, I am writing this response as a player not as the ingame character Hugo van Grojt, just to be clear. I am copying this response from the other "open letter to the devs" thread, because it applies to this thread here just the same. Replace DRUNK with RNON as you see fit - they are the same for the sake of the argument: The main argument presented by DRUNK and their supporters is essentially the following: "Any player should be allowed to play the game as they see fit. Nobody should be allowed to dictate how these players play the game." So, before we go into my argument, let's define and establish some core elements. Let's look at the various primary ways, a player may want to play the game: 1. you want to play as a trader/crafter 2. you want to play PVE (mission running and such) 3. you want to engage in small scale open world PvP (raiding, ganking, et cetera) 4. you want to engage in port battles and SOL fighting 5. you want to participate in the RvR aspect of the game (national wars) Additionally, let us briefly look at what the role of a clan is within the current game mechanics. By joining an ingame clan you, as a player: 1. get a clan tag in front of your name 2. get access to a clan chat and clan mail That is it, as far as the game is concerned. Nothing more. But what does joining a clan mean for most players? (my personal assumption!) By joining a clan, 1. you join a group of players that most likely share your interests and goals in the game 2. you give authority to the leaders/officials that the clan members elect to lead. 3. you accept that these clan leaders speak on your behalf during RvR negotiations or national council meetings - for lack of a better system. Okay, now we have established a baseline and the core assumptions. Now, let us explore the original argument using the ingame faction Sweden and Denmark as example: - The majority of players for each nation (organised in the biggest clans, that share a common vision) have agreed not to attack the ports of the opposing faction. - Some smaller clans disagree with that majority decision and attack ports of the opposing faction using the argument "We just want to play the game as we see fit!" How does the peace decision by the majority of players of each nation prohibit you from playing the game as you want? 1. you want to play as a trader/crafter - you can still do so within the confines of the ports your nation owns 2. you want to play PVE (mission running and such) - you can still do so within the confines of the territory your nation owns 3. you want to engage in small scale open world PvP (raiding, ganking, et cetera) - you can still do so, seeking out enemies that your nation is actually at war with - plenty of opportunities to be had there 4. you want to engage in port battles and SOL fighting - you can still do so, your clan or group of players is free to organise and independent attack on a port of the nation that your nation is at war with. For example, nobody will likely stop DRUNK from attacking a British port. 5. you want to participate in the RvR aspect of the game (national wars) - this is the ONLY part of the game where you are limited. If you absolutely want to wage war against the Danish/Swedish, you actually need to convince the majority of players playing the RvR game that this is the right way to go by increasing your clan member numbers or gaining support from other clans. So, by using some logic, we have established that majority decisions concerning national wars DO NOT prevent players from playing the game as they want. Even if the majority of citizens of a nation agree on having peace between Denmark and Sweden, the players of DRUNK and other small clans still have PLENTY of opportunities to trade, PVE, small scale PvP, do port battles to their hearts' content . The only limit that DRUNK have, is that they should not attack ports that belong to the Danish nation. That is the only limitation of their gameplay experience. My personal opinion in this case is that the interest of the many outweigh the interest of the few in this regard. National wars are a huge community effort that the majority of the citizens of each nation participate in. The enjoyment of the RvR aspect of the game by the MANY should not be nullified by the FEW using the liberty argument. Or to use a real life example: If you absolutely feel that you can only be free if you run around outside naked, you can do so by moving to the countryside and run around in the forest all you like. But if you do that it in a city you should expect to be arrested because the majority of the city dwellers do not want to have to look at your naked ass. If you defend the right to run around naked in a city because of "freedom" or "liberty" - you are just a troll. TL:DR Given the assumptions above, it is my strong belief that DRUNK and their supporters do not defend the right to play the game as they want, but rather the right to troll the majority of their nation's playerbase in the RvR aspect of the game. Therefore, a backlash by that majority of players is understandable and I am personally in full support of the majority here, because that is how communities work.

And here lies the problem. What is more important to the community of Naval Action? Your personal desire to attack a Danish ship flying Swedish colors or the desire of 600 other players to play the RvR game differently and fight Britain instead of Denmark? I would argue that it is MUCH easier for you to turn pirate and fight the Danes under the black than it is for 600 other players to stop doing what they doing just because it does not suit your personal desire....

People should not and could not care less if you go out and attack Danish ships playing the role of "Swedish privateers". But you should not expect any love for doing so (because the "government mandate" for your privateering does not exist) and you certainly should not attack Danish ports and mess up the RvR game for the majority of your nation's citizenry using the "we just want to play the game" argument. Simple as that. And this comes from a Dutch player that should be (ingame character) happy to see any internal conflicht within the Swedish nation.

To who it may concern, I am writing this response as a player not as the ingame character Hugo van Grojt, just to be clear. I am copying this response from the other "open letter to the devs" thread, because it applies to this thread here just the same: The main argument presented by DRUNK and their supporters is essentially the following: "Any player should be allowed to play the game as they see fit. Nobody should be allowed to dictate how these players play the game." So, before we go into my argument, let's define and establish some core elements. Let's look at the various primary ways, a player may want to play the game: 1. you want to play as a trader/crafter 2. you want to play PVE (mission running and such) 3. you want to engage in small scale open world PvP (raiding, ganking, et cetera) 4. you want to engage in port battles and SOL fighting 5. you want to participate in the RvR aspect of the game (national wars) Additionally, let us briefly look at what the role of a clan is within the current game mechanics. By joining an ingame clan you, as a player: 1. get a clan tag in front of your name 2. get access to a clan chat and clan mail That is it, as far as the game is concerned. Nothing more. But what does joining a clan mean for most players? (my personal assumption!) By joining a clan, 1. you join a group of players that most likely share your interests and goals in the game 2. you give authority to the leaders/officials that the clan members elect to lead. 3. you accept that these clan leaders speak on your behalf during RvR negotiations or national council meetings - for lack of a better system. Okay, now we have established a baseline and the core assumptions. Now, let us explore the original argument using the ingame faction Sweden and Denmark as example: - The majority of players for each nation (organised in the biggest clans, that share a common vision) have agreed not to attack the ports of the opposing faction. - Some smaller clans disagree with that majority decision and attack ports of the opposing faction using the argument "We just want to play the game as we see fit!" How does the peace decision by the majority of players of each nation prohibit you from playing the game as you want? 1. you want to play as a trader/crafter - you can still do so within the confines of the ports your nation owns 2. you want to play PVE (mission running and such) - you can still do so within the confines of the territory your nation owns 3. you want to engage in small scale open world PvP (raiding, ganking, et cetera) - you can still do so, seeking out enemies that your nation is actually at war with - plenty of opportunities to be had there 4. you want to engage in port battles and SOL fighting - you can still do so, your clan or group of players is free to organise and independent attack on a port of the nation that your nation is at war with. For example, nobody will likely stop DRUNK from attacking a British port. 5. you want to participate in the RvR aspect of the game (national wars) - this is the ONLY part of the game where you are limited. If you absolutely want to wage war against the Danish/Swedish, you actually need to convince the majority of players playing the RvR game that this is the right way to go by increasing your clan member numbers or gaining support from other clans. So, by using some logic, we have established that majority decisions concerning national wars DO NOT prevent players from playing the game as they want. Even if the majority of citizens of a nation agree on having peace between Denmark and Sweden, the players of DRUNK and other small clans still have PLENTY of opportunities to trade, PVE, small scale PvP, do port battles to their hearts' content . The only limit that DRUNK have, is that they should not attack ports that belong to the Danish nation. That is the only limitation of their gameplay experience. My personal opinion in this case is that the interest of the many outweigh the interest of the few in this regard. National wars are a huge community effort that the majority of the citizens of each nation participate in. The enjoyment of the RvR aspect of the game by the MANY should not be nullified by the FEW using the liberty argument. Or to use a real life example: If you absolutely feel that you can only be free if you run around outside naked, you can do so by moving to the countryside and run around in the forest all you like. But if you do that it in a city you should expect to be arrested because the majority of the city dwellers do not want to have to look at your naked ass. If you defend the right to run around naked in a city because of "freedom" or "liberty" - you are just a troll. TL:DR Given the assumptions above, it is my strong belief that DRUNK and their supporters do not defend the right to play the game as they want, but rather the right to troll the majority of their nation's playerbase in the RvR aspect of the game. Therefore, a backlash by that majority of players is understandable and I am personally in full support of the majority here, because that is how communities work. Edit: spelling

To who it may concern, I am writing this response as a player not as the ingame character Hugo van Grojt, just to be clear. I am, personally, fascinated by the majority of posts in this thread and the frequent lack of logic. So let's do a proper analysis of the dilemma, trying to be as objective as possible: The main argument presented by DRUNK and their supporters is essentially the following: "Any player should be allowed to play the game as they see fit. Nobody should be allowed to dictate how these players play the game." So, before we go into my argument, let's define and establish some core elements. Let's look at the various primary ways, a player may want to play the game: 1. you want to play as a trader/crafter 2. you want to play PVE (mission running and such) 3. you want to engage in small scale open world PvP (raiding, ganking, et cetera) 4. you want to engage in port battles and SOL fighting 5. you want to participate in the RvR aspect of the game (national wars) Additionally, let us briefly look at what the role of a clan is within the current game mechanics. By joining an ingame clan you, as a player: 1. get a clan tag in front of your name 2. get access to a clan chat and clan mail That is it, as far as the game is concerned. Nothing more. But what does joining a clan mean for most players? (my personal assumption!) By joining a clan, 1. you join a group of players that most likely share your interests and goals in the game 2. you give authority to the leaders/officials that the clan members elect to lead. 3. you accept that these clan leaders speak on your behalf during RvR negotiations or national council meetings - for lack of a better system. If you do not agree with your leadership, you are free to leave the clan or join another one that suits your interests better - and many people actually do that if they are discontent with their leadership. Okay, now we have established a baseline and the core assumptions. Now, let us explore the original argument using the ingame faction Sweden and Denmark as example: - The majority of players for each nation (organised in the biggest clans, that share a common vision) have agreed not to attack the ports of the opposing faction. - Some smaller clans disagree with that majority decision and attack ports of the opposing faction using the argument "We just want to play the game as we see fit!" How does the peace decision by the majority of players of each nation prohibit you from playing the game as you want? 1. you want to play as a trader/crafter - you can still do so within the confines of the ports your nation owns 2. you want to play PVE (mission running and such) - you can still do so within the confines of the territory your nation owns 3. you want to engage in small scale open world PvP (raiding, ganking, et cetera) - you can still do so, seeking out enemies that your nation is actually at war with - plenty of opportunities to be had there 4. you want to engage in port battles and SOL fighting - you can still do so, your clan or group of players is free to organise and independent attack on a port of the nation that your nation is at war with. For example, nobody will likely stop DRUNK from attacking a British port. 5. you want to participate in the RvR aspect of the game (national wars) - this is the ONLY part of the game where you are limited. If you absolutely want to wage war against the Danish/Swedish, you actually need to convince the majority of players playing the RvR game that this is the right way to go by increasing your clan member numbers or gaining support from other clans. So, by using some logic, we have established that majority decisions concerning national wars DO NOT prevent players from playing the game as they want. Even if the majority of citizens of a nation agree on having peace between Denmark and Sweden, the players of DRUNK and other small clans still have PLENTY of opportunities to trade, PVE, small scale PvP, do port battles to their hearts' content . The only limit that DRUNK have, is that they should not attack ports that belong to the Danish nation. That is the only limitation of their gameplay experience. My personal opinion in this case is that the interest of the many outweigh the interest of the few in this regard. National wars are a huge community effort that the majority of the citizens of each nation participate in. The enjoyment of the RvR aspect of the game by the MANY should not be nullified by the FEW using the liberty argument. Or to use a real life example: If you absolutely feel that you can only be free if you run around outside naked, you can do so by moving to the countryside and run around in the forest all you like. But if you do that it in a city you should expect to be arrested because the majority of the city dwellers do not want to have to look at your naked ass. If you defend the right to run around naked in a city because of "freedom" or "liberty" - you are just a troll. TL:DR Given the assumptions above, it is my strong belief that DRUNK and their supporters do not defend the right to play the game as they want, but rather the right to troll the majority of their nation's playerbase in the RvR aspect of the game. Therefore, a backlash by that majority of players is understandable and I am personally in full support of the majority here, because that is how communities work. Edit: spelling

It was previously confirmed by admin, that this is not considered an exploit. We might not agree with this policy, but for now, it seems that logging out after a battle is not tribunal-worthy...

Dutch carebear line making some progress.... https://www.facebook.com/PowerUnlimited/videos/10153372559636691/

Swedish port attack windows as of March 27, 2016 (unchanged) Swedish Southern Bridgehead 10-12 Pampatar 10-12 St. Georges 10-12 Galdonas 12-14 La Tortuga 14-16 Cariaco 14-16 La Blanquila 14-16 Carupano 14-16 Nueva Barcelona 14-16 Piritu 16-18 Cumana 18-20 Macanao Swedish Northern Waters 16-18 Basse-Terre 20-22 Charlestown 20-22 Philipsburg 20-22 Codrington 20-22 Oranjestad 20-22 English Harbor 22-24 Basseterre 22-24 Saint John's

Not complaining

Swedish port attack windows as of March 25, 2016 Swedish Southern Bridgehead 10-12 Pampatar 10-12 St. Georges 10-12 Galdonas 12-14 La Tortuga 14-16 Cariaco 14-16 La Blanquila 14-16 Carupano 14-16 Nueva Barcelona 14-16 Piritu 16-18 Cumana 18-20 Macanao Swedish Northern Waters 16-18 Basse-Terre 20-22 Charlestown 20-22 Philipsburg 20-22 Codrington 20-22 Oranjestad 20-22 English Harbor 22-24 Basseterre 22-24 Saint John's You want PvP from 10:00 to 24:00 server time during your "prime time"? We will give you PvP between 10:00 - 24:00. Every day. Have the men ready to hoist sails! There is little time to lose!

I like it, it would actually make for awesome RP options ingame

Make it possible to deliver ships from one outpost to another (for a gold fee, taking some real life hours, empty cargohold) to make transferring warships less of a time grind/time sink. Currently, I need to find a trader to capture, capture it, take command, send my warship to the desired outpost, go back in captured trader to wherever - all that just to move a Frigate from outpost A to outpost B that might be too far away. Yes, I could MANUALLY sail it, but you do not know how many ships I own....

Sigh .... the glorious leaders have spoken. Enjoy your pixel war tonight, if you can.

It is not, you misundersand me. The Dutch citizens such as myself and most other active PvP captains are perfectly willing to suspend port battles and have, in fact, first requested the ceasefire of our own accord. It is our leaders and diplomats who want to have their say. There needs to be a council meeting they say. This needs to be decided by leadership, they say. I say it doesn't. This ceasefire has nothing to do with ingame strategy, ingame politics or any of that. Let's just give our Belgian players a chance to process what is happening - we don't need council decisions or diplomatic roundtables for that. We just need to do it. (German saying: "Stell Dir vor es ist Krieg - und keiner geht hin" Imagine there is war and nobody shows up) I would call it exploitative (of the situation, not the game) to engage in offensive port battles against Dutch ports, while the citizenry of the Dutch nation have announced that they will let the war rest tonight. And I would call BS on the argument "the Dutch themselves cancelled the ceasefire" as the excuse to do so. The Dutch citizens have not cancelled the ceasefire, the "leaders" and "diplomats" just have not made up their mind. By all means, defend your ports if some Dutch players decide to wage war regardless of the tragedy. But Hugo and the other people sympathetic to our fellow Belgian players will not fight tonight.

This has nothing to do with "the Dutch", or with diplomacy or with council meetings, Jesus ..... This is the callout from player to player of Naval Action. I do not care what councils or diplomatic talks bring in this regard - I PERSONALLY will respect my fellow Belgian players and will not participate in an offensive or defensive port battle tonight. And so will other Dutch players. Feel free to exploit this fact or not to - that is your personal choice as a player and human being. Thank you for the kind words on our Teamspeak, Sveno and Zpliff and for your willingness to suspend this pixel war for just one night in light of the horrible tragedy. Whatever happens with the "diplomats" and "leaders", private citizen Hugo and many other Dutch private citizens stand by our word to not engage in any offensive or defensive port battle tonight. Sincerely Yours, Hugo van Grojt

You have my gratitude, Sir!

I concur. I, personally, will not participate in any offensive and defensive port battle operations today

TO BOTH NATIONS INVOLVED IN THE CURRENT WAR: Due to the recent tragedy in Belgium, and given that we have a very large number of Belgian players in the Dutch nation, I would kindly request that both nations suspend combat operations for today, March 22. We will put forward the request to the Dutch admiralty to suspend any port battles for today while open world PvP can still be conducted by those so inclined. I, personally, will not participate in any offensive or defensive port battle actions today and I would like to see all true gentlemen of both nations following suit. This is indeed a very sad day and our hearts go out to any player that is personally affected by the tragedy. Sincerely Yours, Hugo van Grojt Edit: spelling

Well, if we are all frustrated with port battle timer shennanigans, maybe we should continue to push the devs to give us a road map for the changes to RvR they want to implement in the future. Maybe, with improvements on the horizon, people will relax a little more and not burn themselves out because of colored dots on the map. I, personally, am not enjoying the mechanics as they currently are - and neither are many of the newer / casual players of this game. I WANT these guys not to leave, I WANT there to be a role for the non-hardcore players to contribute to RvR... Let's hope we will get some insights for the future soon before these furious wars burn out all but the most hardcore players of this otherwise awesome game. Well, back to the frontline now....

Hello Aplecake, thank you for your feedback and for putting in the time to formulate a proper response Just my 2 comments before I will let this rest and get on with it: "we have to use the tools we have to our advatages like every nation is doing it" This is exactly what I tried to point out in my previous posts. The Swedish Navy has used the toolset currently in place with great effect. I congratulated you on your brilliance in doing so several times. I am merely starting to question the toolset. Previously, I had been ignoring all the posts and threads about port timers and such because in the Franco-Dutch war they were not a tool used strategically by us or against us. Now, I see the port timer games used against us with devastating effect and it is not a fun game experience when on the receiving end of that stick. "Blaming our success only on Port Battle timers is not doing us justice." I agree completely with that statement and have given you credit for your formidable fleet operations on several occasions. BUT port timer games account for at least 50% of your success and you "using the gamemechanics as intended" - please let us not forget that the entire war was STARTED by St. Georges being open for attack because that port lost its port timer window after a patch... Last but not least, you are the aggressor in this war invading our holy homeland. It is natural that the aggressor will not receive any love from the families of the victims of that ruthless invasion - so better stop arguing you are only here to give the Dutch the PvP fun of a lifetime - and let's get on with it, shall we? Edit: spelling

Here are the facts for yesterday, March 17, 2016 Nueva Barcelona 14-16 (from 02-04 the night before) La Blanquila 14-16 (from 16-18 the day before) Carupano 14-16 (from 02-04 the night before) Galdonas 02-04 (unchanged) St. Georges 18-20 (unchanged) Everybody is free to make his/her own assumptions, but I interpret these timer settings as follows, and this is my personal subjective opinion: 1. None of the port timers were set to coincide with our port timers, giving you a comfortable situation to only have to either attack OR defend, but not both 2. Night time timers were - I argue deliberately - changed to early afternoon because no coordinated attack on those ports can be mustered when the majority of the nation is at work - effectively prohibiting us from retaking our ports that day. 3. Except St. Georges, none of the timers are in anybody's prime time - unless the joke about all Swedes being unemployed little children ist true. This prevented any fair fights over these ports happening that day. The strategy behind it is brilliant. The Swedish admiralty is making the best of the existing game mechanics in order to give your navy the best strategic advantage. But as I stated earlier, winning the meta game is not winning our hearts and it is not making this war a fun and exiting experience for your opponent, of that I am sure.

Track Terror, do you think the majority of the Dutch captains involved ENJOYED that experience having to stay up until 4:00 a.m. to attack those stupid ports? People did it because we are defending our homeland and because of a sense of duty ("it has to be done"). Just because we fight these fights in defense of our nation does not mean "it's all good, man". I am not shouting exploit here, you are using the toolset that you are given with great efficiency. But do not for a second think that this efficiency is an enjoyable gaming experience. You are winning the game but losing the hearts in my ever so humble opinion. As Tac argued, the Franco-Dutch war is in better memory, because two mainly European time zone nations kinda agreed to have their port timers set to European prime time and fight it out when both nations have the most players online. Sweden has chosen another path that is efficient but not getting you much love. On the other hand, I am not putting all the blame for the Dutch currently losing this war on your shoulders. As others have stated, the Dutch nation has yet to free itself of the PvE enthusiasts that give a false sense of numbers. And we need to re-organise in order to deal with your very formidable "alpha fleet". That is on us, and I hope that we will find the resolve. Sincerely, Hugo van Grojt