Hugo van Grojt

Exactly, everybody is using that workaround - so we might as well have a proper system in place, but with restrictions. However, I am also amazed at the amount of votes for moving ships with cargo - that would actually be gamebreaking in my eyes

You are correct - fixed in the poll. Thanks for the heads-up!

Was I talking to you? No I wasn't. I was responding to Evok. Another case of wrong quotation. Off topic: I am not a politician, but a politcal scientiest by education. But that matters as much as working in an egg factory in this discussion

Yessir!

At least we do agree on this one

What a cute attempt, young padawan The argument is that the only limitation placed on the few (just do not attack ports of a nation that your nation has negotiated a peace with) is acceptable given that doing so is an infringement of the right of 600 other players to play the (diplomacy) game the way that THEY want. It is a classic case of the interest of the many outweighing the interest of the few. Now keep up the condescending tone, light forum PVP permitted and all

Okay, let's play the "burden of proof" game, lol Where do I tell anyone to play by my invented rules or leave? I am not even Danish or Swedish Full quotes, please, if you will. And while we are at it: Please explain to me what a "Swedish privateer" is in your book if there is no government to appoint them as a privateer (remember: DRUNK and RNON explicitly claim that the game does not have any government mechanics). And last but not least, enlighten me why any player should accept their decision to roleplay as a "Swedish privateers" if none of them accept the decision of the majority of their nations' players to roleplay an imaginary council government and a national diplomacy. I'll get my popcorn

Nothing would satisfy me more than at least having an ignore button on the forum, if more strict moderation is too complicated to implement. Hugo

I made a whole page worth of arguments why the "We just want to play the game whatever way we see fit" argument and the "the majority is dictating us how to enjoy the game! we just want some PvP!" arguments are unfounded, because there ARE plenty of ways to enjoy the game at its fullest without pissing off the entire player community. The counter argument was "any concession I have to make (such as turning Pirate if you are playing as one) is unacceptable, because I am right and oppression and .... well... because oppression" So do not feed me the "burden of proof" cake

Can you provide proof that it isn't?

You are right and you are wrong. You are right - technically no player organisation can force other players to do anything that the game mechanics currently allow. But you are wrong, if you honestly thinks that "all of you will just have to accept that you are powerless to change the situation". For lack of other ingame tools available to the majority of the affected player communities, they have moved to the only tool still available: Public naming and shaming of the dissenters and trolls while simultaneously demanding a change of the ruleset by the devs.

This thread should be moved to tribunal. HMS Surprise clearly used a line of sight exploit during the cowardly nighttime escape from the gank - without reporting the lantern lighting bug with F11.

Slamz, you have a right to your opinion, even though I disagree completely. I, personally, do not want to be subjected to your vision of "family fun" - I demand a tool for blocking the trash talk you seem to enjoy in my free time, if I am to continue to provide alpha tester feedback on these forums here. I have enough mobbing going on at work, thank you. Yet, we have no instrument to disable battle chat, or ignore toxic forum posts aimed at aggravating the community.

EXACTLY!

How dare you propose a government monopoly on commodities! Has the Boston tea party not taught you ANYTHING? I should bring your anti-Dutch thinking to the tribunal and have your trading permission in Willemstad revoked for even entertaining such treacherous thoughts against the free market. Restricting the access to rum - are you MAD?!

Hey Slamz, I will entertain your argument. I am always up for a reasonable debate. You are misreading my analysis, I think. In no sentence did I condemn the renegades for going out and attacking any ship they see. I am fully aware that demanding that is suicidal. Every nation has dissenters that chose to ignore the majority decision to have peace with a certain faction - the PFK clan disapproving of the Fanco-Dutch peace treaty being a recent example. We let them do their thing and start attacks on the French, it was dissatisfying but the game let them do it and the rest of the Dutch community kinda accepted it. What I DO argue against is attacking an enemy port when there is a "no port attacks" peace deal in place that the majority of both nations' players have accepted. Because that messes with the RvR aspect of the game - and in RvR - and ONLY RvR! - the right of the majority to play the game as they want (by using diplomacy and self-elected governments) outweighs the right of the few to play their trolling game. That is my whole argument. Cheers, Hugo

Joernson, the easy counter to your reasonable argument would be: "I don't want to play British or Pirate! I want to play the game whatever way I want! How DARE you dictate the way I play the game!" Your turn, if you dare

I second everything you say. Illogic trolling is going rampant on the forum these days and it is always the same people over and over spewing their garbage on us. And since the Naval Action community is fairly small in comparison to other game forums, they receive an unnecessary amount of attention while doing so. Since 80% of the posters on NN seem not to be able to act civil anymore, either remove the "light forum pvp" rule and start moderating properly - or at least give us the option to downvote posts or straight up ignore posts from certain attention-seeking individuals like we can ingame. My short but finely selected ignore list ingame has made Dutch nation chat a much more enjoyable experience - please help us grown-up people maintain our sanity while on this forum. Sincerely, Hugo van Grojt

you trolls make my day Every day, I can be sure that your "logic" can make me laugh. Thank you, Sju, for this and keep it coming

Actually, asking the "cargo-question" is my little carebear test ...

I agree for trade vessels and resource deliveries, but not necessarily for crafted warships.

Care to elaborate? What is the difference? Right now, anyone can take a basic cutter, make an outpost in a freetown near the enemy and teleport back at zero risk. Following that, he just needs to capture an AI trader in his hometown to move his warship to that outpost. The only difference between a proper system for ship deliveries and this method is the time investment - boring hours spent not really enjoying the game. But needless to say, I welcome any feedback that may cause massive balancing issues. So please be a little more specific, Maturin. Thanks for the feedback!

Hello captains, for a while now, I have been annoyed by the fact that I have to use the "feature" of capturing a trader and sending my warship "to outpost" if I want to move a warship from one of my outposts to another. You could argue that this is not intended use of the "send to outpost" feature and that moving assets around the map SHOULD be a chore. I, personally, disagree because moving assets is just a time sink with very little positive effect on the gameplay experience. I do not enjoy sailing around warships for hours just to store them in another outpost. Since everybody seems to be using the AI trader capture method more or less frequently, lets talk about a more "legal" way to move your ships from one outpost to another. My suggestion would be to 1. allow deliveries of ships between any of your outposts. 2. exclude the cargo hold from the delivery (ship+equipment only, for obvious reasons) 3. make it somewhat costly (between 30.000-50.000 per ship, maybe?) 4. make it time consuming (I could even live with 4+ hours for the ship to reach the destination to avoid mass movement of fleets) Obviously, these would be my preferences but you can freely chose from many other options in the poll. Let the voting begin! Cheers, Hugo

I laugh at the pretense of being enlightened and open to talks about the future. Priceless ...

How is this contradictory? How am I arguing against PvP?! If you want to PvP as a Swede - go to Island Harbor and PvP small scale, raid the Dutch Lands in the South and catch traders there, join Port Battles against the Dutch navy there or organise one on your own - ALL THE GAME MECHANICS you may be looking for your enjoyment are THERE for you to enjoy. The only limit is that you actually have to get involved in the clan negotiations, councils and whatever form of government a nation (player community) elects to pursue common (national) goals for empire building. If you want to raid, gank, kill, pillage and plunder without anybody's consent and do not give a rat's ass about what goals other player groups pursue - there is even a BUILT IN game feature for that! It is called becoming a PIRATE. So do not twist my words and turn them into an anti-PvP argument, when they are clearly not.