Storm Crow

The pirate player Demon Lord Morty joined the battle shown in the screenshot above, in which [LG] Vedon (Russia) attacked [R4VEN] Headgerald (Pirates), each with 3 fleet ships with no cannons equipped. Headgerald and Vedon did not try to fight each-other after Demon Lord Morty joined, and instead Headgerald tried to protect the Russian ships by running into Morty. Seen in the screenshot above, Headgerald unsuccessfully tries to prevent Vedon's Diana from being boarded. After this, Headgerald again rams Demon Lord Morty and tries to push him into the shore, as seen in the video clip below. I would guess this is a case of attempted alt farming, though the actual farming didn't take place since Demon Lord Morty interrupted them.

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/754843815915267091/ADD414136CD97416F0C4F80E0F022E2E198B4C0D/ I would like to report a player BIG HIPPO. I think a chat ban would serve him well. As has already been stated, there's no need to bring mothers, or race, into naval action.

me: *attacks mercury* constitution: *jumps in to save it* me: I'm gonna do what's called a pro gamer move some more battles:

Some fellow clan members and I began hostility on the shallow port La Guanaja. Then the players DarkSun and SeagulGonaCumPokeMeInTheCoconut, both [BL4CK] clan members, joined the hostility mission with the intention of lowering hostility. [BL4CK] DarkSun didn't even bring cannons. This was a blatant, though failed, attempt to try and prevent VCO from setting a port battle. Below is a screenshot of the battle results showing both [BL4CK] clan members having been captured. I have also included a short video of the incident. In the video, from 20-40 seconds you can see player DarkSun attempting to get boarded by the npc Santisima. At 1:20, it can be clearly seen that player DarkSun did not equip cannons on his ship. At 2:12, DarkSun can be seen getting boarded by the npc Navy Brig. At 5:00, DarkSun loses the boarding action.

I was the last one to join the battle, which was around 10 minutes after it began. When I joined, the Spanish forces were chasing the pirates down wind. Once I joined the battle the faster Spanish ships turned to join up with their Victory and the pirate forces grouped up-wind. As the battle progressed, the Victory and larger Spanish ships were slower to react to changes in position and repeatedly left the smaller ships alone. The pirates then quickly sunk the smaller Spanish ships, with Privateer boarding many of them. After a few of the Spanish support ships had been sunk, the remaining Spanish forces began to retreat. The Rattvisan escaped first and the Hercules second. Once the Spanish began escaping the larger pirate ships focused on the Victory, reducing its crew, while the Pirate 5th rates sunk the remaining Spanish support ships. Once the remaining Spanish ships had sunk I was able to board the Victory, which was sunk last.

I imagine capture-able ports that can't have timers could also yield good results for ships crafted there, like a higher chance of getting a 4/5 or 5/5 ship. Of course it would be very difficult to capture and hold such a port long enough to set up any significant crafting operations. I think this could certainly lead to increased/interesting content ☺️

Um... I have no problem with pirates trading at the ports captured by XXXXX. The only issue I have is that I put a lot of time and effort into capturing and holding a specific trade port which I am currently making very little profit from because @no one decided he needs to trade at that port in particular as opposed to the others, some currently held by XXXXX, which I suggested he trade at instead. It is this reason only that I think clans which put in the effort to capture ports should be able to profit from those ports.

My suggestion to solve this problem is: 1. Members of the capturing clan and those clans on the capturing clan's friendly clan list can set "buy" contracts in the port. For everyone else, entry to the port is not restricted nor is the use of the port in any way. The only restriction is the ability to place "buy" contracts. 2. Taxes can be set anywhere up to 100%. I don't think we need to move away from the nation based system any more than this. After all, my clan captures ports with the intent of furthering the pirate nation as a whole. In addition, there are plenty of pirates who help to do hostility, set PBs, screen, join PBs, etc. who have their own stake in the ports we capture. However, these pirates' clans are also on the friendly clan list for taking part in these activities. I am not looking for a way to hinder the commerce of my nation as a whole, but instead to help those who contribute to reap the benefits of their effort, encourage others to take part in conquests, and limit the negative effects of leaches such as @no one.

I will elaborate on this issue. XXXXX captured a trade port. We put a timer on the port. We've applied the "trading company lvl 2" perk to the port. We've defended the port multiple times (stopping hostility attempts). This allowed myself to trade at the port and contribute the profits to the clan warehouse to cover the cost of the timer and trading company; a cost the taxes don't come close to covering on their own. Then about a week ago a player, [no one], a raider from some clan I've never heard of nor someone I've ever seen helping with any sort of RvR, one day decided "I want to trade at that port". So he suggests that he buy half the trade goods at the port and I buy the other half, cutting my clans profits in half while the cost of the port stays the same. This is somehow a "fair" agreement in his mind. Since then I've suggested other trade ports for him to trade at. Ones owned by XXXXX which I know are not being currently used. I've even offered to one of their clan leaders, ReaperpT, that XXXXX would capture a trade port of their choosing for their clan to use. To this the response was, "how about you stop being a little child worry less about pve and really start helping the nation doing pvp". I suggest this whole situation shows that clans which capture ports need more control over those ports.