Raekur

Another option is to attack something that is a higher BR than you two combined that is much slower than you. Sail away from it for about 30 min and that may give you enough space. Perhaps even sailing upwind as well.

How would the mechanic give them something they do not already have? Access to throwaway ships (admiralty provided) would be a non issue as they are not as good as crafted ones. If they craft ships then they can be captured and their place of production will be revealed thus showing an idea of who is supporting them. While there will be no way to eliminate bad players at least with this mechanic there will be a way to reduce some of the influence and effect they could have. In simple terms, it will allow the players who actually want to play the game a way to fight back.

If the alt clan owns no ports then they can be starved to death by having to use all their outpost slots just to get resources for crafting. With the constant threat of raiders it puts the alt clans ships in peril more often then the rest of the nation. Add to that the fact that the alt clan traders will most likely have to sail solo, either way it becomes a matter of attrition and the alt clan will slowly die off. One thing you stated is very true, there are plenty of shitheads in this game that seem to be here for no other purpose but to cause headaches for others. Would be nice if there was a way to "entice" them to play nice or get the F lost. But the mechanic will need to be build along some strict lines so to reduce the amount of 'unintentional" ways it could be used.

While I see your concern regarding the use of alt accounts to initiate attacks on other same nation ports could be an issue. But it is an issue that could use the same mechanic to eliminate the alt account entirely. First the alt account would most likely not be the largest clan within the nation so the amount of damage it could do is not that extensive. Second, when the alt clan attacks, the other clans in the nation will start asking questions regarding a reason for the attack. Chances are they will not get a verifiable answer. This now marks that alt clan to be monitored and possibly counter attacked by the other clans. At least with the full scope of a civil war mechanic, problem clans can be removed from a nation or at the very least reduced in power that will lessen the impact they have. I dont think there is really that much of a concern about one clan taking everything as it will be near impossible for one clan to be able to hold it all much less pay for it.

I was not aware of that situation, the one I recall was with the russians and a particular clan opening up 4 ports right next to another clans major trade hub.

Wasnt it a specific situation that prompted the idea for a civil war mechanic in the first place? The admin idea is simple but is limited in aiding a nation to curtail actions that are against the nation that are more harmful than just opening a port. By allowing any port to be targeted it will permit clans that are in conflict within a nation to resolve the issue.

And with that mechanic what happens if the owner of the port flips it back to nation only? Does the hostility to capture the port become null in void? What about the current situation of the alleged actions by VCO of extortion of gold to not destroy improvements to a port? The only actions that a nation could take against a group like this would be to just "deal with it". Actions of a clan against their own nation should come with some form of consequences, this is the mechanic that is missing from the game. Right now the only thing that could be done is for that clan to be ostracized from the nation and no other clan within that nation assist them and said clan removed from all friends listings. Bounties were used in the past in this game to put pressure on groups, perhaps that is another mechanic that could be implemented. VCO in the past has put up a 20 million bounty for the leader of a british clan though I never heard of anyone collecting.

While an interesting idea, it will not happen as it would require a complete rewrite of the code that runs the game. The idea of reducing the number of nations might be possible, but also has been suggested before and the devs simply will not do it as they believe the game population will increase still.

I dont think that the civil war mechanic should permit other nations from joining in. This would open up the use of alt accounts and resources from groups/nations not directly affected by the civil war. If other nations want to assist a side, they could bring supplies to the side they want to help through the use of trade ships.

The issue also with what Hethwill suggested with requiring an equal port is what if the clan that wants to take the port either does not have a equal value one or has no port at all? What about a mechanic that permits a port to be switched in the same fashion that items are traded? (though this should only happen between clan leaders) In regards to port owners who decide to take action against the nation they are part of (opening a port, removing clans from the access list, etc) if the port can not be taken due to the above reasons, how about allowing a clan to put up money to blockade a port. Until that amount is paid by the port owner no purchases or selling can take place at that port. It may need to be a 10 to 1 ratio in order to prevent large clans from choking small clans to death. Granted, friendly clans to the port owner could make donations to help pay off the blockade.

What about the situation where a clan does not own the CC but does own the small ports and just switches them to available to all without the consent of the CC owner? (Reference what occurred in the gulf between 2 russian clans that were having internal issues)? Also, regarding friends lists, I think you may want to amend that to where clans that are on both friends lists are excluded from the battle or are automatically removed if they fight against a former ally. Would not want to reintroduce a mechanic that allows a clan to join both sides of a conflict. Regarding port value, with the suggestion that the only one that can attack is a clan that has a port of equal value, that may make the largest ports (55) immune to attack. Perhaps allow a port of one step lower to be used instead of an equal value if one of equal value is not available. This would allow the smaller clans who own only a 15 point port a chance to move up a step. It would be very risky for the smaller clans, but better a slim chance than none at all. More so when the larger clan makes ports available that threaten the smaller clan.

I understand what you are saying and in part agree. The problem is that the devs focused almost 100% of their efforts onto the war server and made many mistakes along the way. Only now is the peace server getting any attention and it may be in an attempt to give the players that have gotten so sick of the crap on the war server that the devs want to offer some kind of an optional place to play. My concern is that it could be too little too late. Over the last 3 years I have seen many good suggestions and a truck load of bad ones. Funny part is guess which pile was used to draw from and implemented? Even the front line idea though initially was viewed as a good idea, it quickly revealed some major flaws in its design. Flaws that have yet to be addressed.

If the war server is only about RvR and PvP, then why are their trade missions and trade goods? Both of these could be easily removed and have the rewards for pvp increased to pay for the manufacturing of materials for ship building. Along those lines the war server should have been modeled after war thunder or world of warships. Remove the economy and just install a function where money is generated by sinking other players. The reason there are more than just pvp on the war server is that not everyone is a pvp player. Some prefer to support the clan they are part of by generating funds or assisting in gaining experience by doing missions (this is against AI not players). There used to be a fairly large market for selling crafting hours in the creation of the various parts used in ship building. With the streamlining of ship building this market was eliminated and now you have players with labor hours and nothing to do with them if they are not a crafter.

So players not having access to guides and/or being morons is the reason for the constant kills around KPR within the first week after release? The ENTIRE reason that EVERY account was rolled back to zero was a failed attempt to protect new players (at least that was the lame ass excuse we were given). This way everyone starts off at 0 and has to build up. It was a theory that fell flat on it's face within days of release because some seal clubbers could easily do the tutorial and get into a Hercules and go hit the capital area and wipe out new players by the handful with little to no effort. The biggest problem with this game is that there are too many A-hole players who get off on being bullies and beating the crap out of low level players and there is absolutely nothing in the game to deter from this and in fact it is rewarded if you think about it. The game has always been centered around making a select group happy at the expense of others.

This has been suggested before even to the point of making the entire Gulf area a non pvp area. The thing is, the warnings about attacking new players has been brought up time and time again and yet low level players are still being attacked and any suggestion towards protecting them is not only dismissed but things that were in place to help protect were removed or decreased in size to the point of being worthless. The devs were informed about what was occurring and instead of increasing the protections for new players, they chose to listen to the seal clubbers argument that veteran players would hide in the protected zones. So now there is nothing other than playing at odd hours when the russians have gone to sleep. Nothing will be done to aid new players, this has been proven time and time again.

ah. ok. I know the one thread I created to report the issue, some twat changed the topic line to Fake News without even so much as discussing it or bothering to get off their ass and investigate. My guess is that since it is not something that is being used against their butt boys, then it will not be looked into in any way. The posts in my thread is evidence of that.

And once again since the devs do not want to believe that ships can vanish decided to change the topic to Fake News. I guess that tells the community what to expect. So to the A-Holes who use this exploit, please continue, it's not like you will ever get punished for it anyway. Can rate this right up there with the duplication bug (that was denied for a while as well) and all the other nice little "Features" available in the game.

Though some have reported this issue in locations where there should be no missions available to them.

The thing is, they have washed their hands on the situation and taken the stance that all the various reports of this happening are fake and they refuse to investigate the issue. So we are as players left with the reality that some players have discovered an exploit and are willing to use it freely to grief players and avoid any means of preventing it. Best we can do is continue to send in reports again and again and attempt to get a video of it. I will see if I can get some near max speed interceptors positioned around the area so that I can join in the chase after this bottom feeding little twerp. I already have video software enabled to capture it as evidence.

Well the devs stand firm that there is no safe exit possible, and yet these occurrences still continue to happen. The reason I thought it might be a tow to port is that a network disconnect should still trigger a 2 min loss of control of the ship. If there is some way to trigger a tow to port but maintain control then it might explain how this is being done. But that is just grasping at possibilities as most other theories have been ruled out and the players are left to figure it out until a video evidence of what is transpiring is provided.

The theory of pulling the connection was proven to not be the method being used as the person's ship remained in game after their client dropped. Ateides, did you state that he vanished in front of you and then later appeared or did you just run across him a time later? If it is the later then the only thing I can think of is that there is some mechanic allowing them to tow to port and then they log out and sail back later. A tow to port would explain the sudden vanish that is not present with a disconnect.

I know, add the Vikings. That would put a twist on things, they could even have a moral boost to boarding but have a penalty in cannon accuracy.

The other issue with fleet ships carrying goods is having to constantly switch to the trader to get the cargo, then switch back to the main ship, then reset your knowledge selections, then reset your crew assignments, THEN and only then can you actually leave port. To deliver the cargo the easiest way is to hit N to bring up the fleet listing, click on the barrel to the trader to access its cargo area, drag the mission item to the warehouse. Then hit Q to deliver the mission.

The chances of them making any of the recommended changes to the pirates is nil. Pirates have been converted into a nation with one exception that they can join both sides of a battle. So they are still unbalanced in respect to the rest of the playable factions. But any of the other suggestions from the past I think will be dismissed and not implemented in any fashion.

While switching providers may be an option in some countries, not everyone will have a choice. The biggest issue I have is that when it happened to me and my clan mates it eliminated the client providers as a cause simply because it affected people from multiple countries at the same time. The likelihood of it being the client side in this case is simply not possible unless all these users were using the same gateway to the server. In this case it is a fault with either the game servers or the terminating provider circuit that connects to it. Neither of these possibilities have been discussed between the admins and the players and was solely considered a client side issue and dismissed. The company I work for deals with over 700,000 connections to our network on a daily basis and I have seen where there have been faults with the inbound signalling and a dropped connection. While very rare it does occur and to our customers we offer compensation for the lost connections or at the very least an explanation and not just tell them that the issue is with their equipment.