Aquillas

Salut Fofo! Oui, c'est un fait que le commerce be rapporte plus assez, au point que plus personne ne capture de trader pour sa cargaison. Fait contraire à la réalité historique, remarque que l' admin a considéré comme "good point". Reste à savoir quand ce sera corrigé...

Work in progress.

Same on War server. Peace server is working fine.

Je vous rejoins sur le fait qu'un accord PVP sera très rapidement intenable. Mais comment allez-vous contrôler les joueurs pour le screen? N'importe quel "rogue", ou simplement un joueur qui revient après un break, sans forcément au courant d'un accord, aura volontairement ou non le pouvoir de le remettre en question?

Just for information, it seems that Russia (NN clan), sent a Diktat to France. Either France accepts to become a pupet for NN, or NN attack the only French crafting port: Bridgestone. France seems likely to refuse, but I am not a French diplomat anymore, I let them take their decision. According to @Celtiberofrog, Spain did accept a similar "arrangement"...

Ici KPR. Boulouboup, Boulouboup, Boulouboup, Les Français parlent aux Français… Boulouboup, Boulouboup, Boulouboup…. Les sanglots longs Des violons De l’automne D'après quelques messages reçus de certains points de la carte, il serait tout à fait possible que la France bénéficie d'une équipe internationale de screen en cas d'attaque sur Bridgestone. According to some messages received from certain points of the map, France could receive support from an international screening team in case of an attack on Bridgestone. Blessent mon cœur D’une langueur Monotone To French diplomats, just contact your conterparts.

@Celtiberofrog Quand je pense que le dernier joueur espagnol que j'ai croisé (et coulé) a fait valoir pour sa défense une prétendue alliance entre la Grande-Bretagne et l'Espagne...

@MassimoSud, @Genevieve Malfleurs, @All_BASTARDS: One more target to sink here!

@Jakob.Kettler The "War" server is not a PVP server. This "PVP server" name was abandoned months ago. You can consider that the "Peace Server" is a PVE only server. The "War Server" is not a PVP server. I made the same error too, resulting in several boring evenings. PVE activities are more and more mandatory on this server. Simple and clear for me: I am obliged to resign myself to playing the play style Developers decided for us. Maybe, I'll find some fun in PVE?

Letters of Marques were ever proposed, several times, by several players, as a possible solution for diverse concerns. Let's imagine, propose, discuss, contest what could be the rules for that historical feature. Let's try and avoid exploits on this, find a way to get profit and no loss. My "vision" for that should be: Clan creator and diplomats can provide a Letter of Marque to another clan Clan creators and clan diplomats of both clans can revoke it There is no time duration for the letter of marque. It is in force until revocation. The effect of the Letter of marque between two clans is mutual. Both clans have to pay a tax of 10k doubloons to their country administration. When the letter of marque is in force, the players of both clans cannot attack eachothers. They can mutually see their names and clan names in Open World. When the letter of marque is in force, the players of both clans can be added in friendly clan list and participate to eachother's PB's. Problem to be solved Avoid creation of super-mega groups again, players all willing to be added to the dominant nation of that moment. Probably to be set-up at the same moment as a nation alliance system.

Is the Leopard escaped from the zoo? It was announced weeks ago, but nobody can see him... @admin, some breaking news there?

Maybe, with less Dutch gankers around KPR, there will be less counter offensives around Tiburon, and it will be less difficult to group British players for providing mutual screening helps in some coordinated offensive(s) against the <Not to be disclosed> nation. Targets to be set by diplomatic channels. I know that RVR and PVP are not the same thing, I know that a RVR agreement is not deemed to cover PVP, even against traders, etc., we all know that. I know that a new player who is daily attacked by some nation in his capital will never go screening for this nation the same day or the day after. I know that a veteran who is daily defending his nation player base around his capital will never go screening for this attacking nation the same day or the day after. Which side would he chose: the plague or the cholera?

The most important thing is to fulfill your objectives in game. The one who wants to join a clan just for having RVR capacity have the choice among a dozen of big enough clans in GB. The one who wants to make sure of having PVP in a strong and serious organization just have to read above, the most serious, competitive, constructive and challenging ones. There are several, among which BASTD. Players who whish to have PVP in a fun, seriousless and anyway competitive band can join BASTARDS. After an evaluation period during which we will check if the candidate is serious or not (mandatory rejection of too serious ones), players can enlist the most fun clan in GB.

We just need the same rules for the loot than for the ship: available for the one who got the "kill", unless this one makes it "available for all". Present non-rules are just promoting bad behaviours, hate in the same faction, division between players who should work together, all that being at the opposite of the behavior of most players. And also contributing to erase the player base numbers, because these outlaw rules are really the contrary of attractive.

May be, port battle limits (BR), should be daily adjusted during server maintenance, taking into account the max/average game populations during the last 7 days. A new routine to write for developpers, but this could be an exit way from this RVR max BR concern. Self adapting to the future population. We could reach again 25v25 when the population will rise-up again (saying optimistic).

Another way would be to remove the priorities between county capitals and related ports. But this means that all crafting developed ports will become vulnerable. And none of them are fortified (at the contrary than real life). So OK, but this is a complete redo of port development rules and of RVR. With such a system, each nation should be allowed to attack a limited quantity of ports, in the same list whatever the port in which you are taking hostility missions. Otherwise, it would be too easy to attack one port, jump 4 and attack another one, jump 4 again for the next atttack, etc. This should raise again the question of setting hostility from a free port. And with such rules, the answer should clearly be NO, unless a nation has not a single port.

Is there a next update? I was told about a future update.

Some PvP in a Traders Cutter?

Is this one small enough (I've smaller! )

N'insiste pas, c'est incurable. En pratique: Moi y en a dire à la bank de Kingston Port Royal: ji veux des g'os billets. Eux donné moi un bassin...

There might be a form of reaction when some"big" nation will take a really important port to another one, leaving the smaller nation without practical solution. Santiago, George Town are not really important. Losing them hurts, but this will not wipe a nation out of the game. But the loss of some particular port in game could do it. Are we ready to see several dozens of players going out in a day? Are developers ready to take this risk without anticipation and without mitigating the risk? Mode SURVIVAL ON, or OFF? Why is this game based on this risky RVR only? Why is the possession of one of this ridiculous handful of port necessary to play Naval Action with some chance of success? Why are these rules of the game, which proved to be toxic, still in force? Why is all other content than RVR so reduced to almost nothing? Where are crafting, trading, training PVP features?

This"gank" is far from being the worst one in this game (BR 250/270). But that's true that BR values should be reviewed totally. For instance, how to explain the BR 180 of the pirate frigate, vs 215 for the Hermione (which allows a quasi permanent reinforcement of the pirate frigate side in case of 1v1, denying 1v1)

Euh, vous croyez? "F" rayant!

Et beh!

Agree for that, if really developers want to keep on port bonus. In addition, a completely developed port should be defended by fortresses. Having fortress is not limited by the deep of the port or by the local crafmanship / industries. When you develop a port IRL, you defend it by fortifications, like Brest in France, Plymouth in GB, Scapa Flow or Pearl Arbor. Please give freedom to players! This will give players to game!