Sid the Infected

You got to be kidding me. What a great laugh I had. 90% of the activity on the server. HA!!! What arrogance to think such a thing. What I really see in this post is that BLACK got camped by every major nation at mortimer and they quit. Even Koltes disappeared. (all respect to ya Koltes, no offense meant) Funny thing is that you all suggested we do just that. Anyway. Your disappearance wont matter because most people have beat you to that punch. Nobody want a 3 hour grind, a 2 plus hour build up to a PB to only watch 15 or 20 show to loose their 1 dura ship that they grinded for weeks to get. Again, thanks for the jolly laugh. Goodness... what will be next?

I think this is a new thing to be tested and maybe should be tested but I have grave concerns about some consequences of the idea.... 1. It discriminates against small clans - Not all clans want to be large. Some are made of close friends that still want to participate in all aspects of the game. Solution: War companies should be an alliance of clans. So a new structure must be used. Example: For instance Tattered Flags is a clan created by Thomas Pain and VCO is a clan ran by Christendom. Their clans exist as is. After the patch T. Pain and Chris get together and choose to start a war corporation called Brits Unite. They then enroll their respective clans in "Brits Unite" Their clans exist as separate yet equal parts of the the War corporation. Now smaller clans have the ability to take part in PBs as well as part of the greater clan alliance called a War Corporation. Solution 2: Smaller port battles. No more 25 v 25 fights 2. A negative side effect of this may be that more wars take place within a nation then against other nations. If this is what players really want than they should play your other game, Ultimate General. Solution: This is more appropriate to the pirates than the nationals. Make it so. Solution 2: Design a penalty to a war company that challenges another war company but fails. Think of it this way..... The nation is at peace, both inside and out. War company A gets greedy and thinks it can take a lucrative port off of War company B. So they go rogue and attack A's region. This angers the population of the nation which makes them essentially kill on sight to every other clan or war company that is out there. This last for 24 hours until the PB. War company fails and the nation remains angered at them for say a week and they can be killed on sight. If they win the PB then the nation realizes they are a powerful clan and it is better to stay at peace with them then to view them as hostile. B keeps the port and they are no longer considered rogue and are protected by green on green. This would require that nationals cannot attack each other unless hostilities are declared between one War company and another.

You could sail a quarter of the way around instead and hit pirates instead. France seems to always be "between the Devil and the deep blue sea" (look that one up. It comes from the age of sail). They have very "hard borders" and can only effectively expand in two directions and in both of those cases, with different nations. Contrast that with Britain which has at least 6 easy directions to pursue at the start of a map and most of those ports will be undefended. (gulf of course) A small France therefore is nearly required to make arrangements with others. At least on one of their borders. Working towards an agreement with France is premature although their is never anything wrong with talks. You would probably be surprised with some of the info I could divulge about western Haiti if I was so disposed to do so. A trust must be built first before any kind of gulf presence could be fathomed.

I for one have no pre-wipe preconceptions. I never played on pvp2. I was a Pvp1 guy and other than knowing that at least two of the largest factions and maybe even three were allied, I know very little about pre-wipe politics and history. That being said, not all of my concerns were developed through personal experience. Some of my "understandings" came from the talk of others that play longer hours than me so their preconceptions may have contributed to my current ones. Still, seeing the French go after the pirates would open my heart to them quicker than promises to do so.

France has sided with the pirates for so long and it is believed that many Pirate alts are in fact France so I think you can understand why Brits and even the US would not be quick to allow you New Orleans. Alliances are not necessary but no nation can handle being attacked by all others. BLACK would be hard pressed to defend if, simply, the Brits and the US attacked two ports at the same time.

Not a bad plan for any of the smaller nations but impractical without more people or some very dedicated ship builders. In this needs to be time to collect resources and to grind the money to buy the ships if you don't have a benefactor or clan providing them. I definitely like the idea of sending out squadrons into pirate waters as well as the training Portbattles. What would be nicer of course is for the devs to return unlimited skirms with no loss so we can train more easily in small and large battles, demasting, raking, etc. This would be more beneficial to the game but of course your suggestion is considering current game mechanics. I am so tired of rvr time sink. I would love to turn the clan into a privateering bunch.

The problem with Britain and any other naval game with Britain is that it attracts the role players who are there simply to feel like Admiral Nelson. The nation gets inundated with them and so it has a large number of carebears compared to other nations. The US nation seemed to have this problem to. You can take the charted numbers and cut them in half and maybe you get close to the number of players that will consider pvp or rvr.

Look, I don't mind all the roll playing and that you think you have beat a nation after a couple of wins. That is your own delusion. At the moment you are winning the war and I understand why you believe that nothing would change if you continued but winning a war is not a won war. Now if we capitulate to an offer then by all means claim victory or if you beat us back so that you control more than us then fine. Make your declarations. Withdrawal from conflict. If we don't strike back then you can run around claiming victory. But this is a side point. I am not gonna participate in your delusion that what you put on the table was not an offer. Come on. It required action on our part. That is not a statement of intention, its a statement of demand. Backing off of that could be considered negotiation. And you know what... that is fine. Everything in life is negotiation. You shot for the moon in hopes that the Brits felt as defeated as you believed we were and found out that they have no interest in giving everything away to save their precious ships. What all this really has highlighted is the broken shipbuilding mechanic imho. If we are only able to muster 20 guys against 25 and our PB caller is on vacation we risk the loss of a dozen ships or more. To loose those ships to a fight that is sketchy for us at best means that we may be out of a PB fleet for a week or more while those ships get replaced. In the meantime we get rolled because we have a PB fleet of 12 instead of even 20 if we choose to fight undermanned. It means that the loosing side at the beginning of a war is at such a huge disadvantage unless they have multiple fleets of PB ships and can win the second round, because they no longer have the ships to fight back and a bad loss in one PB can mean the end of a war because the replacement time for those ships can take weeks.

To BLACK players: Your concern about our response has minuscule interest to us as well. If you demand terms and another nation responds with a counter offer and you reject it, so be it. By making a counter offer the nation you approached has given you their answer to your demands which in this case are ridiculous and their response is a resounding NO. If they offer something in return they are allowing you to stay in the discussion or not. Either way, we don't care and that is your choice. Nobody in this game matters enough to worry about demands such as yours. If you approach others with less arrogance maybe you would be taken more seriously. GB from what I can see has been beaten back a bit but is in no way defeated. All discussions like these are negotiations. If you are not interested in that then you can shove your troll post up your ass. Even if there was a threat of being one ported, I would never agree to a surrender that allows you to have a pvp ganking port deep in our trading territory, the removal of control over ports that we either captured in legitimate war with another nation or negotiated the transfer with another nation. That is none of your business. Nor would I ever accept an agreement that allows you to place your friends in our back door so that when you decide to push your weight around again, you can attack us from both sides. You are the one that says you don't want to ruin the game for anyone. Prove it. Note: this is my opinion and not an official statement from my clan or my nation.

I think the offer is unreasonable and needs to be toned down. We will see what Brits decide. I've been victim to to many "one ports" to care. Ill still play the game. It will drive the population down drastically so lets see if Duncan really means he cares about the server population.

1. Get rid of "Victory Marks" for ships and convert to "Victory Marks" for mods. To much advantage to the large nations that win often. 2. Ships need to be cheaper to build if they are only one dura. No one wants to risk their ships anymore. Another option would be to have the multi-dura ships again but with a 24 hour cooldown after being sunk. Ship lasts longer making players more comfortable with risk, yet gives real consequences for a loss on a day to day cycle. 3. Need to tweak some ships and mods. Bellonas shouldn't be able to hit cap as I have heard they can.

Boring response. First, Ballz of Steel, the player you were speaking to, was screening in an aggie. Everyone, I'd say is working hours ahead of time. I imagine next time we start a PB with you, your team won't have any screeners present or will you?

I don't think this is a bannable offense as it stands but I do think that devs need to create a rule that makes it so and I do think that it smacks of cheating. Before this split the Danes on the other server would log out at sea so that they couldn't be screened out (so its not surprising that Anolytic is supporting the rats here). This "cheat" or whatever you want to call it was fixed by adding the 30 minute clock when logging at sea. If this change doesn't highlight the devs will that these types of techniques should not be used then I don't know what would. Taking the devs attitude toward that change I think its very reasonable for players to call shenanigans on what the pirates do now which is essentially the same thing.

Im neither lieing nor mistaken. You may of not been there but your clan was. Koiz, your arguments fall short for lack of detail. I've never claimed we have done everything right but I'm not sure what we did so wrong. You claim to have warned us and said how stuff wouldn't work but it worked much better than anything you put together, committed to, or tried your best at. The same exact set up is working just fine in the Brit nation and it worked just fine on pvp1 so maybe there is a different reason for the struggles the USA had. I'd submit that it had to do with clan leadership overall. From leaders who felt their power was being threatened with the pvp1 newcomers or from clans that say hello kitty to anyone who even thinks of organization to clans like yours that simply didn't try. We can piddle with details like what ships you brought or what ports you participated in but the overall question is still unanswered by you and that is, what did your clan do to try and make things better. You have already admitted to your beef with Lionshaft. Is that why your clan sat on the sidelines instead of working closely with, while trying to be a positive influence on the system? From what I can tell, your departure to the rats hasn't effected the USA one bit. It doesn't appear that they have felt your departure in the least. That says more about your group than it does about them.

Whats funny is that the two groups going back and forth right now are not in the USA anymore. The USA seems kinda quiet right now. Its the rest of us using this thread the most.

Your guys helped flip La Bahia so I did not lie with WTF and DD. At least that is what was said on the day of the PB. Calling for help in Discord is not akin to being a team player nor is making it to "meetings". That stuff helps but it goes much further than that and maybe its that you don't understand that which makes it a problem. I don't believe I ever accused you of bringing cheap ships. Maybe Christendom did. I see in his post that I was mistaken about IGG entering PBs that they didn't help flip. I must have confused you with DD. That was not malicious I assure you and I'm not ashamed of being corrected. There was no intent to mislead and therefore no lie. It was a mistake. Either way, it is minor to the topic at hand and that is how much effort you put into the nation's organization and you havn't even begun to answer for that yet. I don't know what my clan leadership has to do with anything at all and since you don't really know me I don't know what you would really know about my leadership anyway to make a non-"personal" comment. I can say one thing for sure. My clan through me or through others leaders within my clan have been involved with every step of USA progression and organization of the US nation on both pvp1 and pvp2 until we chose to leave it. You cannot make the same claim with a straight face.

Look, I really don't have a personal issue with you or your clan in that you never acted like tards in any kind of personal way to me or my clan or the nation in general. And you are right. I don't know much about what was going on in IGG at the time but I would argue that part of playing a team game is communication with the team. That, you never cared to do, nor any of your members. You can not say that you weren't reached out to numerous times so you have to ask yourself, what did you do with that opportunity. There are plenty of clans that were not approached or at least not often but they were clans that weren't into RVR. When you guys did participate, you either showed up to take others positions even though you did nothing to help the flip or you participated in flips with DD or WTF without ever approaching the organizing body. How do you argue that that is attempting at all to play as part of the team? Now as to the rest of your response which should have just been left out. Your right about DD being an actual problem. I understand those with the mentality that says, we just do what we want, when we want and against who we want. That we don't care about agreements, treaties, councils, etc. We fight to have fun and not to win so bringing cheap ships to a fight is not big deal.... I truly understand how they feel but in the end this mentality in most case just means they are bad and that describes DD better than anything else... Bad. I guess you could add the word selfish as well oh yeah and short sighted but of course those descriptions are just a further defining of "bad". I love when people appeal to my leadership failures when I haven't actually been the leading national leader in this game since April 2016. I have no time to do it right. I'd actually like to take a more leadership role. I'd say I still have some influence as a leader of one of the core RvR clans but you should look elsewhere in the future if you want to try and pin council failures on me. It just makes me chuckle. Lastly, you will be hard pressed to see lies come from me. You may see perspective that you think is in error or I may repeat something I was told in error from time to time but this is not one of those cases and you cannot point out any lie that I have said about you. I just questioned your statements and said you didn't participate in national strategy. I've been around long enough to know that is true enough.

Has this thread really devolved to arguments about what "slander" means? Koiz. I wasn't around a year ago when you claim to have tried to organize. I am curious what that looked like. This iteration of the map found the pvp1 guys doing the organization yet your clan couldn't be bothered. On top of that, your clan seemed to simply not care and went off doing stupid things. If you claim to be for, both in the past and in the present, organized nations or groups, why couldn't you be bothered to contribute to that organization. I think what you say is all fluff. If you wanted to be in an organized group you would have done so. You would have at least given it a good college try this time around. My clan left because of the difficulties of getting the nation organized. We were hoping for a team that gelled well together and we tried hard to make that happen. The US did not, so we left in order to play the game with our pvp1 friends and there is where we found the team we were seeking. It was not easy for me to leave the US. I had played US from day one. When I had to make the decision to leave, the top clans on my list of frustrations were DD and IGG. You were aware of the organization. You even agreed to it and joined the channel yet you wouldn't participate. I consider IGG one of the main causes of dysfunction in the US nation. Maybe I'm being to hard on you here but one thing is certain. You were a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. Even though NPG was not perfect, they at least tried. Your clan didn't try for poo, and so was one of the leading causes of dysfunction in the US.

I just realized we may need another banner. Drat.

lol. we didnt want to set up in the gulf. Thats where clans go to die. We just wanted the marks.

You got it all wrong. I wasn't at any meeting to declare WAR but I imagine it was declared to maintain honor of some sort. By declaring war publicly it clearly ends the floundering agreement that was made and does so before any shots are fired. I did push for that yesterday as did others. I'm sure there are some that would like to tangle with their old friends but there is greater purpose to this War than revenge or dislike.

i wonder if any of that has to do with sailing a long straight coast which lulls people into afk sailing whereas the pirates have relatively short sails with many course changes and so our more awake

Tattered Flags will speak for Tattered Flags, We have nothing against the US but when we left we made it clear that our intention would be to retake the gulf. With or without an agreement. Our clan holds no animosity toward that nation or its current leaders but we want a more cohesive team which we could find by joining up with our other pvp1 friends. Trying to make a team out of a nation that acts like the US (see Christendom's list) was draining and untenable. If you get hung up on the word WAR then recognize that, for now, it is a limited war for the gulf. No one will be one porting anybody from our clan. And rats... LOL... you guys have yet to see what a good team can accomplish. You have had it to easy and it has made you quite arrogant. Fitting for pirates, as that may be.

My situation is simple. I played this toon (same name in game) on both the pvp1 and pvp2. I may not have got around to the pve server. I don't remember but I have a feeling I forgot to. It doesn't sound like this makes a difference for the global server. My toon is absent on the global server in spite of my actions. This is not the end of the world for me but its disappointing. It is a second toon of mine. I don't believe that you can't do anything about it and I'm quite surprised that you claim that is the case. All that is needed is for a player to submit a screen shot of their redeemables or xp level or whatever proof is necessary and you send them some redeemables to compensate after they create their character. I've seen you do things like that before for people that lost stuff because of a bug. Could you explain how this is any different? You guys did a great job getting the word out but you can't seriously think that the 7000+ people that bought your game got the word. I know many fellas that left the game after the first 6 months or so, waiting for it to develop a little more content. Now, they have no excuse because I told them what you all were asking them to do, but how many players never got that message. What we know for sure is that everyone was told that they would never loose their xp but now some have. You must have known that players would come back over time and be like, "wtf." From the beginning, I took the instruction to play on all servers, as a way to reduce the number that came for account recovery as much as possible. If you really thought some players wouldn't come knocking on your door for their xp back then you were being unrealistic. You have made the argument that a persons xp is still there and you haven't violated your original promise. Irrelevant of that logic the players coming back will not see it the same way. They will see it like this: Pvp1 WAS the global server. It was called a global server at one time. When the Euros wanted their own server, you didn't give them their own. Instead you turned the pvp1 global server into a Euro server. The players that return in the future and who joined that server for its global community will find that the global server they enjoyed so much was moved without them. They don't want to be on a Euro server. They want to be on a global one and their character is stuck on a server with narrow hours of play. I think you are honest enough to admit that they have a point. If you really meant or mean that we "are all valuable members of the community" then I think you will find a way to accommodate those you claim to value or you risk more negative reviews and players that may never come back. Even Portalus at PotBS spent energy on recovering accounts after the migration which was nearly a mirror image of whats going on here and with the same size development team. I could see myself writing a really positive review if I was one that came back and found my account missing on the global server because the global server moved from pvp1 to pvp2, and after putting in a ticket, found my account recovered within 24 hours. I would think of how great the management of the game was and would want to honor their integrity. Don't squander another opportunity to gain support from the community. You need as much as you can get.

I only respond to this so that in the spirit of the thread we can move on from this misunderstanding and not be so confused by it. I hope we can put critiques adequately explained aside in order to move forward as is Pierre's wish for this thread. The US DID consider joining the eastern alliance for the sake of balance but not for long. In simple terms and with menace to none, playing alongside the Danes was not a viable option for the US. Ultimately a player base wants to enjoy playing alongside their partners. In the game many have been accused of being under the thumb of a stronger nation. We have heard constant talks about the overlords and masters of other countries have we not? The Danes came to us twice with a proposal of peace but with each proposal came a threat. If we were to have accepted the proposal then we would have literally been putting ourselves under the Danes and making them our "overlords" because those threats would have always hung over our heads. These threats do not make the Danish players bad people, it just made them bad diplomats. It literally made it impossible for the US faction, in good conscience, to side with them. Now that the Euros are leaving to another server the US is able to revisit the idea of rebalancing this one. The US player base on pvp1 does not want to be a part of a bully alliance and by switching nations after the split we will be provided unlimited pvp opportunities which is something that is lacking for us during our "playzone". It looks to be a very fun server to me. Again, with malice to none.