Greysteak

Please consider mortar brigs where the BR limit will be exceeded. Mortar brigs are the worst 6th rate, in my opinion. It might also make the ai pb more interesting if ai mortar brigs would stop and target forts with their mortars.

I don't know about king of the shallows but I've done a little pvp in one a while ago and remember it as ranking on the more fun side of the scale.

sorry, that was wrong. move your assets to any freetown where you have an outpost.

yes

@adminI understand that they need to be viable. But rather than just making them OP again, how about a compromise? Make their framing and planking types random like the elite notes.

Yes, my mistake. The post was about San Mateo, not Augustin. So.... A personal attack. Not surprising. Should I start another tribunal post? Perhaps you were not paying attention. First, the fact that you understand the obvious and plain evidence against you is apparent in your own reply. And, secondly, this is not outside the tribunal. I've done nothing to ruin the reputation of any "good" captain. Telling me to get over it doesn't really help much at all. I still don't like it. ☹️

You are in the tribunal. And you are a cheater. You are without honor and I will not apologize.

All members of WO and VCO should be banned for cheating! Continuing to use the ports of Saint Marys and San Augustin Mateo is cheating. That is self-evident. Admin's attempt to change the definition of cheating is lame and completely inappropriate. I would ask if he wants his game to be the poster-child of the coming regulation attempts on the game industry. Pay to win is bad but condoning cheating and favoring cheaters is a whole order of magnitude worse.

As the title of the post says, "the evidence of cheating can't possibly be more obvious".

The cheating continues, so should this post.

It is cheating, pure and simple. Not just because I don't like it. It is also dishonorable act for those clans and the players in them who continue using this CHEAT. What you, @admin, are displaying is a total disregard for fair play.

I mostly agree, Vernon. Except that anytime you are not playing a game to win, you are doing it wrong.

They are obviously exploits, doesn't matter what they've been labeled. How obtuse can you be? The reputation of this game suffers because of this, not to mention your own.

But do you really believe new players are going to think being victims of these exploits is fun?

We all know boiling with emotions doesn't help. But please be aware that it's not so easy to control. Consider, if you would, that the US has largely less experienced players than the two rival and allied Pirate/French clans that made these incursions. And consider that the incursions occurred as exploits against the stated goals of the frontlines patch. There is a general feeling among the US players that I've listened too that your decision not to restore the "frontlines balance" through the use of the game rules was because you favor these clans. I'm not sure I agree but it certainly doesn't have a good look to it. I don't see how it can be expected for players who feel this way, and love to play your game, not to be boiling with emotions.

nevermind, i'm in now

same here

With the new hostility system and since the ability to raise hostility in the OW was scrapped, the fortunes of the nations on the edge of the map have declined. I think there needs to be some substitute to replace the OW hostility. I understand it was scrapped due to the possibility of abuse. How about this? Add a couple of items to the loot tables. Make them rare and ultra rare respectively but maybe with a bonus for the nations on the edge. The rare one is a "letter of hostility for <random port>". The ultra rare item is a "authorization for war" and the user may select a port. Upon use, and on the day after next server reset, the clerk will spam a warning in global about the endangered port. Then the following day (in 2 days) the user's clan may take hostility missions there.

I don't understand. It seems the "current limit" is already being exceeded today. I generally agree that 3pb per day should be increased but, against neutral ports, it should be more limited. This is because it only takes a couple of players to defeat the neutral port battle fleet.

It's just a bit off topic but this is important. Yes, this kind of thing will increase the perceived value of the missions. And the same could be said for the ship insurance, making us pay a little for it would increase it's perceived value.

I like the limits on the hostility but I think some free ports could use an extra hostility option. How about a hostility link from Tombado to Salamanca? And maybe another from Great Corn to Mantina or Old Providence? Also, I remember an idea from someone, @admin perhaps, something about having a special global mission for the whole server to raise hostility at a certain (random?) port. I think that would be a great way to add some variability to this hostility system.

I'm also wondering about this and I'd like to suggest that the Diana replace the Hercules as the reward for the final exam. I believe the intent was for the reward to be a rare ship, but being both a DLC and a meta ship, the herc is not rare. The Diana would be a perfect fit as long as there will be no other way to get it.

This ship is too good to be dlc. I would buy it if it weren't ruining the game.

Or restrict them to 2 or 3 knowledge slots.

Or remove the ability to redeem them in anything except oak or fir and crew space.