Capitalism

Nope. Game mechanics should be in place to discourage domination, but persistence is important.

That's still a loss you numpty.

Re-enable Small/Large/Duel/Tournament Rooms DLC

Why limit it to only the #1 on the conquest board? Just make everything clan-based instead of nation-based, problem solved.

I think you misunderstood my comment... if the rationale is only down to different buying power between currencies, and developers had no choice in the matter, then the relative price between games and DLC between countries would be consistent across games and developers. As we can see, that's not the case... U.S. dollar and Euro payers are paying 75% more for Redoutable, and only 44% more for a AAA game relative to ruble payers. That's a hefty penalty...

If that were completely true, then the percentage difference between prices in different regions/countries would be consistent across all games/apps on the Steam store wouldn't it?

Removing screening because a few whinging port battle commanders didn't arrange for proper screening or counter screening is silly. Screening is an important aspect of RvR that often serves to integrate new and more casual players into the more nation-focused and broader community. It's often a great way to blood those newer players, get them used to comms, integrate them into fleets and get them to follow orders. Magically teleporting fleets from across the map to ports is just silly business that belongs in a lobby-based game. Further fragmenting the game into elite lobby content and removing players from the OW is just a poor game design decision. And until we actually see solid information on new hostility mechanics, I fail to see how this will result in more PvP than less, especially for new and less hardcore players.

NOPE.

Fighting NPCs to set a port battle. Forts and the lack of utility of mortar brigs. The entire seasoned woods concept, especially as its tied into the ridiculous privateer fleet implementation.

Can we expect DLC?

A nation with two edge-case borders and a free town in the middle would have to maintain timers at the boundaries of three locations instead of two. That's not "anywhere" so stop being obtuse. All it allows is that nations would have an inroad for any location on the map, and more RvR is good, no? Especially now that BR limits have been reduced and smaller clans can potentially hold the low BR ports. I really fail to see where all the whinging and moaning is coming from? Why should a nation like Poland have to take every port from Puerto de Espana to Santa Marta before they can attack Russia?

Huh? If a nation is large enough then it can sustain fighting on more than two fronts. Free towns are checks on that ability to expand beyond the borders imposed on them by hostile nations *and* attacks at any time out of free towns. Seriously, what are you really arguing for? Nations that can essentially maintain complete invulnerability once they take places like the Gulf?

Free towns are simply a check on a nation's size... what's wrong with that?

And if they're eliminated? I guess I don't see a problem with people being able to pull hostility from free ports.. these should be hotbeds of PvP and RvR action... if you want safe, then you need to insulate yourself by taking ports in safe parts of the map.

If you can't pull hostility from a free port how do impossible nations establish a foothold?