[AWG Recruitment PvE]

16 hours ago, SFCGunny said:

ACTUALIZAR:  

Debido a la toxicidad en el juego, incluso en PvE, ya no estamos jugando Acción Naval.

Varios miembros de otros clanes de Gran Bretaña (mirándote ISOIT) así como el PvE Discord (mirándote Friedrich) crearon una atmósfera y una comunidad de jugadores quejumbrosos, pretenciosos, hambrientos de poder y de hambre de control. Como resultado, la mayoría de nosotros desinstaló el juego y ya no estamos jugando.  

I think just "they" want the comfort of having safe ports

 

[otro nuevo Boicot en el intento de capturar George Town 2 pve]

2 hours ago, admin said:

Reported player has participated in 2 missions

For taking a slot: Warning. 

• Player have violated "interference in RVR" rule.
• For taking a slot, he will be warned and his steam ID recorded for future violations (that will count to his steam ID even if he changes nation).

For hostility interference. No action due to no interference.
Port will not be set neutral or transferred. 

• Despite acceptance of interference he could not change hostility itself. Hostility points are awarded individually and on exit the battle. Spanish players exiting were creating hostility points (even if other players are still in battle)
• Player could not affect interference as it is awarded to those who sink ship in a mission and exit the mission. Staying in the mission or keeping it open does not affect or delay hostility points. 
• British clans were faster gaining hostility and would have got the battle for themselves because they accumulated 11152 points and Spanish only were able to accumulate 5229 points

 

There is another similar case on Truxillo where action will be taken soon. Because of such cases happening the entry to hostility missions will be only limited to clan alliance and group members (who are already invited to a group)

 

post unlocked for discussions.

Thank you for your quick performance, I feel happy with your statement. We knew that we did not reach the percentage of PB to obtain the port, but we found it unfair and dishonest, the entry of said player in our warming
 

[otro nuevo Boicot en el intento de capturar George Town 2 pve]

• Miembros
•  6 6
• 6 publicaciones

• Informar publicacion
•  
•  

Publicado hace 2 minutos  (editado) 

I want to report that yesterday at 11:30 until 12:10 a player from the British nation named Frank Ramsey decided to enter the warming of George town with Pandora to burst our warming towards George Town

Within this battle, the player repeated several times that he did not know the English language and that we spoke to him in German.

 

That was passed by a player who identified with our problem by making us know how dishonorable the British player is. I guess the comments of my warming battle are recorded in some document within the game and I hope that the @ administration will look for these documents to confirm my actions. I understand that this is not allowed to be that way. I hope that the administration takes action in the face of such an act of dishonor. Question: I thought this game is a struggle of nations to control the ports, because players from other nations are allowed to enter the warming of the port of another nation. We show our great concern about these acts. I wish that measures be taken to avoid it in the future.

 

[La navasse]

Hace 17 horas, Goal dijo:

No me he perdido la palabra "si", y eso fue antes de la hostilidad, ¡así que no fue una mentira! y luchar contra esta hostilidad es su derecho, pero su propio riesgo en ese estado incierto ... y las compensaciones ..... ¿no es suficiente atwoods?

nop,

The

official statement was communicated after the warming of the port, therefore any accusations you make to those who captured the navasse during the incident are without foundation, they have always taught me to distrust strangers and to rely on facts and not on the word of others. . we went to the navasse, we captured it and we lost it because it was said that it was a mistake and it was over, the only thing we ask for is an apology for what happened to the administrators who have not deigned to say sorry and put an official statement in game that the events of the navasse will be investigated, I assume that for that is the important announcements within the game login, right?

[port battle vs IA?]

Hace 5 horas, Hy. St.Beau de Toilette dijo:

Me imagino que es muy frustrante perder el puerto.

Pero es fácil recuperarlo, y después de eso la única diferencia será fallar una etapa de inversión, si entendí bien.

Los jugadores buscan conceptos probados sobre cómo defender un puerto, una receta preparada. ¿Pero es realmente bueno si encontramos una receta que siempre funciona?

Déjame dudarlo. Entonces ya no será un desafío. Necesitamos sorpresas y tener que adaptarnos a la situación, hacer improvisación. De lo contrario, solo está repitiendo un concepto conocido y todos finalmente se aburrirán, también los comentaristas frustrados aquí. Necesitamos un sistema que tengamos opciones para sorrendernos, incluso si es una desventaja nuestra. Cuando lleguemos al punto en que las batallas en el puerto son solo una formalidad y los jugadores siempre las ganarán si solo vienen en grandes cantidades, podríamos dejar de tener esa característica 'portbattle' en absoluto.

¿Es justa la guerra? Probablemente nunca lo fue.

 

 

 

In my opinion you are absolutely right, the war is not fair, but that means that if you put a CB limitation, your opponent has the right to overcome said CB, while you are obliged to comply with it at a low table. Is virtual warfare fair? It should be in a game ...

[pve zones of privateers]

Seeing the implementation that they have put in, we enter the game to try to help the attacked to recover the ship, once the battle was over, unfortunately we could not recover the ship. OUR INTENTION WAS NOT ATTACKING THE PLAYER, BUT RETURNING THE BOAT