Teutonic

I happily await the news! It's time to break the shackles that bind you.

Scoose is here fighting Russians. he's not a russian alt:

Playing a nation that was reduced to it's capital port as the only capital was pretty bad. I don't wish to go back to that at all. We already have issues with certain groups never surrendering, and other groups never creating treaties after a war when it should probably be in the interest of both to relax. hatred and salt just keep rising when more level heads could easily solve problems.

Congrats! We all look forward to the release and hopeful future patches to continue to improve!

Nassau Patrol: The Second Fight was a fireship exploding party

A fun evening in the shallows:

Did 1st rates shoot at the forts? Or was that seen as not a good idea? Is fort damage oppressive? The fort hp buff and mortar brig nerfs may have something to say about it. I wonder if the price we pay to create the fort investment is the reasoning for making them even more powerful.

I'd rather some alliance system be created then. There was a poll about this and honestly it seems like enough people don't want an alliance system.

I personally like the player count. I can guage where to expect players based on player count. Usually is successful. Now I would love player count by nation - would be nice to know actual numbers.

i can't confirm - but I believe the Peace server may be safe from the wipe.

If you like the Swedish flag, BORK and THOR are good US Timezone based clans to join. Otherwise, HRE (HREKK too), CABAL, and PURG3 are solid EU clans to mingle with.

The issue with that is there would literally be no Money sinks in the game and it would straight up lead to inflation. You need Money sinks in an MMO to level the economy (or at least try to).

I agree. but it shouldn't be taxed in addition to the cost to get resources out of my building - Rather, the Port Owner should get a portion of the cost that normally is consumed as a money sink. To be more clear with an example. I extract 1,000 oak logs from my building - it costs 10,000 Reals. The Port Owner should get 10% of these reals. So 9,000 Reals would be the "money sink" (consumed) and 1,000 Reals would go to the Clan bank of the port owner. --------------------------------------------------- What we don't want is to have players taxed on top of the cost to take resources out. We don't want the player to have 1,000 oak logs cost 10,000 reals and then an additional 1,000 for tax cost (for 11,000 total)

I'd love to go back to 2016 NA and have free timers and free ports with no taxes. We aren't though as per Developers direction. So I'd rather find ways to solve the economic deficit - and the main contributor to the tax issue are cargo missions, They directly ignore the economic system put in place and you can make a crap ton of Reals without ever giving a cent to the owner of the port you got the mission from. I'm 100% not advocating for tax on missions, I'm suggesting that the rewards should be adjusted. A port with a timer should not be such a tremendous burden on the owner - unless they limit access to everyone in their nation.

less of a gank, more of pirates abusing the fact that they can enter both sides. more reason to just kill pirates?

I vote this entire page gets deleted. as a side note, I've seen more GB battles with less and less HAVOC players and they still win. Not sure what the big question is supposed to mean as it seems GB is doing just fine with less HAVOC influence. Now back to more Screenshots please.

If a whole clan has to spend time PvEing in order to maintain ports - they will not want to maintain it because it would take away from PvP activities. Personally I think the port maintenance fee cost of 250k we have now ONLY works in putting a timer on the county capital. You're essentially paying maintenance fees for the entire county. Previously we would put timers on ports that were important for 50k a day - in some cases county wide, we ended up paying less or more depending on the county's importance - but because of the lower cost, a clan could split the costs up to what they could afford. My clan could pay for 1 or 2 50k Maintenance fees, but we cannot pay for a 250k timer unless we spent all day Econ grinding... The current timer cost also only works if you have the Tax income to withhold losses - Because cargo delivery missions essentially make more money than trade goods, and you can do them in a shorter time-frame than other trade routes - most ports are losing out on tax income. That's why I suggest that Trade goods become more profitable and Cargo missions have their Real reward lowered and Doublon reward increase. People can still use those missions for quick Real making to replenish big losses - but if you want to make the "big bucks" you do trading with trade goods. After all, you have a higher risk as trade goods because you MUST buy them first before selling them. With cargo missions - you lose them? oh well, just delete the mission and get a new one.

No. and here's why. Anything that benefits a small group will benefit a larger group more. Anything that doesn't benefit a large group will hurt a smaller group more. Taking Tows away won't make large groups have to think more, it will just make small groups lose more.

cannot confirm but folks have said you could only "actually" destroy them in port battles.

I've said it before and I'll say it again 2 Things should happen. 1. Trade Goods should sell for a higher price by 30-50% (used to say 20-40%, but that wouldn't be enough at the moment) in consumption ports. I'd say 40% would probably would help match cargo missions AND make trading goods actually better. 2. Cargo delivery Missions need their Real reward reduced and Doubloon rewards increased. Reduce the Reals reward on cargo delivery missions by roughly 20-25%. Supplement this reduction in the form of Doubloons, so that instead of Cargo missions being the main form of Real income, make it the main form of Doubloon income. I never understood why it changed from only doubloon reward... Short -- 1,200 - 1,500 Doubloons Medium -- 1,750 - 2,000 Doubloons Long -- 2,500 - 3,000 Doubloons seems better? The problem is Cargo missions have no risk when you lose them. That's absolutely not saying they should have all the risk - but an argument that trade goods should be vastly more profitable for the risk associated with them.

The actual discussion here is "Adapt."

don't sail near enemy forts/towers.

you could always hire an enemy group from one nation to target them? OR you could join another group of clans in the same nation and get one their friends list and help them while ignoring the other group. Honestly 2 things would make the current port investments fine for the game. lower all max points in port by 50% - make a 55 point port a 30 point port as an example. Double the cost of points for all Ship building investments. so to get level 4 bonus it would require a total of 20 points instead of 10.

I'd like to make a list of ports that people believe have Odd, or terrible Fort/Tower positions. For those positions where you go "why the hell is it in that useless placement." Example: Belize - One of their Forts is North of the port and defends no circles and is placed in a way that would never affect the port battle. Must be irritating. Samana - The fort placement seems out of place - and if anything, seems to defend nothing substantial.

There should be an option. There should also be a limit so that you can't just delete investments right before the port is taken. I'd be ok with allowing people to dismantle 1 investment per week.