Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

RNoN, accused of high treason.


Herminator

Recommended Posts

Frankly Herminator should be the one facing a tribunal for this attempt at bullying other players within the same nation to do as he says - that is toxic.

 

My clan 'disregarded' treaties at the start of EA and its ended up getting us some of the most fun fights and has contributed significantly to how the map looks now.

 

I vote a significant NO to self appointed councils being able to dictate what others in their nation can do.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On behalf of the Pirates... we do not want them. Please send them to the Brits.

 

Well that's not surprising. we all know how the council doesn't like people who want to behave like pirates and do their own thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you object to pirates acting as mercenaries? bizarre. I mean its an RP game and that's totally legit pirating

 

When will the french be flying the danish flag? or when will the council pirate clans be flying it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will always be people who want to go against the grain. Those who want to rebel against the establishment.

That is a fact of life.

You are free to do anything you want as a Pirate however if it goes against what the majority want, expect for there to be consequences for your actions.

I am a huge believer in people being able to do as they wish and make their own decisions. I will never tell someone what they CAN or CANT do. However If something interferes with the Coalition plans... which is made up from all major Pirate guilds, then we will obviously act against it.

We decide on our direction by vote. Everyone in the Pirate Nation is welcome to contribute to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will always be people who want to go against the grain. Those who want to rebel against the establishment.

That is a fact of life.

You are free to do anything you want as a Pirate however if it goes against what the majority want, expect for there to be consequences for your actions.

I am a huge believer in people being able to do as they wish and make their own decisions. I will never tell someone what they CAN or CANT do. However If something interferes with the Coalition plans... which is made up from all major Pirate guilds, then we will obviously act against it.

We decide on our direction by vote. Everyone in the Pirate Nation is welcome to contribute to that.

 

That sounds lovely and morally correct but 'the consequences' include trying to ruin their game, cyber bullying, lying and trashing their reputation. so, really, its not all that high minded is it. some of the stuff I have seen them subjected to is really pathetic. the lengths people are willing to go to to ostracise them and force them back into the fold is not acceptable. which ironically is the main reason they are now mercenaries. they were still fighting against the british when the campaign of propoganda and hatred was started! its a self-fulfilling set of lies.

Edited by JCDC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really. Why this DRUNKs and other rogue clans joined the Nation if they only want to play like THEY want not like NATION wants?

 

If you are really so pissed about fighting against Danes/Swedes (whoever you want) - switch to Pirate and fight then. People in nations are trying very hard to organise RVR politics, to prevent Nations being reduced to one port and new players leaving because of that. And at the same time bunch of pirates (for some stupid reason sailing under nation flag) are just trying to ruin it. And you actually can't do anything about them. There should be mechanics to lock nations ports for such pirate scum and to be able to attack them on sight!

 

We want to play how we want yes but not how KF wants KF is NOT  the whole nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To who it may concern,

 

I am writing this response as a player not as the ingame character Hugo van Grojt, just to be clear. I am copying this response from the other "open letter to the devs" thread, because it applies to this thread here just the same. Replace DRUNK with RNON as you see fit - they are the same for the sake of the argument:

 

The main argument presented by DRUNK and their supporters is essentially the following: 

"Any player should be allowed to play the game as they see fit. Nobody should be allowed to dictate how these players play the game."

 

So, before we go into my argument, let's define and establish some core elements.

 

Let's look at the various primary ways, a player may want to play the game:

1. you want to play as a trader/crafter

2. you want to play PVE (mission running and such)

3. you want to engage in small scale open world PvP (raiding, ganking, et cetera)

4. you want to engage in port battles and SOL fighting

5. you want to participate in the RvR aspect of the game (national wars)

 

Additionally, let us briefly look at what the role of a clan is within the current game mechanics. By joining an ingame clan you, as a player:

1. get a clan tag in front of your name

2. get access to a clan chat and clan mail

That is it, as far as the game is concerned. Nothing more.

 

But what does joining a clan mean for most players? (my personal assumption!) By joining a clan,

1. you join a group of players that most likely share your interests and goals in the game

2. you give authority to the leaders/officials that the clan members elect to lead. 

3. you accept that these clan leaders speak on your behalf during RvR negotiations or national council meetings - for lack of a better system.

 

Okay, now we have established a baseline and the core assumptions. Now, let us explore the original argument using the ingame faction Sweden and Denmark as example:

 

- The majority of players for each nation (organised in the biggest clans, that share a common vision) have agreed not to attack the ports of the opposing faction.

- Some smaller clans disagree with that majority decision and attack ports of the opposing faction using the argument "We just want to play the game as we see fit!"

 

How does the peace decision by the majority of players of each nation prohibit you from playing the game as you want?

1. you want to play as a trader/crafter - you can still do so within the confines of the ports your nation owns

2. you want to play PVE (mission running and such) - you can still do so within the confines of the territory your nation owns

3. you want to engage in small scale open world PvP (raiding, ganking, et cetera) - you can still do so, seeking out enemies that your nation is actually at war with - plenty of opportunities to be had there

4. you want to engage in port battles and SOL fighting - you can still do so, your clan or group of players is free to organise and independent attack on a port of the nation that your nation is at war with. For example, nobody will likely stop DRUNK from attacking a British port.

5. you want to participate in the RvR aspect of the game (national wars) - this is the ONLY part of the game where you are limited. If you absolutely want to wage war against the Danish/Swedish, you actually need to convince the majority of players playing the RvR game that this is the right way to go by increasing your clan member numbers or gaining support from other clans.

 

So, by using some logic, we have established that majority decisions concerning national wars DO NOT prevent players from playing the game as they want. Even if the majority of citizens of a nation agree on having peace between Denmark and Sweden, the players of DRUNK and other small clans still have PLENTY of opportunities to trade, PVE, small scale PvP, do port battles to their hearts' content . The only limit that DRUNK have, is that they should not attack ports that belong to the Danish nation. That is the only limitation of their gameplay experience.

 

My personal opinion in this case is that the interest of the many outweigh the interest of the few in this regard. National wars are a huge community effort that the majority of the citizens of each nation participate in. The enjoyment of the RvR aspect of the game by the MANY should not be nullified by the FEW using the liberty argument.

Or to use a real life example: If you absolutely feel that you can only be free if you run around outside naked, you can do so by moving to the countryside and run around in the forest all you like. But if you do that it in a city you should expect to be arrested because the majority of the city dwellers do not want to have to look at your naked ass. If you defend the right to run around naked in a city because of "freedom" or "liberty" - you are just a troll.

 

TL:DR

Given the assumptions above, it is my strong belief that DRUNK and their supporters do not defend the right to play the game as they want, but rather the right to troll the majority of their nation's playerbase in the RvR aspect of the game. Therefore, a backlash by that majority of players is understandable and I am personally in full support of the majority here, because that is how communities work.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But back to topic, yes you cannot kick someone now for not handle like the other clans, but I understand the frustrating point of view in building allies, taking time in long hours of diplomacy and than... all is gone... And this happens in a game you are one officer besides other officers of your nation that should all serve the command of his majesty (or president beloved USA ;-) ).

And because of this we need so urgent a diplomacy mechanic.

Edited by Jonathan Arlington
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...