Open letter to Game Labs regarding RNoN and DRUNK.

[Johny Reb]

For the reason the OP states, I think it is evident that some form of alliance function needs to exist.

 

As a council member in my own nation I understand the frustration of the Swedish Council yet understand that some players want to play the game as they had envisioned it as DRUNK currently does.

 

I also think there are two issues here regarding who is in the right and who is in the wrong, if anyone is. Allow me to highlight the main problem that underlines all that is going on in every nation.

 

Naval Action is a game that pits nations against nation, not clan vs clan. Upon choosing a nation to serve you are automatically placed on a "team" that has members that you did not choose. Unlike Eve, where all "nations" are simply conglomerations of allied clans, the nation system of NA puts you immediately into a team that you can't control. Its hard to respect those clans that want to go do their own thing, caring little about the hard work that the nation as a whole has put into its progress and defense and showing little respect for the months of behind the scenes negotiations, friendship development, strategy organization, and alliance decisions that have been made. The nation doesn't benefit from of these "rogue" clans.

Councils are often blamed for being controlling but how are rogue clans not? Councils at least can point to a cooperation between most clans within the nation. Rogue clans, by being disinterested in cooperation essentially force the change of national policy by countering it whenever able and therefore forcing their idea on others by getting in the way of all agreements.

 

On the other hand, a council that tries to order instead of persuade is equally as guilty. As the OP said, councils have no official authority. They have no right to order one group to do something. Any councils mission is to unite players by persuasion and to get as many people involved as possible so that the country can be united which ultimately makes the country stronger. The nation doesn't benefit from a group that assumes that because it is bigger than any other organization that the nation has to listen without question to what they are told to do.

[Belize]

Wow, that is really disappointing.

 

So Purge can only look forward to being another Drunk? Are their any teams on PVP1 that are NOT a zerg and are willing to fight to the bitter end, peace deals be damned?

 

I dont think so...because they want to turn Naval action into Naval trade and Ship building simulator.

[Vllad]

 

 

Naval Action is a game that pits nations against nation, not clan vs clan. Upon choosing a nation to serve you are automatically placed on a "team" that has members that you did not choose. Unlike Eve, where all "nations" are simply conglomerations of allied clans, the nation system of NA puts you immediately into a team that you can't control. Its hard to respect those clans that want to go do their own thing, caring little about the hard work that the nation as a whole has put into its progress and defense and showing little respect for the months of behind the scenes negotiations, friendship development, strategy organization, and alliance decisions that have been made. The nation doesn't benefit from of these "rogue" clans.

 

 

Let me start by saying I really like your post Johny however your post assumes Naval Action is a diplomacy game when in-fact it isn't.

 

This is a PVP game.

 

Their is no place for peace deals.

 

I do get it, you may want to reduce your fights on one front so you can fight on another. However what the Swedes on PVP1 don't get is there should never be peace deals with anyone. I hope to god Naval Action NEVER implements a diplomacy part of the game.  

 

Both the Swedes and everyone else who makes peace deals ruin the best part of this game. "PVP".

 

Everyone has the best intentions when brokering these deals with other clans but EVERYONE loses when this happens. Pretty soon you are secure in your borders and no one attacks anyone. BORING!

 

On PVP2 I already have to sail across the world to pick a fight.

 

The very best factions to play if you are into PVP are the ones with 2 ports left. That is where all the action is! Fighting against the Zerg you have more fun than the Zerg does.

 

Naval Action is a boring game if you can't fight every single day.

 

The most diplomacy this game should have is calling up another clan in another Nation to help you punch in the head a third party nation. STOP trying to make peace. You are ruining the damn game. Lose your ports and take your lumps or join the zerg.

 

For those that played Guild Wars/Shadowbane/DAOC or "insert your PVP MMO here". Their is a reason those games didn't have diplomacy. They didn't have diplomacy because their would be no point to the game with diplomacy.

 

IF I was the leader of Drunk I would go around and pick a fight with every nation on the map and troll them so hard that every nation would want to bash the Swedes. Maybe that way once the Swedes are down to 1 port you can weed out the non pvp players and build a real nation from scratch.

 

 

No one has to agree with anything I said above but the reality is this game was built around PVP. Those kinds of players are the ones who will come to play on PVP1. Like it or not you better appease those PVP players and give them something to do otherwise PVP1 will be down to 298 players just like PVP2.  

 

Ultimately peace deals are bad for the game and the fact that anyone is shocked about DRUNK's position just tells me the wrong type of players are playing this game.

We had multiple factions on PVP2 get down to 1 port and make a come back. Grow a pair, fight it out and leave diplomacy to the PVE server.

[Francis Tabernac]

Naval Action is a game that pits nations against nation, not clan vs clan. Upon choosing a nation to serve you are automatically placed on a "team" that has members that you did not choose. Unlike Eve, where all "nations" are simply conglomerations of allied clans, the nation system of NA puts you immediately into a team that you can't control. Its hard to respect those clans that want to go do their own thing, caring little about the hard work that the nation as a whole has put into its progress and defense and showing little respect for the months of behind the scenes negotiations, friendship development, strategy organization, and alliance decisions that have been made. The nation doesn't benefit from of these "rogue" clans.

Councils are often blamed for being controlling but how are rogue clans not? Councils at least can point to a cooperation between most clans within the nation. Rogue clans, by being disinterested in cooperation essentially force the change of national policy by countering it whenever able and therefore forcing their idea on others by getting in the way of all agreements.

 

On the other hand, a council that tries to order instead of persuade is equally as guilty. As the OP said, councils have no official authority. They have no right to order one group to do something. Any councils mission is to unite players by persuasion and to get as many people involved as possible so that the country can be united which ultimately makes the country stronger. The nation doesn't benefit from a group that assumes that because it is bigger than any other organization that the nation has to listen without question to what they are told to do.

 

A few points in this to address:

 

"It's hard to respect those clans that want to go do their own thing..." why? Actually the real question should probably be "why should I give a damn that you don't?" but really, why would it be hard to? Because they "[care] little about the hard work that the nation as a whole..." ah, so you can't respect them because they're not grateful enough to you for all of your hard work? Would you respect these clans more if they made sure to give you the proper tip o' the hat and tug o' the forelock? Bear in mind here, I'm not speaking only about you specifically, but generally about the folks on that side of this little debate. It comes across as astoundingly arrogant. "I've done all of this work for the nation, and you don't respect it by playing a different way."

 

"Councils are often blamed for being controlling but how are rogue clans not?" For starters, no member of DRUNK, or RNON, or even my clan has ever come here and told every other player of the faction that they're vile, terrible people out to ruin the game for everyone *stomps foot* for trying to make peace. When France decided that defending its ports was just too darned hard I agitated to continue fighting, and was roundly condemned for it. So what? I chose to do so anyway, and guess what; the Dane-Norwegians didn't say "oh, sweet Jesus, those guys are still fighting us? STEAMROLL AWAY BOYS!" No instead they've thanked us as we actually continued to engage in PvP. We've never demanded that everyone else play our way. We've never tried dragging unwilling participants into fights by proximity-tagging. We've never gone and trolled them across multiple forums, including their recruiting threads, though lord knows there's plenty of dirt to throw out there. We've certainly never started actual goddamn Tribunal posts to get them punished for breaking no rules. I'd say that's a pretty good start on how they're different.

 

"On the other hand, a council that tries to order instead of persuade is equally as guilty. As the OP said, councils have no official authority. They have no right to order one group to do something. Any councils mission is to unite players by persuasion and to get as many people involved as possible so that the country can be united which ultimately makes the country stronger. The nation doesn't benefit from a group that assumes that because it is bigger than any other organization that the nation has to listen without question to what they are told to do." I could not more thoroughly agree. You know what's actually quite sad? I'd have gone along with the peace and made the best of it, at least for a time, while enjoying playing the role of agitator if the immediate response hadn't been so vehement and vitriolic that I decided I no longer wished to be associated with that particular bunch. Most of us in this current situation are here because the "we want peace" bunch are just so wildly, unbelievably poor at actual discussion. Between the petty name-calling, the mind-boggling hypocrisy and the shamefully poor attempts at engaging one another in civil bloody conversation, the whole thing's become quite an embarrassment.

 

At the end of the day though, Vllad summed things up quite accurately when he noted that this is not, in fact, a diplomacy game. In its current state it is a game of pure action, with all nations permanently at war with one another. While players are welcome to play the meta-game to whatever extent they please, they need to bear in mind that they're playing by rules they're inventing only for themselves when they do so, and they're in no way binding for anyone else. If some other player doesn't feel like stepping in line and following your orders then tough luck, sweetheart. Move on. As I've mentioned before (and I speak generally here, not specifically to Johnny Reb), if you're enjoyment of the game rests on whether other players do as you say, then I pity you.

 

Edited for formatting.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Francis Tabernac

[Dumu]

 

I do get it, you may want to reduce your fights on one front so you can fight on another. However what the Swedes on PVP1 don't get is there should never be peace deals with anyone. I hope to god Naval Action NEVER implements a diplomacy part of the game.  

 

Both the Swedes and everyone else who makes peace deals ruin the best part of this game. "PVP".

 

 

 

 

 

 

For me it seems that you dont really understand the game mechanics. You really need to have ports to gain resources to build ships to fight with, even more so with the reduced npc production. To have ports you have to have players to defend the ports. If sweden with 50 pvp players want to have ports, they have to have peace deals and only fight at 1 front so they can defend and keep the ports. Limiting port battles to only one front still allows everyone capable of attacking a port to do so.

 

Nations in the Naval action have already made their own diplomacy model, "Councils". As in real nations the majority chooses its leaders, the leaders makes the decisions, all the clans should be allowed to have voice in the Councils. People who think alike should make a clan and bring their opinions heard in the council, rather than stir up random conflicts around. Attacking undefended ports is PVE, and clans that so willingly want pvp should stick to ports that are defended. If they lack the numbers on their own to fight those battles, they should join up with others on the common front.

 

If there is to be a diplomacy system that allows for voting for war and peace, the amount of peace treatys should be limited so that there is always war against someone.

 

But that is only my opinion of the game after 700 hours of playing.

 

Dumu

[Vllad]

For me it seems that you dont really understand the game mechanics. You really need to have ports to gain resources to build ships to fight with, even more so with the reduced npc production.

 

Dumu

 

You don't need ports. Having played with a nation that had 2 ports left we were able to do just fine. I am not saying it isn't harder but it is very doable.

 

All of the rest of the things you mentioned are not game mechanics. They are just made up stuff that players on your particular team thought was best for themselves.

[Dumu]

So you are saying that if the smaller nations would just give up all their ports away, they would have more fun?

[Simonredz]

I see alot of people say alot here about how the game acualy is

 

well I didnt know it was this was a game was this "RvR" thing. someone said "hey wanna join Naval Action?" I was like "What is that and I looked it up on steam.

 

Genre: Action, Adventure, Indie, Massively Multiplayer, Simulation, Strategy, Early Access +Suggest

 

Naval Action is an exciting, realistic, and beautifully detailed naval combat sandbox immersing players into the experience of the most beautiful period of naval history - when sailing ships ruled the seas.

 

Then I was like okey and I got it gifted. I dont see any mentioning of this so called RvR on steam. maybe you peeps should get your focus on that right away to get players away from buying it and rewrite it that the game is about ships

and ALOT of diplomacy and if you dont feel like it we will slay you, force you to join pirates. make Tribunals about nothing and general hate agaist players?

 

I think that would help alot imo

[Francis Tabernac]

So you are saying that if the smaller nations would just give up all their ports away, they would have more fun?

 

And that's the level of argumentation we've come to expect on this forum. Not trying to point you out in particular Dumu, whoever you are, you're just a recent example of a much larger problem of people arraying armies of strawmen about them to burn down rather than actually engage questions. Why respond to what was said when you can twist it into almost its opposite and then argue badly against that instead?

 

At this point it's just shouting into the wind, so I'm done. Good luck, folks.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Francis Tabernac

[Johny Reb]

Let me start by saying I respect your opinion.

Let me start by saying I really like your post Johny however your post assumes Naval Action is a diplomacy game when in-fact it isn't.

This is a PVP game.- Why can't they be both? Diplomacy doesn't mean that PvP ends.

 

Their is no place for peace deals.- I would argue otherwise. Being forced into one port because you want to fight everyone everywhere actually makes it harder for you to fight because you can't build ships. You eventually are either gonna have highly inflated ship costs or you are going to have to make a deal (diplomacy) with another nation to sell you ships or resources. That doesn't aid pvp'ers it hurts them.

 

Everyone has the best intentions when brokering these deals with other clans but EVERYONE loses when this happens. Pretty soon you are secure in your borders and no one attacks anyone. BORING!- I for one don't want to see our nation make peace deals on every front. On a pvp server that would be boring. There has to always be war somewhere. I don't really understand a conclusion that says that because you make a deal on your left flank, you can't fight on your right.

 

On PVP2 I already have to sail across the world to pick a fight.- this is entirely your fault. If you just make an outpost on the front lines you can get your fights. Simple. Even during the days when there were only 35 people on line at a time, I could find fights. The problem was them running all the time.

 

No one has to agree with anything I said above but the reality is this game was built around PVP. Those kinds of players are the ones who will come to play on PVP1. Like it or not you better appease those PVP players and give them something to do otherwise PVP1 will be down to 298 players just like PVP2.  

To sum up, I don't see why diplomacy means there is no pvp and if you got involved with the greater team effort you could use your arguments to prevent carebear groups within the councils from closing to many fronts. If there is an eventual diplomacy mechanic you may simple have to, if you like it or not. Why not start building those relationships with the other clans now so that you can build that influence for when you need it now. Telling them to all Foff now will just lead them to later tell you to Foff if this mechanic is introduced in a way that can be influenced by players.

[Johny Reb]

A few points in this to address:

 

"It's hard to respect those clans that want to go do their own thing..." why? Actually the real question should probably be "why should I give a damn that you don't?" but really, why would it be hard to? Because they "[care] little about the hard work that the nation as a whole..." ah, so you can't respect them because they're not grateful enough to you for all of your hard work? -This is less than constructive Francis. Respect is earned as we all know. In a team environment, when a group fights against that team spirit than that group will not earn the respect of the team. To twist that concept into something about being grateful misses the boat completely.Bear in mind here, I'm not speaking only about you specifically, but generally about the folks on that side of this little debate. It comes across as astoundingly arrogant. "I've done all of this work for the nation, and you don't respect it by playing a different way."- Tell me how you would feel if you spent upwards of 8 months working and building relationships, both good and bad, alliances, and rivals to have someone come into the game and in under 3 weeks declare they will attempt to ruin everything that has been built up to that time because, dammit, thats their game. I admit that there can be arrogance on both sides but I hope that illustration helps you to understand that its not some group looking for gratitude but rather the frustration they feel towards some kid that comes in full of piss and vinegar saying F off team. I do what I want and I don't care a bit how it effects your game as long as I get mine. Its very selfish is all.

 

"Councils are often blamed for being controlling but how are rogue clans not?" For starters, no member of DRUNK, or RNON, or even my clan has ever come here and told every other player of the faction that they're vile, terrible people out to ruin the game for everyone *stomps foot* for trying to make peace.- Like I said, I am not for any council feeling they have a right to tell another group how to play.   Just curious.. .what type pvp are you after? Are you primarily a ship vs ship pvper or "kill those towers boys" pvper?

 

"On the other hand, a council that tries to order instead of persuade is equally as guilty. As the OP said, councils have no official authority. They have no right to order one group to do something. Any councils mission is to unite players by persuasion and to get as many people involved as possible so that the country can be united which ultimately makes the country stronger. The nation doesn't benefit from a group that assumes that because it is bigger than any other organization that the nation has to listen without question to what they are told to do." I could not more thoroughly agree. You know what's actually quite sad? I'd have gone along with the peace and made the best of it, at least for a time, while enjoying playing the role of agitator if the immediate response hadn't been so vehement and vitriolic that I decided I no longer wished to be associated with that particular bunch. Most of us in this current situation are here because the "we want peace" bunch are just so wildly, unbelievably poor at actual discussion. Between the petty name-calling, the mind-boggling hypocrisy and the shamefully poor attempts at engaging one another in civil bloody conversation, the whole thing's become quite an embarrassment.- Well maybe this is the real issue hear. All the rest that was said is fluff.

I take nothing you said personally. It is two different opinions.

[Vllad]

So you are saying that if the smaller nations would just give up all their ports away, they would have more fun?

 

I don't believe I ever said give up.

 

However the most fun you will ever have in Naval Action is when you are desperate and fighting for those last 2 ports. Fighting for you life when everything matters is when the game is at its best. Hanging on to your economy for the sake of boredom is when this game is at its worst.

[DrunkenSloth]

Let me start by saying I respect your opinion.

To sum up, I don't see why diplomacy means there is no pvp and if you got involved with the greater team effort you could use your arguments to prevent carebear groups within the councils from closing to many fronts. If there is an eventual diplomacy mechanic you may simple have to, if you like it or not. Why not start building those relationships with the other clans now so that you can build that influence for when you need it now. Telling them to all Foff now will just lead them to later tell you to Foff if this mechanic is introduced in a way that can be influenced by players.

From the start we tried to maintain a relationship with other clans, I personally was willing to make some compromises and agree to not attack ports. One day later I was made aware that apparently one of my members threatened to Ddos the Sverige National TS, this was followed by being called trolls and people making accusations in Nation chat. It even went as far that someone who wasn't even in the clan who threatened to kill someone, was blamed on DRUNK. Instead of being mature and talking like men they went behind my back and made up stories to make us look bad, this kind of behavior deserves no respect and has no place in this game, and I personally don't tolerate it. Any diplomatic system that restricts the way people can play the game they purchased, will only cause more problems.

[Slamz]

What would make the most sense to me is that the Devs would occasionally say "the King of X and the Queen of Y have declared war" and then we fight it out, because that's how things would have really gone. Nobody would have given a damn if Captain Soandso of the HMS Carebear wanted peace.

 

Yeah -- if not dev control then maybe just NPC control, based on some factors of the map, as if it was an RTS A.I. Maybe players can influence the A.I.'s war/peace decisions but ultimately it is up to the A.I.

 

That way if the Brits are literally 50% of the server population, all of the A.I. team leaders would declare peace with each other and war on Britain. You would literally not be able to do anything but fight the British in that case. You could choose to not fight them but due to the peace deals you can't fight anyone else. As the British get beat down and some other power starts to rise up, the A.I. starts breaking deals and declaring new wars, trying to maintain some sort of balance.

 

 

The loss of control would be annoying, I think. I can imagine Saturday port capture plans getting scrapped just because the A.I. decided to declare peace that day. But maybe that's better than the current system, which is player controlled and therefore mostly a load of crap.

 

 

I'm kind of picturing how diplomacy worked in all these PC strategy games (Master of Orion, Civilization, etc). If you don't have an iron mine, your A.I. "king" is inclined to declare war against the nearest, weakest iron mine holder so that he can direct players to capture that mine. If one team is too strong, the A.I. is inclined towards war with them. If you are fighting someone and losing, the A.I. is inclined to strike peace deals with other neighbors and mutual war deals with them.

 

Lots of room to play and relatively simple to implement since the grunt work is all done by players.

 

I do hope the devs discuss what they are thinking before they go build it. There's lots of ways to take this war/peace idea and some might suck.

[Slamz]

So you are saying that if the smaller nations would just give up all their ports away, they would have more fun?

 

Look at France in PVP2. We own Haiti and had some of Hispaniola.

 

Brits starts to take those ports. Our options were:

A. Camp out around La Mona and do basically nothing and wait for the British to show up (or not) during our port battle windows. Brits set their ports to AUS time zones so we couldn't attack them. There is nothing to do but sit there and be bored and wait for an attack that may never come.

 

B. Ignore those ports, maybe lose them, maybe not, depending on if the Brits attack or not, but go have fun doing something else in a more active part of the map.

 

What would you choose?

 

Defend worthless, stupid ports you don't even use OR go have fun?

 

 

If they were attacking Basse-Terre we would probably defend it just because we may have more people near there, doing missions and fleeting and so forth. It's a more active area. But Haiti? Nobody is going to just sit there with their thumb up their butt waiting to defend.

 

The whole port battle / war system is pretty lame right now. Don't wreck your team trying to play that part of the game when there's a lot more fun stuff to do.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Slamz

[Dumu]

The whole port battle / war system is pretty lame right now. Don't wreck your team trying to play that part of the game when there's a lot more fun stuff to do.

 

I agree that the port battle system with 2 hour attack window is broken and forces people to wait to defend something they want to defend. But in my opinion its just the same to defend a distant port or something close to your capital when you are so crudely outnumbered. Getting into to the defense battle would be nearly impossible in any front if you dont already sit in the port, dont take basic cutter and surrender (kind of exploiting imo) or dont have teleport ready.

 

But choosing the front you are fighting gives so much more to everyone in game, crafters get to craft and traders get to trade. And pvp players can fight as much as they want. And when one war starts to get boring you can always change the enemy. I dont really see the problem with peace deals, as long as everyone agrees that there has to be a war with someone.

 

Sweden already went back to 1 port, and that made it to merge the small clans into 1 bigger organisation. Having your back against the wall usually makes you harder, but i dont really see the point doing that on a daily basis.

[KuroNyra]

DRUNKS want respect?

Then maybe they should start by respecting the other's and there action first before acting like they do.

Respect doesn't go one-way.

[DrunkenSloth]

I agree that the port battle system with 2 hour attack window is broken and forces people to wait to defend something they want to defend. But in my opinion its just the same to defend a distant port or something close to your capital when you are so crudely outnumbered. Getting into to the defense battle would be nearly impossible in any front if you dont already sit in the port, dont take basic cutter and surrender (kind of exploiting imo) or dont have teleport ready.

But choosing the front you are fighting gives so much more to everyone in game, crafters get to craft and traders get to trade. And pvp players can fight as much as they want. And when one war starts to get boring you can always change the enemy. I dont really see the problem with peace deals, as long as everyone agrees that there has to be a war with someone.

Sweden already went back to 1 port, and that made it to merge the small clans into 1 bigger organisation. Having your back against the wall usually makes you harder, but i dont really see the point doing that on a daily basis.

As I've said before, the game is naval action not naval diplomacy, if the devs wanted to have complex diplomacy they would have made that the priority, instead they chose to refine combat and they did that because this game is about naval combat. With that said you're free to make any diplomacy you want, and I think the current system keeps things interesting, you never know whats coming next. The real reason we're even having this conversation is because the "majority" wants tools implemented to inflict the will of major clans on the minority, any system that is restrictive in any way just makes a bad situation far worse..The devs have given you a choice of which nation to choose, I joined Sweden for a fight, but 2 weeks after I join they make a deal with my true enemy. All this talk of only having one port and not being able to trade is simply ridiculous, Sweden is that way because it's supposed to be the PvP nation, we're supposed to have our backs against the wall. Now you're free to have your diplomacy, free to do whatever you like with your time, but if you expect us to simply stop doing what we feel is right for Sweden, then you'll be very dissapointed when we only increase our efforts. Glory isn't achieved without a fight.

[DrunkenSloth]

DRUNKS want respect?

Then maybe they should start by respecting the other's and there action first before acting like they do.

Respect doesn't go one-way.

We don't want respect, only victory.

[Tretton]

Passive-aggressive drunk strike again. Straw man arguments ftw.

Listen up drunk! You do your thing, we do our thing. No problem there. But what I do want you to do - stop the bullshit. KF and HRE never claimed to speak for anyone but ourselves (overwhelming majority of the swedish playerbase). We stroke a deal with the danes because we needed ports for industrial capacity. You don't agree - fine. Knock yourselves out ganking danish noobs and traders and capturing undefended danish ports. But please stop lying to the new players in nation chat.

[Mored]

And the really funny think is:

in 6 month after they may change nearly everything, people will complain about exactly the same thinks they do now.

Every game, every time there will be guys that have a different opinion about how to play that game "correct".

 

Best example is shown actual ingame. British was/ is the biggest Nation from playercount and they are so arrogant to think they can dominate all. They thought they are unbeatable, but we showed them that they are not. No one is that in a game where politic is made by players. You cant force them to play their role. If they want something they just do it. For example you can declare a "peace" between pirates and british but there will be pirates and brits that dont respect that and fight each other and thats fine. No diplomatic system can change that, there will be always ways to do it.

 

So i also played eve a lot and the clan/alliance based diplomatic failed there also, because it will always ends with building up a "super" power that dominates all other entities.

[Destraex]

this is why diplomacy in game is needed asap.

[Bob Glasauge]

maybe the danes should attack and steamroll our homelands and the swedish council will just watch, perhaps drunk will then understand !

[Redfin]

 

 

 

You simply have to ask what you want. Players create in such games, the game depth. Here we can create a blunt PVP or a game with depth. And part of diplomacy. And this diplomacy must be more than war.
The DRUNK has done well. They are very present. The show the myriad topics in this forum. It is a pity that no pages can approach each other. The DRUNK have to ask, for example, why they do not help in the south. The council has to wonder how you can combine the interests of DRUNK together. If that were successful, can as a good cooperation arise. I see every day, some people like the DRUNK chatting incite other people. That's childish. Naval Action may be more than just blunt PVP that is up to us players. That everyone should understand at last.

[Vaan De Vries]

Blah, Blah, Blah

 

but if you expect us to simply stop doing what we feel is right for Sweden, then you'll be very dissapointed when we only increase our efforts. Glory isn't achieved without a fight.

 

But all you can do is capture undefended ports and gank some traders or lone players. When it is time for a real fight you aren't there. Never seen DRUNK players anywhere near actual PBs and OW battles in the south. Never seen them attack any actually defended port. And IF Danes decided to attack Sweden DRUNK will be able to do just NOTHING - all defence will be done by HRE and KF, cause they are actually good and experienced in RVR.

 

So, why not stop this pretense of fighting for Sweden, when actually you are waging some private war with lone traders? Just reroll as a pirate, and continue to gank Danes, but without all this pretense. Why put simple acts of piracy under some mask of "glorious fight for Sweden". Maybe that's the problem why no one is taking you seriously. Stop pretending to be some glorious fighters (when the only thing you are good at is ganking in speed fit Renommes) and start being what you actually are - just a bunch of pirates that dislike Danes..

Edited March 30, 2016 by Vaan De Vries