Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Open letter to Game Labs regarding RNoN and DRUNK.


Recommended Posts

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..

i take that back

Edited by Dala
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..

If you took some time to sail alongside DRUNK like i have, you will see that you couldn't be more wrong. I have been in many actions with drunk and the reason they use speedy RENs is because they are often outgunned and outnumbered fighting within their enemies borders with the nearest safe port far away. Last week when the Dutch launched their attack on Swedish home waters, my own guild along with some members of drunk were at St George (one of the Dutch flag targets) there were many other Swedish ships and captains there who can confirm this. In the end it was a Dutch ruse and we sailed off into Dutch territory for reconnaissance and to harrass any stragglers.

If I were the Swedish council I would want use drunk as a weapon, a group of guys willing to take risks and go where most wouldn't. They don't always win but what a pain in the arse of any enemy they must surely be. Perhaps a temporary exchange of two or three higher ranking players between drunk and HRE/ KF, just for a couple of days or a week might help people to understand eachother that little bit better and see that things are a lot simpler than people think.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you took some time to sail alongside DRUNK like i have, you will see that you couldn't be more wrong. I have been in many actions with drunk and the reason they use speedy RENs is because they are often outgunned and outnumbered fighting within their enemies borders with the nearest safe port far away. Last week when the Dutch launched their attack on Swedish home waters, my own guild along with some members of drunk were at St George (one of the Dutch flag targets) there were many other Swedish ships and captains there who can confirm this. In the end it was a Dutch ruse and we sailed off into Dutch territory for reconnaissance and to harrass any stragglers.

If I were the Swedish council I would want use drunk as a weapon, a group of guys willing to take risks and go where most wouldn't. They don't always win but what a pain in the arse of any enemy they must surely be. Perhaps a temporary exchange of two or three higher ranking players between drunk and HRE/ KF, just for a couple of days or a week might help people to understand eachother that little bit better and see that things are a lot simpler than people think.

 

Sailing in a speed renommees with current mechanics means virtually taking no risks at all.

 

Example of real harassing you could see yesterday performed if I am not mistaken by members of KF and HRE. They managed to cap our Victory (I am playing for Dutch), sank our Pavel and then fight some good battles in Maracaibo bay.

 

Members of KF and HRE earned respect of a lot of Dutch captains (even with their timers policy). DRUNK - just another bunch of pirates for me.. Never there to risk anything more then a speed fitted Renomme.

Edited by Vaan De Vries
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using speedy Rens is all a part of a hit and run strategy when working 'behind enemy lines' as it were. So now they're pirates for using sounds military tactics and strategy.

 

Nope. Read my post again.

 

The great, skilfull, "behind enemy lines" work was performed yesterday by members of KF and HRE.

  1. Dutch nation is actually at war with Sweden  so at least it was "behind ENEMY lines". Every Dutch captain will report them in nation chat and will try to attack them - but they managed to skip our patrols.
  2. Dutch nation lost a Pavel(sunk) and Victory(capped, which is twice better) and several Frigate class ships - it was useful for RVR. To cap enemy 1st rate and sank a 2nd in a 10-min sail from enemy's Capital - that's a huge success
  3. It was really skillful and unexpected raid. Most of us were simply not ready for it (Myself was couple-hour sail away in Island Harbour with used TP).
  4. it actually hurt - each 1st rate counts in this war. In one raid we lost one and enemy acquired one.

 

Now compare it with what DRUNKs do:

  1. They are not attacking an enemy. There are no clan tags in OW. I suppose a lot of Danish players just think "We have a peace with Swedes. We shouldn't attack these ships.". At least that's what I do when encounter French or Danish ship.I don't attack every Danish or French ship to check it's clan tag. I don't report them in chat and ignore other platyer's reports about Danish and French ships.  So practically DRUNKs are using false flag - typical PIRATE tactic
  2. They are not hurting Danish in any way. They are hurting only lone mostly PVE people. They haven't sunk any valued Danish SOL(at least I haven't heard of it). But they sank a lot of player traders. So they are going only for an easy prey - again, Pirate tactics.
  3. Danish aren't in war with Sweden. This means there would be no attack on Swedish ports, no patrols sent. Hence - DRUNK is not benefiting in Sweden RVR in any way. And if your "work behind enemy lines" doesn't benefit your nation in RVR - that's just PIRACY again.

DRUNK members claim they are underappreciated by their nation, but it all comes from the simple fact: they claim to be fighting for the glory of Sweden, but actually their fights are neither glorious nor useful for Sweden nation in RVR.

 

But DRUNK represent the Pirate faction like it should be implemented in game. Hit and run tactics, easy prey, and pure self-gain motives. So best move for them is just reroll and do all the same things but under their true flag.

Edited by Vaan De Vries
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again you are wrong, I understood that a Swedish squadron had marked success against the Dutch and I congratulate them. I have been in Danish territory with drunk captains and a large Danish force attacked them, I and 2 other ABC captains joined the battle to assist them, we were outnumbered and far outgunned. I myself have been tagged by large groups of Danes whilst sailing alone in Danish territory, which is fair does in my books, they felt I was a threat. It happens regularly. But then why shouldn't they take advantage of outnumbering their enemy when they get a chance.

What happens between drunk and swede nation I can't comment on for lack of knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Read my post again.

 

The great, skilfull, "behind enemy lines" work was performed yesterday by members of KF and HRE.

  1. Dutch nation is actually at war with Sweden  so at least it was "behind ENEMY lines". Every Dutch captain will report them in nation chat and will try to attack them - but they managed to skip our patrols.
  2. Dutch nation lost a Pavel(sunk) and Victory(capped, which is twice better) and several Frigate class ships - it was useful for RVR. To cap enemy 1st rate and sank a 2nd in a 10-min sail from enemy's Capital - that's a huge success
  3. It was really skillful and unexpected raid. Most of us were simply not ready for it (Myself was couple-hour sail away in Island Harbour with used TP).
  4. it actually hurt - each 1st rate counts in this war. In one raid we lost one and enemy acquired one.

 

Now compare it with what DRUNKs do:

  1. They are not attacking an enemy. There are no clan tags in OW. I suppose a lot of Danish players just think "We have a peace with Swedes. We shouldn't attack these ships.". At least that's what I do when encounter French or Danish ship.I don't attack every Danish or French ship to check it's clan tag. I don't report them in chat and ignore other platyer's reports about Danish and French ships.  So practically DRUNKs are using false flag - typical PIRATE tactic
  2. They are not hurting Danish in any way. They are hurting only lone mostly PVE people. They haven't sunk any valued Danish SOL(at least I haven't heard of it). But they sank a lot of player traders. So they are going only for an easy prey - again, Pirate tactics.
  3. Danish aren't in war with Sweden. This means there would be no attack on Swedish ports, no patrols sent. Hence - DRUNK is not benefiting in Sweden RVR in any way. And if your "work behind enemy lines" doesn't benefit your nation in RVR - that's just PIRACY again.

DRUNK members claim they are underappreciated by their nation, but it all comes from the simple fact: they claim to be fighting for the glory of Sweden, but actually their fights are neither glorious nor useful for Sweden nation in RVR.

 

But DRUNK represent the Pirate faction like it should be implemented in game. Hit and run tactics, easy prey, and pure self-gain motives. So best move for them is just reroll and do all the same things but under their true flag.

 

It is utter nonsence. Most of our victims are clan players sailing on 3-rd or Belonas. Are you sure about that? "a lot of Danish players just think "We have a peace with Swedes. Let's just let these ships sails". It seems you never sailed to danish waters. Try to do it and you will be attacked as soon as enemies has advantage. 

We continue to be at war against Denmark but you capitulated in the most shameful way. Even now Danes are constrained by war against Great Britain you continue to be afraid having found a weaker opponent.

Edited by Ingemar Ulfgard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple points

 

If you remember the Sweden - Denmark-Norway peace treaty

a) it was signed when Sweden really had only capitol left and many of their players were ready to LEAVE THE GAME

b ) it was a good-will gesture from Danes to give ports back because GAME DEVS wouldn't immediately do anything to fix that situation, giving vague promises about politics patch and big wipe

c) the terms clearly ALLOW pvp between two nations

d) no port battles, no attacking traders and no mission ganking seem reasonable

 

Reading DRUNK motivation, I don't see immediate reason for their unhappiness. Yes they were attacking PvP in danish waters regularly, everyone was used to it. But attacking our ports was uncalled for.

 

Regarding calls to devs for tribunal, it is only because we cant really do anything to players of your own nation (unless you want to become a pirate which defeats the purpose). So let RNoN troll and go against treaties with their puny forces. The big clans should be able to blow them out of our waters for that. 

Because if small troll clan can ruin the game for all other players of the nation and have no repercussions, I'm sure many will consider leaving

Edited by shifty
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again you are wrong, I understood that a Swedish squadron had marked success against the Dutch and I congratulate them. I have been in Danish territory with drunk captains and a large Danish force attacked them, I and 2 other ABC captains joined the battle to assist them, we were outnumbered and far outgunned. I myself have been tagged by large groups of Danes whilst sailing alone in Danish territory, which is fair does in my books, they felt I was a threat. It happens regularly. But then why shouldn't they take advantage of outnumbering their enemy when they get a chance.

What happens between drunk and swede nation I can't comment on for lack of knowledge.

 

 

It is utter nonsence. Most of our victims are clan players sailing on 3-rd or Belonas. Are you sure about that? "a lot of Danish players just think "We have a peace with Swedes. Let's just let these ships sails". It seems you never sailed to danish waters. Try to do it and you will be attacked as soon as enemies has advantage. 

We continue to be at war against Denmark but you capitulated in the most shameful way. Even now Danes are constrained by war against Great Britain you continue to be afraid having found a weaker opponent.

 

Thank DRUNk for that.

D-N suspects Sverige ships often. And the known names of DRUNK members are looked for amongst the Sverige ships sailing past our waters. And when rennies or other fast ships sail in D-N waters, DRUNK is often found.

Couple points

 

If you remember the Sweden - Denmark-Norway peace treaty

a) it was signed when Sweden really had only capitol left and many of their players were ready to LEAVE THE GAME

b ) it was a good-will gesture from Danes to give ports back because GAME DEVS wouldn't immediately do anything to fix that situation, giving vague promises about politics patch and big wipe

c) the terms clearly ALLOW pvp between two nations

d) no port battles, no attacking traders and no mission ganking seem reasonable

 

Reading DRUNK motivation, I don't see immediate reason for their unhappiness. Yes they were attacking PvP in danish waters regularly, everyone was used to it. But attacking our ports was uncalled for.

 

Regarding calls to devs for tribunal, it is only because we cant really do anything to players of your own nation (unless you want to become a pirate which defeats the purpose). So let RNoN troll and go against treaties with their puny forces. The big clans should be able to blow them out of our waters for that. 

Because if small troll clan can ruin the game for all other players of the nation and have no repercussions, I'm sure many will consider leaving

 

Agreed on all fronts, including the leaving part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- no port battles, no attacking traders and no mission ganking seem reasonable

 

 

- Reading DRUNK motivation, I don't see immediate reason for their unhappiness. Yes they were attacking PvP in danish waters regularly, everyone was used to it. But attacking our ports was uncalled for.

 

 

 

Try to sail to the danish waters on a trader ship and you will learn something new.

 

it was signed when Sweden really had only capitol left and many of their players were ready to LEAVE THE GAME

 

 

That is why you made a silly mistake. We had NOTHING to lose! We had only way forward to swedish glory without shameful treaty! But you got fooled by danes. So their hands are free for war against brits and you owe for "gifted" harbours back.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many danish-norwegian-russian players thought we made a mistake as well. But if we start fighting full-out again, whatever the outcome, only brits will benefit. Which brings us back to the point that willingly or unwillingly, RNoN and DRUNK are british lapdogs. Say whatever brave speeches you want. LAP DOGS!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why you made a silly mistake. We had NOTHING to lose! We had only way forward to swedish glory without shameful treaty! But you got fooled by danes. So their hands are free for war against brits and you owe for "gifted" harbours back.

These kind of words, everyday, in chat and in forum and DRUNK member really believe they behave respectfully.

Also: You're not a crafter as it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reposting because I STILL have not seen any meaningful counter-argument to my analysis from the flame warriors in here for several pages:

 

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, personally, fascinated by the majority of posts in this thread and the frequent lack of logic. So let's do a proper analysis of the dilemma, trying to be as objective as possible:

 

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. If you do not agree with your leadership, you are free to leave the clan or join another one that suits your interests better - and many people actually do that if they are discontent with their leadership.

 

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 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

These two statements contradict each other. While your post is calm and a gentle way of trying to push your views on other players these two statements together certainly aren't logical.

 

All you have established is you want to ostracize people for wanting to PVP in a PVP game! Saying it nicely like you have vs. flaming like most of your team mates have really doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

 

If you actually wanted to use logic you would just concede that your peace deals with other nations only apply to those clans who agree with it and leave it at that. If the Danes aren't complete moron's that should suffice. If the Danes don't get it then your peace deal sucks to begin with and you should be telling the Danes to eat a bag of "insert insult here".

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reposting because I STILL have not seen any meaningful counter-argument to my analysis from the flame warriors in here for several pages:

 

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, personally, fascinated by the majority of posts in this thread and the frequent lack of logic. So let's do a proper analysis of the dilemma, trying to be as objective as possible:

 

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. If you do not agree with your leadership, you are free to leave the clan or join another one that suits your interests better - and many people actually do that if they are discontent with their leadership.

 

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.

 

 

exactly how many times r u gonna repost this?

 

I Think that most have read this and do not want to read it over and over again.

 

But might be that this one really is a Pirate-Parrot, repeating himself.

 

U continue ur fake-war against the Danish lapdogs who Think they rule Sweden, Calling themself "Council".

 

I wonder how they actully speak with their masters, if its "waaf, waaf" or "Woof, woof" or if the Danes force them to go "WØØF,WØØF"?

 

Hope u r proud of getting many XP and Gold while rue the game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. 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.

 

Your outpost solution doesn't solve anything. I run no econ so I can have outpost all over the map so I can go pvp. That is exactly what I mean by sailing across the world to PVP. For this game to succeed I should never have to leave our borders to find pvp.

 

Peace deals, bad port battle timers and terrible execution on behalf of the players means while I play France I have to have an outpost at Cayman Mac so I can sail around the entire island of Cuba to find a fight.

 

My entire point is the game already struggles without any help from the players in creating quality pvp we don't need the players making it worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These two statements contradict each other. While your post is calm and a gentle way of trying to push your views on other players these two statements together certainly aren't logical.

 

All you have established is you want to ostracize people for wanting to PVP in a PVP game! Saying it nicely like you have vs. flaming like most of your team mates have really doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

 

If you actually wanted to use logic you would just concede that your peace deals with other nations only apply to those clans who agree with it and leave it at that. If the Danes aren't complete moron's that should suffice. If the Danes don't get it then your peace deal sucks to begin with and you should be telling the Danes to eat a bag of "insert insult here".

 

How is this contradictory? How am I arguing against PvP?!

 

If you want to PvP as a Swede - go to Island Harbor and PvP small scale, raid the Dutch Lands in the South and catch traders there, join Port Battles against the Dutch navy there or organise one on your own - ALL THE GAME MECHANICS you may be looking for your enjoyment are THERE for you to enjoy. The only limit is that you actually have to get involved in the clan negotiations, councils and whatever form of government a nation (player community) elects to pursue common (national) goals for empire building.

 

If you want to raid, gank, kill, pillage and plunder without anybody's consent and do not give a rat's ass about what goals other player groups pursue - there is even a BUILT IN game feature for that! It is called becoming a PIRATE.

 

So do not twist my words and turn them into an anti-PvP argument, when they are clearly not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your outpost solution doesn't solve anything. I run no econ so I can have outpost all over the map so I can go pvp. That is exactly what I mean by sailing across the world to PVP. For this game to succeed I should never have to leave our borders to find pvp.

 

Peace deals, bad port battle timers and terrible execution on behalf of the players means while I play France I have to have an outpost at Cayman Mac so I can sail around the entire island of Cuba to find a fight.

I must admit ignorance on the politics of the pvp2 server. Is France essentially allied with the nations on its border and therefore has no outlet for pvp without sailing past the ports of your neighbors? If so, I can understand your frustration with this setup.

On pvp1, I am one of the main points of contact for our national council. We are not looking to end pvp but we have made deals with other nations. Most of them, not all, are usually made on a temporary basis in order to attain some other goal, all with the pvp game in mind. Even the relationships that we are trying to build as permanent friendships we generally argue for a simple port arrangement. Ship vs Ship combat is almost always still allowed except with our alliance members which for us, we are contact with much. We have also suggested that borders between us and another neutral country could consist of 6 ports or so that we agree to fight over so that we can still have the PB without worrying about a weaker flank during wars that are more pressing in other directions.

There are many ways to arrange terms with a neighbor that essentially creates a peace without removing the pvp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it's certainly no fun to be a one port nation, and I think that they are acting in a selfish manner (there will be plenty of time to deal the the Danes after we beat the Dutch), I think it is within their right to do so. Until a diplomacy patch is released, we will just have to live with it. Lets all be civil about it.

 

Will discuss the post because it is important

 

This post is an example why in game alliances could have problems.

The voting systems if they are based on reputation/any other tracker WILL exclude some people from the nation and will NOT take their interest into account. 

2 simple examples

  1. Based on the post - 51% of Swedes vote for an alliance with Danes forcing this decision on 49% of Swedes. Right now the rest of Swedes can play as they want. If alliances are in - they won't. 49% of players will leave to other nations or turn pirate.
  2. Some nations with large proportions of peaceful players will vote for peace with everyone - creating PvE nations. Right now some players enjoy pve on the pvp server without interfering with pvp players gameplay. If alliances or peace agreements are in - pvp players will have to leave peaceful nations or again turn pirate

There are no easy choices on how to solve this.

Of course no system is without drawbacks! However, I do think that the current system, or lack of a system, has more serious drawbacks than a voting system. The only merit of the current state is that it's already implemented.

 

1. This is basically democracy, but there is nothing preventing you from requiring larger majorities than 51 % to form an alliance. It is obvious to me that a lot of people will be unhappy about the decisions that the majority make. But since most people have to deal with similar situations all the time, it should be manageable. Those who really don't like where their nation is going can always go pirate, like people did in the age of sail.

 

2. It would be easy to limit the number of alliances that a nation can have at any given time. Say 1, 2, or 3, whatever seems to work out. This would ensure that no PvE nations form, while still allowing for smaller nations to survive among the bigger ones. I actually think a limit on the number of alliances might be a good idea regardless of the mechanism to form alliances. Voting, mission/Jump-something-style, random (like decided by the king or parliament back in Europe/Washington), dev (kind of like random ;) ), or whatever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this contradictory? How am I arguing against PvP?!

 

If you want to PvP as a Swede - go to Island Harbor and PvP small scale, raid the Dutch Lands in the South and catch traders there, join Port Battles against the Dutch navy there or organise one on your own - ALL THE GAME MECHANICS you may be looking for your enjoyment are THERE for you to enjoy. The only limit is that you actually have to get involved in the clan negotiations, councils and whatever form of government a nation (player community) elects to pursue common (national) goals for empire building.

 

If you want to raid, gank, kill, pillage and plunder without anybody's consent and do not give a rat's ass about what goals other player groups pursue - there is even a BUILT IN game feature for that! It is called becoming a PIRATE.

 

So do not twist my words and turn them into an anti-PvP argument, when they are clearly not.

 

 

Theres a war going on between Dutch and Swedes?  How come we didnt notice this in the North? Where is ur Raiders? 

Oh, its to far to sail for you? But you expect DRUNK to sail to the South and fight U there?

Its a fake war and soon we will see the big coalition Dane-Swede-France-Dutch declearing war on Great Brits.

U are just using the game-mechs to build up a force big enough to do it.

 

I am not sure that everyone is happy in this way to play. It is to ruin the Game. The national Councils of these 4 countries should all be brought to the tribunal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this contradictory? How am I arguing against PvP?!

 

So do not twist my words and turn them into an anti-PvP argument, when they are clearly not.

 

When you say in one sentence "we have established that majority decisions concerning national wars DO NOT prevent players from playing the game as they want."

Then you say "The only limit that DRUNK have, is that they should not attack ports that belong to the Danish nation."

 

These statements and idea's would be considered contradictory because obviously DRUNK can't play anyway they want. To put it simply you don't get to say that players can do whatever they want then list something they can't do. You do know what contradictory means right?

 

I have no idea how you are arguing against PVP since I never said that you were. I only said that diplomacy ruins PVP.

 

I am not sure how I twisted your words when I quoted them exactly. I am not turning your words into an anti PVP argument, I am turning your entire team into an anti PVP environment argument. The Swedes are nothing special in regards to peace deals, many other teams do the same things you are doing that ruin PVP but the Swedes on PVP1 are unique in one aspect that you should be repudiated for.  

 

DRUNK paid their money to play the game and they should be able to play it the way they want as long as they stay within the rules Naval Action put in front them.

 

If you want to repay the DRUNK players the $40 they paid to play the game then maybe you can dictate how they play. Otherwise ALL of your arguments about DRUNK are just flat out wrong. Your teams entire stance against these players is disgusting for those of us looking from the outside in.

 

I don't believe their is anything in the service agreement that grants any said clan or player the right to bash players for playing the game differently than you.  

 

If their is any justice in this game some zerg should go curb stomp the Swedes just out of the principle that Swede players views on this subject is bad for all players in all games.

Edited by Vllad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Read my post again.

 

The great, skilfull, "behind enemy lines" work was performed yesterday by members of KF and HRE.

  1. Dutch nation is actually at war with Sweden  so at least it was "behind ENEMY lines". Every Dutch captain will report them in nation chat and will try to attack them - but they managed to skip our patrols.
  2. Dutch nation lost a Pavel(sunk) and Victory(capped, which is twice better) and several Frigate class ships - it was useful for RVR. To cap enemy 1st rate and sank a 2nd in a 10-min sail from enemy's Capital - that's a huge success
  3. It was really skillful and unexpected raid. Most of us were simply not ready for it (Myself was couple-hour sail away in Island Harbour with used TP).
  4. it actually hurt - each 1st rate counts in this war. In one raid we lost one and enemy acquired one.

 

Now compare it with what DRUNKs do:

  1. They are not attacking an enemy. There are no clan tags in OW. I suppose a lot of Danish players just think "We have a peace with Swedes. We shouldn't attack these ships.". At least that's what I do when encounter French or Danish ship.I don't attack every Danish or French ship to check it's clan tag. I don't report them in chat and ignore other platyer's reports about Danish and French ships.  So practically DRUNKs are using false flag - typical PIRATE tactic
  2. They are not hurting Danish in any way. They are hurting only lone mostly PVE people. They haven't sunk any valued Danish SOL(at least I haven't heard of it). But they sank a lot of player traders. So they are going only for an easy prey - again, Pirate tactics.
  3. Danish aren't in war with Sweden. This means there would be no attack on Swedish ports, no patrols sent. Hence - DRUNK is not benefiting in Sweden RVR in any way. And if your "work behind enemy lines" doesn't benefit your nation in RVR - that's just PIRACY again.

DRUNK members claim they are underappreciated by their nation, but it all comes from the simple fact: they claim to be fighting for the glory of Sweden, but actually their fights are neither glorious nor useful for Sweden nation in RVR.

 

But DRUNK represent the Pirate faction like it should be implemented in game. Hit and run tactics, easy prey, and pure self-gain motives. So best move for them is just reroll and do all the same things but under their true flag.

You've done it once, maybe twice. Maybe three times.

We go deep into enemy waters every single day with our fleet, multiple times. We go to the danes and battle, then to the south to let the danes cool down and disorient them of our whereabouts, in the south we take down french. Then back up north because of the previously stated reason.

 

You see it as cowardness.

I see it as playing smart, and if I may quote;

 

If I were the Swedish council I would want use drunk as a weapon, a group of guys willing to take risks and go where most wouldn't. They don't always win but what a pain in the arse of any enemy they must surely be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...