Anolytic

It has happened to me that I sailed out with a fleet because I accidentally hit to switch ship instead of moving ship to port. Even though they are two big and distinct buttons, so not the fault of the UI, only hastiness. In any case it's an alpha game. Bugs must be tolerated. And how do you expect devs to fix it if you don't even make the small effort yourself to give them an F11 report with the details they need to identify what happened? From the OP I'm not sure "Early Access" and "Alpha" is for you.

Instead of bringing back capture ships, increase significantly the number of cannons you loot from sunken ships. Every ship sunk could give at least a few guns, and some around a half set.

I imagine that the first time you enter OW/battle you load a lot of assets, that will subsequently be cached and more accessible next time you do. I don't have the problem you describe, except when I use Sandboxie. Playing in sandbox it will always take noticeably longer to load OW, and can take several minutes to load the first battle. If I enter OW with 2 or more accounts simultaneously they will nearly always crash in the loading screen, so the first time in a session I try to enter them one at a time. We have one player in our group, who always before going out to do PvP or Port Battles, makes sure to attack any AI trader just so that he has loaded battle instance once before we start sailing.

I bet it has to do with this: Keep in mind that just because devs have judged the case not to be an exploit doesn't mean they don't consider - or can be convinced to realize - that it is bad gameplay. Make a game-mechanics discussion topic or a suggestion topic to present and discuss a possible solution. Logging out outside Port Battles was also not not judged as an exploit, but it was definitely bad gameplay and devs were right to implement the 30 minute timer for joining PBs as well as the changes that were made to ease the screening imbalances. The latest of these changes is the battle groups which we are now testing and so far seem to work well in the case of 1st rate PBs. The implementation of battle groups happened after the outlaw battle issue was brought to light. The battle groups also mean that there is no advantage to pirates anymore in using battle groups over staying in OW and using battle group as protection. The remaining problem however is 4th rate port battles. They are not fully helped by the battle groups mechanic. And therefore I imagine that pirates would still have a possible advantage over nationals in getting into 4th rate Port Battles by using outlaw battles.

There was once talk of a National News forum where only pre-approved "content creators" would be able to start topics (but anyone would be able to chip in and comment on them). It may seem that this idea has been silently scrapped. I do not support the proposal to have a forum where both OPs and commenters are restricted. Diplomacy and other meta-gaming is just content to the game, created by the players themselves, and anyone should be able to comment on that content, creating more drama and more content. I very strongly disagree with the idea to have a forum tag or in-game tag for diplomats. It would create a special group of players and/or forum users with special privileges. It would only create a group of entitled brats thinking that their word is worth more than any other's in all sorts of situations. "Diplomat" in an unofficial position and should remain so. The status as such is gained by having other players' trust over time, but can also be quickly lost. A forum group named diplomats would make it hard(er) to switch out diplomats for a nation. It would let diplomats hold onto their position simply because they are the ones with access to this speciall forum. And players who got this tag would feel that they had been given some sort of official privileges by the game devs and would quickly start acting like their positions were official, as well as start thinking that they could go around and make political decisions virtually on their own.

The fireship caused the death of 2 ships. Another one died a little later due to having to prioritise hull over sail repair. What unintended use? The mortar brig did perfectly. No reason to nerf it.

We've seen that the leaderboard didn't update for kills on an indefatigable in the shipwreck event area. That kill was not in a mission.

It's a beautiful ship, and the stats are good as well. But sailing it feels a bit like sailing a bathtub and shooting at it is so easy.

Should have read the sign before sailing: I guess we need to bring some bigger ships too next time.

As a national through and through, my opinion here has limited weight. But as I see it, what pirates really need is *some* access to resources/materials without being dependent on owning ports. I.e piggybacking on national ports (without having to use alts). And access to set up detached bases/hideouts inside or in close proximity to their hunting grounds. They would work like freeports - so you couldn't teleport to or from there, but you could store loot and ships (up to 3rd rate), trade with fellow pirates using the same hideout, have a shipyard and craft there. Then conquest wouldn't have to be removed from pirates. They could choose to group up and take part in politics and conquest, or not. Nations could go together (or alone) to "one-port" pirates without affecting real pirate gameplay much or driving players from the game, and pirates could choose to do conquest or not. We all need some form of raids to be implemented. Not just pirates.

I think the conclusion is that ports only give or take points of any kind if they change hands. Presumably to prevent fake hostility flips to generate points for friends. The common understanding of the system amongst most players prior to observing the outcome of Cartagena de Indies seemed to be that successful port defences would give points as well. I do not know exactly where this misconception came from, but with the number of people that were sure this is how it worked there must have been the potential for this misunderstanding somewhere.

We came to the Swedish 2 days ago to hear back about the discussion we had about cooperation on victory marks. We talked to redii and Havelock as representatives of the Council, since Sveno wasn't there. What we were told, and I'm paraphrasing here: "The Swedish Council does not want to cooperate/share/trade the Victory Marks" Meaning: Sweden wants all the Victory Marks. "The Swedish Council has decided to go for the Map win the first week." "The Swedish Council wants an arms race with Danmark-Norge, chewing us through Spanish, British and Pirate ports." But what happens when we both run out of regions to take from other nations? "War between Sweden and Danmark-Norge is inevitable." I don't think this needs any further explanation. Sweden was preparing for a war between us, but did not want it right now, and rather when they had had time to prepare by monopolising all the victory marks at the expense of the other nations. I write fast, thanks. But we knew after the meeting with the council representatives that this was the overwhelmingly most likely outcome. We waited till the next day, to give sveno a chance to convince us that what we had been told in the previous meeting was completely wrong. When he did not, we were prepared. Danmark-Norge is not burdened by a talkative and slowly operating council. We can make decisions quickly when it is needed. And we paid you handsomely for your help, and for risking your screening ships. The council was well informed about our principles and how we disapproved of stomping on weak or disorganised nations and our disapproval from the start with Dominica. Actually, no. We're not that hurried with getting Victory Marks. Unlike many others we converted all of our conquest marks into permits before the patch. The fact that HYDRA is now in Danmark-Norge had no effect on this outcome. We would have been compelled by our principles to make this decision wether we had had 5 or 50 players. We did not want the conflict. Including HYDRA. Sweden chose the conflict. We only took away from you the choice of timing.

From our Arts and Crafts department.

Danes fought a War with pirates. We risked our ships and faced an organised opponent. And we took only two ports, with limited economic value to the pirates, as spoils. And when we saw that the pirates had nothing with which to fight back, we decided to stand down. Whilst Sweden would not make any such commitment. Swedes fought no war, and risked no valuable ships, and yet found it fair for them to take 3 ports, in the economy base of pirates and including an important region, after Danes had done all the hard work against pirates. When pirates became in trouble, we slowed down our conquest, and even cancelled almost all our targets, while Sweden only sped up. We did not want or seek this war. We attempted at every turn to avoid it. Even as we were told directly how the Swedish council was planning a war, and how they prepared for it and saw it as inevitable, we ignored it and kept to our generous attitude. The Swedish Council gave us no choice. If the Swedish Council wants this Victory Marks system, and think it is a good system, then they must take the consequences and test it fully. Too long has Sweden hidden in a corner of the map, safe behind the well protected borders of Danmark-Norge while able to sail out and bully other nations, only sail home to their safe little corner at the end of the day. We heard directly from Council representatives words to the opposite effect. That Sweden was preparing to backstab us. We did not backstab Sweden. We were very clear about our principles from the very beginning after the wipe. We drew a line in the sand, on not using our strong position in bullying small and weak nations, and Sweden stomped all over that line.

Sveno, I have no beef with you personally, so I will take the silk gloves on. You may call it blackmail, I disagree. We only had the two options as we presented them to you. We were not willing as the Swedish, to wheedle away at the smaller nations in a race for the top that would leave the whole server in ruins. We only had the remaining two options to either cooperate between our two nations about sharing the the victory marks, a bad option all around, but good for our two nations and not devastating to the rest of the Caribbean, or our two nations would have to go to war. Sure, the former proposal would have subverted the Victory Marks system that developers implemented, but not an inch less than Swedes bullying their way into hawking all of the Victory Marks for the foreseeable future. You say you wanted to test the Victory Marks-system. But you wanted nothing but an artificial test where Sweden were free to take all the spoils without opposition. The only way a true test can be had, is if the two of us do not cooperate. It became very clear to us that the Swedish Council was only attempting to string us along for a few weeks in order to increase their advantage before they would declare the war themselves. We will not be taken for fools. We decided to say stop now, rather than allow ourselves to be played for fools. I'm very glad that you appreciated my choice of words in that meeting. No. We have no interests in Bahamas. Who said anything about a race? We will be there to trip you up at the finish line! Since we're already talking about what has been discussed between ourselves here, I can confirm that Spain was the next target for Sweden. Despite Danish protests.

Everyone had exactly 1000 hours immediately after the patch it seems. Except for those with foreman perk. One character had 2250 hours after the patch.

Every cycle should start at zero, so only successful attacks or successful defences give points. Otherwise just wiping it this one time you're just taking away from those who have worked hard up until now and have already conquered a lot.

The Victory Mark system, if I have understood how it works correctly, is bad wether or not any nation gets one-ported. While it's a fair idea to think of a bonus for one-ported nations, the priority should be to find something other than the victory marks system. As we seem to be moving there anyway, why not just remove victory marks/conquest marks altogether and let us buy permits for combat marks instead. A victory note is 350 combat marks? That sound fair. It's quite expensive, but anyone can build it if they play for a while. Make it 450 for a Santi and 500 for a L'Ocean. And give Lord Protectors a small pension of combat marks. I.e 1/day for each property and 3/day for important regions. That would still encourage conquest without flooding the market with PvE-marks.

I liked the tournament that we had before, and I'd probably join another one. I'd like another chance to bring repairs... I'm happy to duel you @HachiRoku, although I don't think that it would be any great match. I've never made claim to be a particularly convincing dueller or OW PvP-er. Danmark-Norge has many players that would be a better match for you and be more worthwhile as opponents. Also, I haven't sailed a Connie for a year, and it wasn't high on my list of ships to build, so I'd prefer any duel to be in a different ship.

I remember people used to exploit invulnerability from PvE-instances to travel safely between certain ports. And it's already a frequent occurrence that people spawn missions around their sailing routes that they jump into when they get chased, and because they are capped to a max rate it is often not possible to follow them into their mission and they can hide in there for safety. There are several relatively off track and unfrequented spots around the map where people can do PvE with low chances of getting interrupted. But I don't think there should be any extra safety measures for PvE on the PvP-server. They do get abused and they do make PvP even less frequent. I have been jumped and ganked a hundred times in missions, outside missions, in open sea and in docking range. It is part of what it means to play on the PvP-server.

If you want to make a suggestion or have a gripe with some mechanics, then you should bring that to the appropriate subforum, and not to tribunal. Tribunals are for dealing with issues between players. The players who you show here in your screenshot did nothing wrong and do not deserve to be accused in the tribunal. Regarding your complaint, crosses for PvE instances do disappear from the OW after a short while just like PvP-instances (except outlaw battles). The players that ganked you either spotted you entering your mission and couldn't follow because they had a constitution with them, or they happened upon you coincidentally as you left your instance. Also: always always always bring repairs. Then when you see someone around you on the OW after exiting your mission you can pop your repairs and be ready to fight them.

There's the PvE-server, you know. There is no safety for doing PvE on the PvP-server. And there shouldn't be. Invisibility or other bonuses after PvE-instances is not needed and would lead to abuse.

Unless there is something in the chat there, written in Spanish, in which case it should have been reported in-game, there is nothing tribuneable shown here as far as I can see.