Anolytic

I don't think you get how treaties are made, and you clearly have no idea how the Treaty of the Antilles (which I assume you are referring to) was signed.

Would be a good system - if the developers could pay whoever was elected as leader of a faction full time pay for working as a diplomat rather than playing the game. I think the system here looks promising. I see some areas where it might need some tweaking to improve implementation, but probably half of my objections have already been thought of and addressed by the developers, so I'm going to test the current system first .

The great difference here is that you have up to 90 minutes to gather at a static location using Teamspeak. Besides a small fleet of ships would have been able to communicate with each other at short distances using semaphores. So ships already sailing together being able to communicate is completely realistic, while a ship out at sea telephoning home to Kingston and offering GPS location and accurate numbers of enemies is completely unrealistic. Sorry, but the PvE-server is that way ===> Only 4 nations? How cute! Every single nation in-game, except our allies France, have gank squads stationed in Vieques, a free town which is almost on top of our green zone. Great Britain has the largest population of any nation by far, able to fight simultaneously on multiple fronts. The geography of Danmark-Norge has been formed through months of hard work by only a handful of RvR-players. And still, every time the brits start to loose the mechanics or rules are changed in their favour. Your capital is well protected, further away from a free town than any other nation. Don't get me wrong though, I prefer the challenge. But I get annoyed when Brits start whining and screaming for even more of an advantage. This issue will not and cannot be solved by players (from ALL nations) themselves as they are and remain the weak link. In the end its game mechanics deciding the outcome of many actions, and this one is included. From what I have read this is the issue - it's not about who can claim superior decorum in battle. Over time it has been proven that the latter is pointless. 2. At 19 knots it would take at least 22-25 min to get close to Kingston from Ile-a-Vache, at the same speed it takes 4 min to get to Christiansted from Vieques. 3. If by countermeasures you mean revenge fleets, then they are as already stated extremely gamey and should not be favoured. However I too would like to see the end of waiting in BR screen for no other purpose than to avoid what's waiting outside. This should be achieved by making escape easier and forcing revenge fleets to spread out and have to actually patrol. This would simulate a raised alertness around a capital's waters after a privateer incursion. Introducing a semi-random drop out point for reentry to the OW after a battle (though of course keeping all ships of one side together and reentering at the same spot) would possibly be the way to go. As for making ganking in capital waters more dangerous, I have already proposed land artillery as a better alternative than catering to the gamey teleport revenge fleets.

It may help you to sail smaller ships, change tactics or perks. And craft medical kits. Once I figured out the crew management changes I found that it didn't affect my sailing that much except that I had to go back to port a little bit more often. Even when I didn't have as much time to play.

2. Saying that people should only do PvP if they have guaranteed 3 hours to spare is just ridiculous. And the devs have clearly stated on multiple occasions that the ability to log off or take a break after a long battle is necessary. That people use the battle results screen to hide from revenge fleets is a consequence of the revenge fleets and their ability to use GPS and voice communication to organise. 3. The point of patrolling around capital waters is to make slipping past with a gank fleet more difficult. And just because you don't know of it... 4. If you couldn't catch a big french fleet in the open seas, that is your mistake for not getting to the first battle in time, and then for wasting your time waiting at the spot of the battle. And I only have your word regarding the numbers, and those are only ship counts, not BR counts. I do not know if the battle would have been fair, and neither would they have as they couldn't know what fleet was waiting for them outside. But if you're talking about a specific fleet "avoiding PvP" that is a completely separate issue from your talks in the OP about a tribunal and about game mechanics. You can try to make a gentlemen's agreement for people not to wait in battle screen specifically to avoid a fight, but then revenge fleets should also be outlawed equally or limited in relative size. As a tactic I do not favour it, but with the revenge fleets it is a necessary evil. As a mechanic it has been clearly and repeatedly laid out why it is necessary to keep the battle result screen as it is. Hahaha. I can't believe I'm hearing these things from a Great-easymode-Britain player. My primary playstyle is Port Battles. I have never been in a gank fleet and I haven't sailed around Kingston since Danmark-Norge held Port Morant months ago. You're talking about tribunals and changes to mechanics which will affect the game in a negative way with consequences far outside of a few gank fleets around Jamaica. And considering that the last time brits whined about ganking outside Kingston it led to the end of tagging inside the green zone, this new whining about mechanics should not go unanswered. _______________________________________________ What I would like to see, which the devs talked about when they first removed the AI reinforcements option, is artillery batteries/towers on land. So forts would be located along the shore in strategic locations, and tagging within sight of these would endanger you to come under fire from land artillery. And naturally forts near a nation's capital would be stronger and have longer range, so attacking a national near his capital would cause you to come under heavy fire from the shore. Danmark-Norge historically had multiple fortifications around St. Croix.

2. That's 3 hours, plus the time it takes to sail to and from. And unlike every other nation it takes a lot of time to sail to the vicinity of Kingston, because there is no free town close to Jamaica. 3. I know of several clans where one of their collaborative objectives is patrolling around their nations' capitals. It can successfully make ganking in the area more difficult. 4. The equivalent of this is that any captain sighting an enemy ganking fleet in open waters, or being targeted by such a fleet, can call out on Teamspeak or in nation chat. And ships that are already ready to set sail, or sailing within visible range can come to his aid. Spending 20-or indeed 90-minutes gathering a revenge fleet to wait out at the GPS-coordinates has absolutely nothing to do with it. By the time these ships are gathered, the battling ships will have chased each other far away from the spot where the battle were initiated, and usually the battle would be over and the privateers long gone. However due to the instance system revenge fleets are possible, but then again so is waiting in battle result screen. It's nations' fault (including my own) not being organised enough to reach the spot of a battle before the battle closing. Sail together or die alone!

Calling a revenge fleet to wait out a battle that's going on is the completely unrealistic thing. Ships had neither telephone (Teamspeak) nor GPS at the time. By the time friendly forces would come upon wreckage and debris, the participants of a battle would be long gone. There is nothing exploitative about waiting in battle results screen when the battle is over if you know that a huge revenge fleet is waiting outside. If you wanted to improve on the current system a mechanic should be added that participants in a battle would not reenter open world from an instance in the exact spot the instance started, and anyone outside an instance should have no way of predicting exactly where an enemy would reenter open world.

I almost always drag my group window to the right bottom corner of my screen when I am in a big group. Since it is not possible for the pointer to leave the screen area, there is always a few pixels of the group window left inside the edges that I can drag back in if I know where to find them. Otherwise you just have to look hard or just randomly try to drag the edges.

Look around the edges of your screen. You have probably dragged it out to the edge of your screen. Just find a sliver of it and drag it back in.

It is probably a reward for some kind of effort, like submitting bug reports, suggesting Officer Perks that got in with this patch, or similar.

We have launched a new Teamspeak server for RDNN, which is also being offered as a national Teamspeak for all of Danmark-Norge. More information here: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15453-danmark-norge-national-teamspeak/ We also host a national forum and website at danmarknorge.org

On behalf of the nation of Danmark-Norge, the Royal Danish-Norwegian Navy [RDNN] announces the launch of its national Teamspeak server. Any and all captains sailing under the white cross is welcome to join the server and get access. All Danish clans are invited to join, regardless of their stance towards the National Danish-Norwegian Council and any participation in the meta-game. The National Teamspeak is an offer to all Dane sailors, whether they are members of a clan or not. Independent players, privateers (kapere), have their own rooms and their access will enable them to participate in nation events alongside clan players. We have dedicated War Rooms for organising PvP and RvR in cooperation between clans and players of all creeds. To get access and dedicated channels for their clan, Clan Leaders should register on the website and go ahead to this forum and make a post. More information about the server is to be found here: danmarknorge.org/teamspeak Jump on the Teamspeak Server here: ts3server://na.danmarknorge.org Diplomats and representatives of other nations are invited to come on our TS to be granted access to our diplomatic channels, and communicate with our Ambassadors. (The Teamspeak server was created with the Danmark-Norge population on PvP1EU in mind, but should there be a request for it an expansion to include Danish-Norwegian players from PvP2 can be done.)

The changes to acceleration/deceleration looks incredible on paper at least. It will add another level to the battle mechanics. I look forward to trying this when implemented. Unfortunately I probably won't have the opportunity to play when the cannonball damage test bed goes up. I'm going on holiday to the actual sea. I hear the graphics and the physics implementation there is amazing.

Hardcore doesn't have to be about being online every day. At least that is not what I meant. It is about players who want to play the game as a simulator, exploring ship strengths and weaknesses, tactics and play with conquest mechanics. You can still be "hardcore" and part of a big RvR clan if you are only online for a few hours every Saturday evening.

I have no dislike for any players, and I did not say I wanted the devs to ignore anyone. The game has to be balanced between aiming for the casual and aiming for the hardcore player base. I said I hope they do not balance it too much in favour of the casual players, because long term the game will be healthier focusing on the hardcore players. This is not an EA game. This is a simulator. People are recreating tactics from Trafalgar, and trying to figure out how to best fight with realistic mechanics. If you dumb it down and remove the tactics and coordination aspect the game is going to be ruined for a significant portion of the in-game population, and the players who create content and help improve the game by testing and reporting bugs are going to leave.

Well. Given that this treaty practically only affects RvR for Danmark-Norge players, what is your problem with it?

If you're only on about game mechanics, then you are definitely posting this topic in the wrong forum. And you should make your point clear in your OP. As it is now it seems you are only complaining about the way other players play the game. PS. God, I hope devs don't cater too much to the casual gamers. They may be in the majority, but they are not the ones who stick around for years to play a simulator sandbox. And as long as Port Battles cannot be played in a lossless fashion, jumping into big battles without Teamspeak, and without being willing to cooperate with other players, is not going to be popular with the other players who do like to organise and like to win.

You are free to ignore the diplomacy. This treaty fully takes into account that not all clans wish to participate in the meta-game. However any clan may decide its own course and if you don't want to follow the diplomacy that a clan has acknowledged, then you are better off leaving the clan. Now you have your own clan you can decide not to follow the diplomacy. Noone is insisting that you do. As you do not participate in RvR your position has very limited impact on the rest of the nation, and vice versa. Play as you like. Just don't go complaining about other clans cooperating and playing the game how they like. Live and let live. Nobody is trying to kill your gaming experience.

Any clan is free to decide their own rules for their clan members and how they stand in relation to other clans. You didn't like how your clan was operating and so you left your old clan and made a new one, which you are totally free to do. All of the latest diplomacy and meta-game takes into account that not all clans of a nation can be bothered with the meta-game or want to play the game cooperatively. The only flak you have been getting in Danmark chat, to my knowledge, is for flaming those players of the faction that do want to play have the meta-game, and do like to cooperate across clans and nations, and don't leave clan-mates behind in battle. You and your clan is free to play the game as you like, without diplomacy and without ports. I seem to remember however, that this is not what you wanted to do. You wanted to decide that we should have different alliances and different enemies, against the wishes of the majority of clans in the faction.

It has been indicated previously that the clan leader may send an in-game mail to Ink, and he might be able to help you out. But no promises.

I know that at least some of Jeheil's "informants" stopped submitting reports because despite making a point of relying on reports from every nation, the reports from some nations were completely ignored to fit an agenda rather than report facts. So I wouldn't get my hopes up. ----------- I am waiting to see how long it takes before the Dutch change alliances over their pet cause "server balance"...

The difference is when those 6am timers are set in Hispaniola it is a 6am timer for both parties, set (by the brits) only to grief the other. If it was US players setting the timer to their primetime that would of course cause the enemy problems, but it would not be unfair. What would be unfair would be denying the US to set their own timers responsibly. The US setting US timers against Europeans and vice versa would be complicated for both parties, but it is totally natural as those timers would then be set only out of a desire to have fights in ones own primetime. In the case of the French 12-14 timers, they were properly defended by players playing in that timezone. Moreover, the Swedes, who they were set against had a strong player base in that timezone too. As evidenced not only by Sweden taking defended ports in that timer, but also by the fact that they repeatedly used 10-12 / 12-14 timers against Denmark-Norway. Danmark-Norge did not launch complaints about Sweden doing that, because they consistently had more than 40 RvR-players to defend that timer even if we only were able to muster 12 people at that time back then.

As you yourself note, the game is in Alpha (not Beta), so there is obviously a lot of things that are still not completed. I agree with you that AI fleets should tag players. They are not completely useless now, as they protect friendly players sailing close to them and they are a risk factor when tagging in enemy waters, but they are pretty much decorative robots the rest of the time. This should change. I agree that nations are very much unbalanced. And some mechanics pile onto this, making small nations very hard to play. But I absolutely don't want "safe zones". There should be no areas free from PvP, and no uncaptureable ports save for capitals. Sailing in this game is interesting because there is always a risk involved. Regarding Port Battles, you are knocking in an open door. The developers have long since announced they are working on a complete rework of the conquest system. There will be land in Port Battles, completely different defences, and so on. Though hopefully not AI as you suggest. Port Battles should be defended by players, not AI.

Indeed. Making conquest regional rather than about individual ports would be a great idea. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14754-proposal-for-regional-conquest-in-naval-action/

What would be required to change your mind? I miss the updates already. I believe people might not have been paying attention because of summer and the EC. Also some might overlook this topic because it's a sticky and not check back as frequently.