Open letter to Game Labs regarding RNoN and DRUNK.

[Dala]

Because they/you don't have to if they don't want to, and the people who try to pressure them into doing it are the ones in the wrong.

 

Nobody gets to dictate how anyone else chooses to play their game, provided they're within the rules (which these people are). And it really baffles me that some people are too wrapped up in their Napoleon complexes to see that.

well there is a nation for ppl who dont want to work as a team. A nation that excist becuse they wanted to follow their own path. Ur not in it.

 

 

Edited March 31, 2016 by Dala

[Musuko42]

well there is a nation for ppl who dont want to work as a team. A nation that excist becuse they wanted to follow their own path. Ur not in it.

 

I'm sorry, where does it say when you sign into the game that you must work as a team? Green-on-green is disallowed, but co-operation is by no means mandatory.

 

Why are you demanding that other players obey rules that you made up? What on earth is wrong with you people?

[Dala]

so your plan with playing this game is to do Everything in your Power to ruin the gameplay for everyone else

[furyGer]

Diplomatie is the same as a clan. You do it for better positions.

[Dala]

i meen what is the point of a pirate nations if pol like u Guys fick around LIKE pirates in the major nations

[Musuko42]

so your plan with playing this game is to do Everything in your Power to ruin the gameplay for everyone else

 

Firstly, no. I'm part of a clan and work as a team, because I choose to. In any case, what I do personally in the game is not being discussed here.

 

Secondly, don't be pathetic. You know full well I'm saying nothing of the sort.

 

Thirdly, fighting the enemy at all times is the CORRECT way to play the game as it currently stands, as there is no peace mechanic, so the people who choose to do this are only "ruining" the gameplay for people who are themselves misusing the game. RNoN and DRUNK have a much more valid argument for complaining that the Council and their metagaming peace treaties are ruining THEIR game.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Musuko42

[Dala]

you guys have the illusion u are fighting for the nation.

when your clan is stong enough to take on all of the danish and french at the same time u can do what u want. But right bow u arnt. Dont u ser? Ur actions affect everyone in this nation aswell as the ones u attack.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Dala

[Musuko42]

you guys have the illusion u are fighting for the nation.

when your clan is stong enough to take on all of the danish and french at the same time u can do what u want. But right bow u arnt. Dont u ser? Ur actions affect everyone in this nation aswell as the ones u attack.

 

Who are you talking to here? Me? I'm in the British nation, in the AUSEZ clan.

 

Are you making the mistake of assuming that everyone who defends a position is personally invested in it?

[Thonar]

As I've said before; the people who are making the peace deals are the ones who are not playing the game properly, as the current state of the game is that all factions are at war with each-other.

 

You can't moan about clans who are playing the game correctly; fighting the enemy. Until there is a peace mechanic built into the game, you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

This is actually wrong.

This game is still in its Alpha and we are supposed to test/ play it.

It was already stated multiple times that a diplomatic system is going to be introduced into the game.

 

So, the game is intended to be tested/ played with diplomaty in mind, not in its current state. The problems we are currently facing with diplomacy are an important indicator for an upcoming diplomatic system.

It is also important for the balance of the game.

[Guest]

 

Thirdly, fighting the enemy at all times is the CORRECT way to play the game as it currently stands, as there is no peace mechanic

So YOU are the one who decides what is correct and what is wrong in this game? Dang. Good to know that.

[Musuko42]

This is actually wrong.

This game is still in its Alpha and we are supposed to test/ play it.

 

I agree with you that diplomacy will be in the game, and that it's fine and dandy to metagame diplomacy at the moment. What I don't agree with is your suggestion that doing so is helping to test the game mechanics, because treaties made outside of the game have nothing whatsoever to do with the game mechanics.

 

Making treaties outside of the game is not testing the mechanics of the game, any more than my making a cup of tea tests the game mechanics.

So YOU are the one who decides what is correct and what is wrong in this game? Dang. Good to know that.

 

No, the game mechanism that marks everyone except my factionmates as an enemy does.

[Vllad]

This is a compromise, I think both sides can live with because it doesn't change the status quo.

Goal is that no clan is doing diplomacy for the whole of Sweden on its own. Neither is doing KF, nor HRE, nor KSKGE...

the council is making the diplomacy and every clan is free to join it or to go the way of DRUNK.

 

 

You do realize that your entire post is the same exact deal your team keeps offering and they keep rejecting? That by default is not a compromise. Somewhere in your deal I suspect allowing them to attack ports are going to have to be part of it otherwise you are probably wasting your time.

 

Since they don't have to do anything you are asking them to do you may want to try bribery. DRUNK has all the leverage here to play the game anyway they want. If you want them to fall in line I would suggest trying to come up with an incentive.

 

Just as an helpful hint you might want to try and come up with something that is purely PVP related that will keep them very busy and away from the Danes.

 

This isn't that hard gentlemen.

[Musuko42]

edit - doublepost.
 

Edited March 31, 2016 by Musuko42

[Thonar]

I agree with you that diplomacy will be in the game, and that it's fine and dandy to metagame diplomacy at the moment. What I don't agree with is your suggestion that doing so is helping to test the game mechanics, because treaties made outside of the game have nothing whatsoever to do with the game mechanics.

 

Making treaties outside of the game is not testing the mechanics of the game, any more than my making a cup of tea tests the game mechanics.

 

Of course from a technical standpoint current diplomacy doesn't need testing as it isn't implemented on a technical basis.

But you yourself state it is part of the "metagame", which is the important part.

Game-Mechanics in terms of player-interactions and Balancing is well affected by Diplomacy and is thus part of the upcoming game, even when not yet technical implemented.

 

 

 

You do realize that your entire post is the same exact deal your team keeps offering and they keep rejecting? That by default is not a compromise. Somewhere in your deal I suspect allowing them to attack ports are going to have to be part of it otherwise you are probably wasting your time.

 

Since they don't have to do anything you are asking them to do you may want to try bribery. DRUNK has all the leverage here to play the game anyway they want. If you want them to fall in line I would suggest trying to come up with an incentive.

 

Just as an helpful hint you might want to try and come up with something that is purely PVP related that will keep them very busy and away from the Danes.

 

This isn't that hard gentlemen.

 

 

DRUNK has the leverage?

I don't think so actually because time plays for the Council-Side, they can sit the problem simply out without any kind of compromise.

As soon diplomacy is technically implemented into the game, DRUNK will stand within the nation with pants down as outsiders.

€: AFAIK it was said to happen within the next 2 month... so, not really a long time.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Thonar

[De Zeeuwsche Zee]

I suggest we close the topic, since both sides cant get to a compromise.

[Enraged Ewok]

Of course from a technical standpoint current diplomacy doesn't need testing as it isn't implemented on a technical basis.

But you yourself state it is part of the "metagame", which is the important part.

Game-Mechanics in terms of player-interactions and Balancing is well affected by Diplomacy and is thus part of the upcoming game, even when not yet technical implemented.

 

 

 

 

 

DRUNK has the leverage?

I don't think so actually because time plays for the Council-Side, they can sit the problem simply out without any kind of compromise.

As soon diplomacy is technically implemented into the game, DRUNK will stand within the nation with pants down as outsiders.

€: AFAIK it was said to happen within the next 2 month... so, not really a long time.

 

I really doubt diplomacy is going to give you the ability to alienate smaller clans/solo players just because a large clan or coalition of clans has a different idea of how to achieve national goals.

[Thonar]

I really doubt diplomacy is going to give you the ability to alienate smaller clans/solo players just because a large clan or coalition of clans has a different idea of how to achieve national goals.

 

I think a majority will be able to determine the actions of a nation and people who want to act against a majority (and thus the nation), will either be unable to do so or turn pirate.

 

We probably see even a possibility to join a nation from the pirate-status... I at least hope so.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Thonar

[De Zeeuwsche Zee]

How about we disable clans

[Sju Sjösjuka Sjömän]

i just dont get why players who are pirate at heart dont play pirate.

il tell u why. Responsability for their actions. As it is now they can be assholes all Day long without risking anything.

You still don't seem to understand the difference between a pirate and a privateer. 

Let me however help you out so you can understand the difference beetween them.

 

On Steam, Naval Action is described with the following text;

"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 ruled the seas."

 

Realistic. They want realism. That's why you can only play as the nations that actually had ports in "the new world". If they want realism, they should also have privateers. But once again, you say privateers are pirates and that we therefore have chosen the wrong faction. Well. Let us look at these two words, privateer and pirate, and see what they truely mean.

 

Pirate;

"A person who robs or commits illegal violence at sea or on the shores of the sea."

 

Privateer;

"An armed ship that is privately owned and manned, comminissioned by a government to fight or harass enemy ships."

 

Soo.. What is DRUNK doing again..? We're fighting and harassing enemy ships.. Under the flag of Sweden.. So what does that make us? Pirates or privateers? And please, don't just say pirate. Look at the definitions and think really hard buddy. I am sure you will see that you're in the wrong, atleast when it comes to what terms you are using.

Also, to gain those definitions I used http://www.dictionary.com/

[Ingemar Ulfgard]

I think a majority will be able to determine the actions of a nation and people who want to act against a majority (and thus the nation), will either be unable to do so or turn pirate.

 

We probably see even a possibility to join a nation from the pirate-status... I at least hope so.

 

You just want to get the power over swedish nation and be able to decide how people have to play. There is NO any "majority" There are 2 big clans each of which has 2-3 leaders so you hope that these 4-6 "nation leaders" will decide how to play and who must become a pirat. It's your crazy dreams about dictatorship of "council".

Edited March 31, 2016 by Ingemar Ulfgard

[De Zeeuwsche Zee]

I honestly see only one possible solution:

https://tyrionlannister.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/I-demand-a-Trial-by-Combat1.png

[Guest]

You still don't seem to understand the difference between a pirate and a privateer. 

Let me however help you out so you can understand the difference beetween them.

 

On Steam, Naval Action is described with the following text;

"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 ruled the seas."

 

Realistic. They want realism. That's why you can only play as the nations that actually had ports in "the new world". If they want realism, they should also have privateers. But once again, you say privateers are pirates and that we therefore have chosen the wrong faction. Well. Let us look at these two words, privateer and pirate, and see what they truely mean.

 

Pirate;

"A person who robs or commits illegal violence at sea or on the shores of the sea."

 

Privateer;

"An armed ship that is privately owned and manned, comminissioned by a government to fight or harass enemy ships."

 

Soo.. What is DRUNK doing again..? We're fighting and harassing enemy ships.. Under the flag of Sweden.. So what does that make us? Pirates or privateers? And please, don't just say pirate. Look at the definitions and think really hard buddy. I am sure you will see that you're in the wrong, atleast when it comes to what terms you are using.

Also, to gain those definitions I used http://www.dictionary.com/

But Privateers were not allowed to attack allied or friendly ships nor even their ports. That would have been an act of war. So when you people still ganking Danes and French and their ports this has nothing to to with Privateers but only with Pirates. Edited March 31, 2016 by Guest

[Hugo van Grojt]

  you trolls make my day

 

Every day, I can be sure that your "logic" can make me laugh. Thank you, Sju, for this and keep it coming

[Enraged Ewok]

I think a majority will be able to determine the actions of a nation and people who want to act against a majority (and thus the nation), will either be unable to do so or turn pirate.

 

That's great. That only goes against the entire point of having a sanbox MMO, as well as against what the developers envision for the game. The player role in NA is a ship captain, not a policymaker. The closest thing you may get to a player-influenced system is war/peace based on how many ships of another nation you attack. A mechanic where every player in a nation will be voting on national policy and the majority rules is wrong both for the player's ingame role and for the ease with which it could be abused (as in the case of this shitstorm) to force a minority to follow someone else's marching orders.

[De Zeeuwsche Zee]

*grabs popcorn*