clans exchanging ports without battle!

[elvismolotov]

ahoy

 

i m playing under the flag of the vereinigte provincien and i have noticed several actions that i would like to investigate.

it looks like that some clans agreed on exchanging ports as part of their negotiations . involved for sure is DAS clan.

now i couldent find any post where thoose "friendly agreements" might be published in advance .

without notice i find it rather distracting if i see the ingame message "bla bought flag for port xy",then sail there and meet a bunch of players ,many of them allies who play their own diplomacy game . and if i dare to attack the hostile flagcarrier i get a dozend shit pm s telling me i have to stay out of it ....

as far as i know "diplomacy" is a feature that is planned for the future......

so dear captains please enlighten me . what is going on ?

[OlavDeng2]

Diplomacy is going on, with the current mechanic some nations are in such a position they cant mount an effective port battle attack without some port jumping from the allies, as far as i am aware i dont think this is against the rules and as far as i am aware this will(or should) not happen when the politics and rewamped port battles are in.

[Mrdoomed]

ahoy

i m playing under the flag of the vereinigte provincien and i have noticed several actions that i would like to investigate.

it looks like that some clans agreed on exchanging ports as part of their negotiations . involved for sure is DAS clan.

now i couldent find any post where thoose "friendly agreements" might be published in advance .

without notice i find it rather distracting if i see the ingame message "bla bought flag for port xy",then sail there and meet a bunch of players ,many of them allies who play their own diplomacy game . and if i dare to attack the hostile flagcarrier i get a dozend shit pm s telling me i have to stay out of it ....

as far as i know "diplomacy" is a feature that is planned for the future......

so dear captains please enlighten me . what is going on ?

Pvp1 or 2 ?

[elvismolotov]

pvp1 eu is the server ...

[Mrdoomed]

pvp1 eu is the server ...

Ah. No idea what the reasons are there but kn pvp2 it seems Britain let the dutch capture a few of their ports closer to the action ( which i dont see a problem with ) and they seem to work as a motherland and vassle state thing.

[Pugsy Hurley]

I dont see the problem, its just diplomatics; lets move on, nothing to see here!

[Namuras]

Just attack the flag carrier There is nothing stopping you, not even mean PM's... Others can not have a say over how you want to play this game. 

[The Spud]

Just attack the flag carrier There is nothing stopping you, not even mean PM's... Others can not have a say over how you want to play this game. 

 

Technicaly you can do this, and if it is not green on green, there is no game rule stopping you from doing this.

But you just shouldn't do this.

 

If you do this you are litteraly boycotting your own nation and making yourself very unpopular whilst doing so. Allot of communication is done by teamspeak and is never written down in national chat or forums, and it might be of big strategic importance that the port is flipped to an allied nation. If you try to sink the flagcarrier, you are basicaly shooting your own foot.

 

There is no rule in football (soccer for the US guys) that says you can't repeatedly kick the ball out of the field when you have the ball, you can do this its perfectly legal, but nobody does it because there is just no point in doing it.

[admin]

nations trade land with each other - we don't see this a problem

[akd]

nations trade land with each other - we don't see this a problem

Attackers receive rewards whether port is defended or not. Bringing large numbers of Gros Ventre along with a few heavy ships to take down towers could potentially make trading a port back and forth hugely lucrative for both parties. Things become even more complicated and potentially exploitable when attackers win control (voting power) over their nation just for taking a port, whether defended or not.

Those of us without arranged port trading opportunities may feel it is a bit unfair we have to spend hours grinding AI for modules while others arrange port transfers and soak up the loot.

[Tac]

It's part of the new friendly relationship between the swedes and the Dutch earned through toil and war, think of it as a lend lease programme, or as I like to call it "clogs for blondes", so lighten up elvis or you'll giver yerself a hernia old boy.

[Namuras]

Technicaly you can do this, and if it is not green on green, there is no game rule stopping you from doing this.

But you just shouldn't do this.

 

If you do this you are litteraly boycotting your own nation and making yourself very unpopular whilst doing so. Allot of communication is done by teamspeak and is never written down in national chat or forums, and it might be of big strategic importance that the port is flipped to an allied nation. If you try to sink the flagcarrier, you are basicaly shooting your own foot.

 

There is no rule in football (soccer for the US guys) that says you can't repeatedly kick the ball out of the field when you have the ball, you can do this its perfectly legal, but nobody does it because there is just no point in doing it.

That puts all the more responsebility on the ones make those deals. They need to make it public via forums and spam their nation chat for a day or more... just to make sure that players not in clans or in clans not in the council are aware of these deals. And from there on they can only hope that those players and clans comply... 

If they do not comply there are consequences... aka beeing the unpopular guy.

 

As for the football example: plenty of times the winning team will stall the game at the end by kicking the ball out of the field just to run the timer down. 

Edited April 28, 2016 by Namuras

[The Spud]

That puts all the more responsebility on the ones make those deals. They need to make it public via forums and spam their nation chat for a day or more... just to make sure that players not in clans or in clans not in the council are aware of these deals. And from there on they can only hope that those players and clans comply... 

If they do not comply there are consequences... aka beeing the unpopular guy.

 

As for the football example: plenty of times the winning team will stall the game at the end by kicking the ball out of the field just to run the timer down. 

 

Well tactics almost never get spread on the national chat, because of the spies, maybe in this case it could have been spread on national chat. I do agree some people should approach things a bit more chill, if you see someone sailing up that is not involved in what is happening. You can just pop him a friendly private message explaining things, i'll agree on that. Clans should embrace the publical players more...

 

This still doesn't mean you should sink the flag carrier.

 

And I don't think port flipping is done for the profit of it, we would all notice strange port flipping behavior, and so would the devs.

 

The footbal example, i think you got my point, you should do what is best for the team, even if you think otherwise or feel offended. That is my opinion.

 

If publical players want to get more involved in the game, and the politics behind it, I would recommend they start or join a clan. This will give you great insight in what is happening, even a smaller clan will usualy know what is going down diplomacy wise.

 

People don't need to act bad, because other players act bad, because where would all this end?

[Oliver Tressillian]

Ahoy ye Sailors

 

Whats going on here, i.e. the Nationals exploiting a game mechanic and being condoned by te Dev's ? / [Admin]

 

That's not right is it?

 

We all know that it does provide rewards, if ports are being swapped to and fro and it does not have to be very regular to not be right and because its done with intervals and not too often or in quick succession to alert anybody let alone the Dev's, does not qualify it as being game Diplomacy or Tactics.

 

This should be investigated and stopped and or be openly published in the forums.

 

Should "land" be "sold" to any nation, due to supposedly Diplomacy or Tactical reasons, it must be made public beforehand on the forum for comment and that land must be locked for a period of time in the name of the nation buying said land, so that no unto hold rewards can be generated by swapping the port to and fro.

 

That "land" or port must then be locked, i.e. in the name of the nation "buying" it and only be available to be retaken by an event opened by the Dev's, where all nations can have an opportunity to go and plant a flag there and put the port up for battle.

 

Please have a poll for this and it stinks to high heaven.

 

On the other hand should it be done to get closer to the "Pirate" Nation, please continue, as we are having a hell of a time sailing around getting good pvp or port battle fights anyway and would welcome you being close so we don't have to go look for you for hours on end.

 

Yours truly

Sir Oliver Tressillian

May yer anchor be tight, yer cork be loose, yer rum be spiced, yer compass be true and may yer guns be loaded for the problem is not the problem, the problem is yer attitude about the problem.

[Thonar]

Giving ports to allies is a normal diplomatic procedure in this game.

If you want to play against the diplomatic stance of your country: Nobody can stop you doing so, but you should consider: People will remember your name and might not help you, when you need it.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Thonar