Plans for Reputation and Sailing changes

[Despe]

13 minutes ago, Archaos said:

It is very possible for one nation to attack another with weapons made in that country. In the Falklands conflict British ships were sunk with French (NATO member) Exocet missiles fired from French Super Etendard aircraft. So an allies weapons being used against you.

And by the way what have they stolen from you? you have lost nothing, they may be taking advantage of your efforts, but they are not stealing.

Does every single player who contributed to the development of the port have that same deal that you have with those alts or do most just accept that it happens? If I had helped develop the port and I came to you saying I had a problem with one of the alts because their main sunk my trade ship using a ship they had crafted in that port, would you kick them then? Are your actions making deals with certain alts not a slap in the face for others who have invested in the port, using your logic.

How much exocet had Argentina? I remember like 12 or something... And what happen when war starts? French governement ban the argentinians for buying more. And Argentina buy before the war that weapons because they have an agreement with french for that, they dont had and alt for crafting exocets on Paris and after that use that exocets vs the french navy xD... So you are saying absurd arguments. In this world if any contry have weapons of United States, China or Russia is because that country have a deal with them. And in this game it would be the same.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Despe

[Despe]

8 minutes ago, Cathal Brugha said:

While the allies were bombing the Schweinfurt ball bearing factories in WW2, a US bank and South American countries were helping US factories sell and funnel ball bearings to Germany. So yes, it is possible.

And how many alts had nazi germany on United States crafting carriers, submarines, destroyers, mustangs and shermans for war efforts? I remember that zero.

[Archaos]

2 minutes ago, Despe said:

How much exocet had Argentina? I remember like 12 or something... And what happen when war starts? French governement ban the argentinians for buying more. And Argentina buy before the war that weapons because they have an agreement with french for that, they dont had and alt for crafting exocets on Paris... So you are saying absurd arguments. In this world if any contry have weapons of United States, China or Russia is because that country have a deal with them

You are the one constantly trying to compare the game to the real world. In the real world you do not have permanent enmity with all other nations and there are periods where nations are at peace. Nations at peace allow other nations buy their armaments, being at peace is the same as being neutral in this respect so it is correct that neutrals should have access to those bonuses.

Its a game and it should not emulate real world, so stop trying to compare it to real world, because your arguments also fail there.

[GhostOfDorian]

46 minutes ago, Archaos said:

But if the Devs introduce it to the game then it is within the rules and is not an exploit same as you say for spying and economic warfare. I feel it is more of an exploit now that certain people let their friends from other nations have alts in their clan to allow them access to crafting bonuses that they have not worked for. I do not see you going on a crusade to get all these alts removed from your clans as they are stealing your efforts. At present if I wanted I know I can get a ship crafted in VC because I know people in my nation who have alts with access to VC, and nearly any other player can get the same if they ask around. The neutral thing only makes it easier to do.

REDS is keeping the balance between inviting new players and kicking those we think that they are only alts. We don't start a witch hunt, but we are no idiots as well. The fact that we might not decover every alt in our clan doesn't mean that port bonuses should be opened for everybody, since we have already some players who can craft in VC while they should be banned.

There is no point in discussing existing players, if they can craft in VC or not. There are existing players out of other nations we allow to craft in VC with their alts. And we have good reasons for that move, we will not discuss in this forum. Since it is not your business and it doesn't add any good argument to the discussion we have here.

Players who participate from our upgrade without permission steal the military advantage we got out of our grind. Or do you think that the Russian spy who stole the plans for the nuclear bomb out of Los Alamos should be rewarded because he didn't do any damage to the United States?

Edited August 3, 2020 by GhostOfDorian

[Despe]

7 minutes ago, Riot stick said:

Ps. Despe, remember Anolytic's standing order for you on the forum...

Talking about private conversations on TS are not business on this forum, and nobody here give me orders. If you wanna a good discusion about that mechanic, im wellcome to that, if you wanna troll me with probably reportable comments like this, i will put you on ignore.

6 minutes ago, Archaos said:

You are the one constantly trying to compare the game to the real world. In the real world you do not have permanent enmity with all other nations and there are periods where nations are at peace. Nations at peace allow other nations buy their armaments, being at peace is the same as being neutral in this respect so it is correct that neutrals should have access to those bonuses.

Its a game and it should not emulate real world, so stop trying to compare it to real world, because your arguments also fail there.

It is not a question of compare game with real world, it is a question of compare war in game with war in real world... war had rules and that rules are logical not ilogical. And have an army af alts making ships in a country that you attack it is a ilogical and surreal mechanic. Ant this is only if we talk about of this. But, in my opinion, you still do not give a valid argument to justify that an army of alts can take the work of others.

In any case, i finish this conversation. I think everyone's opinions are clear and we will not advance in this issue with the discussion, that in any case was wellcome.

Best regards!

[van Veen]

You can complain about clans having too much power all you want, but this did not come over night. The first change in this direction was this here:

Quote

Clan taxation

• Clans controlling the port can lower taxes
• Clans controlling ports have to pay maintenance (which was previously paid by the governments) 
• Clans can increase port maintenance to add the following improvements
  • Open access to port to everyone (declaring it neutral)
  • Reduce labor hour costs in the town
  • Increase NPC goods supply in the town
  • Benefits and numbers are for testing purposes and might change
• If maintenance cost is not paid the town will turn back to neutral as government officials will abandon the town if not paid.

Clans were given more power allowing them to control who has access to its resources.

Quote

Port importance for clans and rare resource spawns

• Changes to rare woods spawns and access
  • Rare woods resources now only have limited trading spawns in the Carribean.
  • Rare woods forests can now randomly spawn somewhere in the Caribbean in limited quantities. (can be fully exhausted)
  • These rare woods now can be received by clans using delivery missions
  • Сlans and clans on their allies list have access to these missions
  • Getting rare woods by using missions reduces their supply. One supply is fully cut down the forest will spawn elsewhere in another port. 
  • Rare woods are: Live oak, white oak, bermuda cedar, teak, mahogany, caguarian, sabicu.

Then, port upgrades were introduced to max 55 points (largest ports).

Quote

Investments. 

• Clan alliances can now expand production of resources in ports
• Clan alliances can now expand shipbuilding in ports
• Clan alliances can now improve defenses in ports
• Investments will drop their level after you lose the port, multiple losses of ports will lose all investments (to remove port trading)
• Forts destroyed in port battles will have to be rebuilt
• Clans will be able to decide who can access the facilities and build them
• Once you build the facility you will be able to use it even if you are kicked from clan  or alliance (provided you are in the same nation).
• Other nations WILL NOT use the facilities and investment benefits 
• Ship building bonuses are created by clan alliance only if they build ships in their city. Other captains (who are not part of the alliance are not going to be able to hire artisans trained by clans).
• Due to limited investment points some cities will have to specialize – in the first iteration there are going to be 2 types of towns
  • Resource base
  • Shipbuilding base
  • Or a mix of two
• There is a limited number of ports that can build amazing ships with all the possible bonuses. Nations will have to fight for them.
• This is a first iteration of the feature so expect bugs and problems

Then, this was expanded by introducing wooden chest/money locker investments to further increase the port upgrade limit.

Quote

Port investments.

• Clans and large groups of people can now develop ports above their initial fixed points
• 25 points (initially) can be added to ports using investments.
• Every investment level gives 1 extra point to port development.
• Investment are expensive and will require group effort

So it was a long term development. All crafting and associated econ was bit by bit put under the control of the port owning clan. 

Now, the karma system is a good change. Karma is not the issue here. It is about letting any neutral foreign player use the port investments. This seemingly minor side-move basically makes all the changes made in the last 3 (!) years undone.

All the investments giving power to the clans required more grind. The motivation to do this dull, repetitive AI grind was to have an edge in shipbuilding for your clan and your allies. This motivation will drop to zero if neutrals can bypass the friendlist. 

 

In addition, the importance of nations will basically removed. Foreign neutrals now can do the same or more (in case the friendlist is removed completely, this is not clear to me) than co-nationals. In effect, everyone and their mother will set up a shipyard in VC with a foreign neutral alt and send a Russian alt there to do the hauling. Having two alts is then basically a must-have. 

In terms of RVR, this will freeze the status quo, because no one with an alt and shipyard in a foreign port wants to see this setup change, because a lost port battle would mean reduction of investments. So, port ownership will never change, until a major clan decides to switch nations just to piss off all those alts. But then this clan settles somewhere else and it'll be the end of the RVR game, cause no one in their right mind will do that twice. 

As Tiedemann said: you might as well just remove port bonuses altogether. 

It was a bad idea in the first place. 

[Archaos]

6 minutes ago, GhostOfDorian said:

REDS is keeping the balance between inviting new players and kicking those we think that they are only alts. We don't start a witch hunt, but we are no idiots as well. The fact that we might not decover every alt in our clan doesn't mean that port bonuses should be opened for everybody, since we have already some players who can craft in VC while they should be banned.

There is no point in discussing existing players, if they can craft in VC or not. There are existing players out of other nations we allow to craft in VC with their alts. And we have good reasons for that move, we will not discuss in this forum. Since it is not your business and it doesn't add any good argument to the discussion we have here.

Players who participate from our upgrade without permission steal the military advantage we got out of our grind. Or do you think that the Russian spy who stole the plans for the nuclear bomb out of Los Alamos should be rewarded because he didn't do any damage to the United States?

But in your search for alts you also run the risk of alienating genuine players, I have seen this happen in other nations so I do know it happens.

You choose to allow certain players and their alts from other nations access to craft in your ports but do not want to discuss why you grant them that access. This can only lead people to believe that what you get back from those players is worth your while and surely this can only be at a detriment to other nations. This goes back to my insinuations that Redman29 took offense to about coercing other nations players and using the crafting of bonuses as some form of control. So I think it has a huge part to play in discussions as your objections to these changes may be so you can maintain that control and influence over other nations players.

But people keep saying that the extra mast and rig bonus that you get crafting at VC is nothing and makes no difference to the ability of the ships. If that is the case then why so protective about it. Remember in all this that you too can go to another nation and craft ships, go and "steal" some of their effort from them.

[GhostOfDorian]

The reason for every military alliance is to get a certain control over the descissions of another nation. Every good deal requires that both sides have an advantage. Port bonuses are a huge advantage we offer our allieds. Its our part of the deal.

Mast and rig 4 is a question of prestige to show the server what we are able to do. You see, sadly we cannot built splendid Avenues in Vera Cruz to show the world our power, impresse our friends and scare our enemies. And it is a an advantage for smaller PvP ships. Nobody is hotter for it than Ram Dinark.

[Archaos]

14 minutes ago, van Veen said:

In terms of RVR, this will freeze the status quo, because no one with an alt and shipyard in a foreign port wants to see this setup change, because a lost port battle would mean reduction of investments. So, port ownership will never change, until a major clan decides to switch nations just to piss off all those alts. But then this clan settles somewhere else and it'll be the end of the RVR game, cause no one in their right mind will do that twice. 

As Tiedemann said: you might as well just remove port bonuses altogether. 

It was a bad idea in the first place. 

I am well aware of how the game has evolved and look at where we are now with all this. Do you really not see that serious RvR is dead in the game, it only takes place if the dominant nation allows it. The dominant nation sits there and dictates what can and cant happen all the time further securing their own position. Lesser nations are allowed to attack each others ports reducing their investments so no one can affect the status quo. If any one other nation gets too strong then they are slapped down with the aid of big brother.

Anyone trying to challenge is going to face a constant barrage of attacks not only from the dominant nation but their allies till they get worn out and quit.

I agree maybe port bonuses should be removed altogether or replaced with individual building skills so everyone can work towards their own goals to build the ships they want.

I also agree that giving the individual clans so much power was also a bad idea and as people warned would happen certain people and clans have abused that power. But if you accept that clans have too much power then you have to see that the proposed change does remove some of that power. I understand why people who have invested time and energy into developing those ports may feel aggrieved, but if it improves the game then it must be looked at as a good thing. 

[Archaos]

6 minutes ago, GhostOfDorian said:

The reason for every military alliance is to get a certain control over the descissions of another nation. Every good deal requires that both sides have an advantage. Port bonuses are a huge advantage we offer our allieds. Its our part of the deal.

Mast and rig 4 is a question of prestige to show the server what we are able to do. You see, sadly we cannot built splendid Avenues in Vera Cruz to show the world our power, impresse our friends and scare our enemies. And it is a an advantage for smaller PvP ships. Nobody is hotter for it than Ram Dinark.

But others have said they do not use access port bonuses to exert control over other nations. I am confused now, which is it, do you use the access for control or not?

Any ship crafted there will have "made in VC" in its details so that should satisfy your prestige value. Dont you want to fight against the best ships possible or do you always prefer to have that edge no matter how small it is?

[GhostOfDorian]

So you think that United States should have been happy getting destroyed by Russian nuclear weapons "developped in USA"? 

You want that every player should have the same ship, when I fight him? Why don't you ask that ships should not be allowed to tag other ships unless they are in the same class? Why don't you ask that battle should instantly end when one side has better upgrades? Why don't you ask that there should always be the same number of players on both sides of the battle? Why don't you ask that experienced players should not be allowed to battle unexperienced players? You want to make everything equal in Naval Action. But you cannot answer why you're playing this game then. It had never something to do with equality between players but always a lot with searching a military advantage. You want a game where the skilled players have to downsize their abilities on your level, instead of improving your own playstyle and learn from them. Maybe you just play a game which doesn't fit to your ideas. Instead of playing something you lik more, you want to force those players who make the most content to play a game you like to play. They will leave you alone with a lot of noobs who are not able to organize anything in this game.

I proposed that we could wipe all port bonuses and return the investment to the clans before the new feature is implemented. Sadly you didn't react on this. I take it as an agreement that the upgrade system would then not been used anymore. Since everybody would speculate that their enemies do the work and they can exploit it after. 

[Archaos]

24 minutes ago, GhostOfDorian said:

So you think that United States should have been happy getting destroyed by Russian nuclear weapons "developped in USA"? 

You want that every player should have the same ship, when I fight him? Why don't you ask that ships should not be allowed to tag other ships unless they are in the same class? Why don't you ask that battle should instantly end when one side has better upgrades? Why don't you ask that there should always be the same number of players on both sides of the battle? Why don't you ask that experienced players should not be allowed to battle unexperienced players? You want to make everything equal in Naval Action. But you cannot answer why you're playing this game then. It had never something to do with equality between players but always a lot with searching a military advantage. You want a game where the skilled players have to downsize their abilities on your level, instead of improving your own playstyle and learn from them. Maybe you just play a game which doesn't fit to your ideas. Instead of playing something you lik more, you want to force those players who make the most content to play a game you like to play. They will leave you alone with a lot of noobs who are not able to organize anything in this game.

I proposed that we could wipe all port bonuses and return the investment to the clans before the new feature is implemented. Sadly you didn't react on this. I take it as an agreement that the upgrade system would then not been used anymore. Since everybody would speculate that their enemies do the work and they can exploit it after. 

When did nuclear weapons get introduced into the game????? Why do people keep trying to compare a game to modern real world issues? Its a game not a real world simulation.

Where did I ask for any of what you are saying. The Devs have proposed a change to the game and I am just supporting the proposed change as they asked us to discuss. No one asked for parity, just that it is good when all have access to the same. All the complaints about the proposed change appear to be from people who want to play the game to fit their ideas. Some changes to the game I like some I dont like, I am allowed to voice my opinion regarding the changes the same as you are. You dont like them I do, simple as that. With the game you want you just keep getting a smaller and smaller set of elite players who all know and moan about each other rather than a fun game to play.

If you bothered to read my other posts you would see I would have no issues with port bonuses being removed from the game altogether, I think they are bad and propagate too big a difference between players with those that have and those that have not. As you have already admitted you use the access to port bonuses to coerce other players to your will. I have seen clans in this game being turned to cause conflict within a nation due to such outside pressures, you may think that is a fun game but it drives many others away. 

[Georg Fromm]

2 hours ago, van Veen said:

.....In addition, the importance of nations will basically removed. .......

The importance of the nations was buried much earlier. And if I remember correctly, the Russians with their crappy alt- clans in every nation have an important part in it.
Otherwise, I find their contribution factually correct

[GhostOfDorian]

58 minutes ago, Archaos said:

When did nuclear weapons get introduced into the game????? Why do people keep trying to compare a game to modern real world issues? Its a game not a real world simulation.

Where did I ask for any of what you are saying. The Devs have proposed a change to the game and I am just supporting the proposed change as they asked us to discuss. No one asked for parity, just that it is good when all have access to the same. All the complaints about the proposed change appear to be from people who want to play the game to fit their ideas. Some changes to the game I like some I dont like, I am allowed to voice my opinion regarding the changes the same as you are. You dont like them I do, simple as that. With the game you want you just keep getting a smaller and smaller set of elite players who all know and moan about each other rather than a fun game to play.

If you bothered to read my other posts you would see I would have no issues with port bonuses being removed from the game altogether, I think they are bad and propagate too big a difference between players with those that have and those that have not. As you have already admitted you use the access to port bonuses to coerce other players to your will. I have seen clans in this game being turned to cause conflict within a nation due to such outside pressures, you may think that is a fun game but it drives many others away. 

Ok, I accept that you're running out of arguments now.

 

[Archaos]

8 minutes ago, GhostOfDorian said:

Ok, I accept that you're running out of arguments now.

 

My point has remained the same throughout, its on your side of the discussion that the reasoning for not wanting this change keeps on altering without admitting the true reason you do not want this change. Some say they dont like others stealing their effort when in fact nothing is stolen and you do not lose anything, some say they allow a select group of alts the bonuses because they are friends and the do not use the perk to coerce them while others admit that the do use it to coerce others, some say the additional bonuses make no difference to a ships ability but they still dont want others to have access to it, some keep referring to real world yet when I give evidence to counter that they start introducing caveats.

Just admit it, you do not want others to have those bonuses so your ships can remain superior by however little to theirs. I can accept that people may not be happy that others can get access to their work but at least be honest for the reason, rather than try and make up other excuses about people stealing, exploiting, doesn't happen in real world, is/is not used to coerce others, etc.

[Farrago]

I get how the owner clans feel. I’d probably feel the same. But increased availability of competitive ships would definitely be a good thing for the whole game.

 

Port Battles sure were more fun and more popular when the reward for winning was port ownership and a chest in your hold. Remember the excitement of trying to get back to port to open your chest and find a paint, ship note, and some mods?

[Liq]

I like my fuchs

[van Veen]

3 hours ago, Archaos said:

it only takes place if the dominant nation allows it. The dominant nation sits there and dictates what can and cant happen all the time further securing their own position. Lesser nations are allowed to attack each others ports reducing their investments so no one can affect the status quo. If any one other nation gets too strong then they are slapped down with the aid of big brother.

Anyone trying to challenge is going to face a constant barrage of attacks not only from the dominant nation but their allies till they get worn out and quit.

All this is just the product of your fantasy. Please stop derailing this discussion on the changes. Thank you. 

 

3 hours ago, Archaos said:

But if you accept that clans have too much power then you have to see that the proposed change does remove some of that power.

Your point of view is a little bit shortsighted. Yes, clan power will be removed. But a) this contradicts a long-term game development and b) does not make anything better per se. A good end not always justifies the means. Or does it? Then tell me how. Seriously, I am really curious. I thought about it and could not find anything positive about this specific proposal.

The way I see it is this. Anyone will then be able to craft ships in the most upgraded port regardless of their clan tag or nation. So, do you think all these foreigners established in VC are now keen to conquer that port? I'd wager no. 

And what about the clan owning a port? Do they continue upgrading and investing when they know that everyone profits from it, not just their allies? I'd wager no. 

Strange situation then. Foreigners have no interest to change port ownership, and the clan owning the port is pissed off with the situation. 

You see the problem? The motivation to invest into port upgrades and even to own a port in the first place would be gone. And no motivation, no game. As simple as that. 

And then, anyone would need to have two alt accounts, at least one of them in a foreign nation. Is this the situation you want to have in the game, when foreign alt abuse is the de-facto standard way of crafting?

Edited August 3, 2020 by van Veen

[Tac]

[Archaos]

2 minutes ago, van Veen said:

All this is just the product of your fantasy. Please stop derailing this discussion on the changes. Thank you. 

 

Your point of view is a little bit shortsighted. Yes, clan power will be removed. But a) this contradicts a long-term game development and b) does not make anything better per se. A good end not always justifies the means. Or does it? Then tell me how. Seriously, I am really curious. I thought about it and could not find anything positive about this specific proposal.

The way I see it is this. Anyone will then be able to craft ships in the most upgraded port regardless of their clan tag or nation. So, do you think all these foreigners established in VC are now keen to conquer that port? I'd wager no. 

And what about the clan owning a port? Do they continue upgrading and investing when they know that everyone profits from it, not just their allies? I'd wager no. 

Strange situation then. Foreigners have no interest to change port ownership, and the clan owning the port is pissed off with the situation. 

You see the problem? The motivation to invest into port upgrades would be gone. And no motivation, no game. As simple as that. 

Please show me where the motivation is for anyone to try and conquer VC? The Swedes tried and the alliance they tried to form was disrupted, most probably by using coercion on some nations within the alliance. Following that the Swedes were just worn down till they gave up. Now some of those Swedes return and do they try and go for VC? No they choose an easier target. There is currently no motivation to attack the strongest nation in the game partly because as some of them have admitted if you read their posts that they use the ability to give access to certain alts to crafting in VC as a means of coercing nations. So it is very relevant and not derailing as you suggest. The removal of those avenues of coercion means other nations may turn on the strongest nation and we may get a serious challenge to the dominant power.

There have been many mechanics introduced to the game to try and give people a reason to conquer ports, but few of them have worked. How many times has Cartegena changed hands since game launched? Even upgraded ports has not given enough incentive to capture ports as the loss of a major crafting port is such a blow to a nation that it chases a lot of people from the game.

With this change not everyone will be able to craft in any port, just those that remain neutral, and okay that will mean a lot more alts becoming neutral, but is that such a bad thing as it will stop them from affecting battles.

Look around the map at the current RvR situation and tell me that is good for the long term survival of the game? Most port battles are arranged or permitted battles, no one challenges the dominant side as used to happen in the game. It used to be that if one side started getting too strong the others would group up to counter that and another nation would then rise to power. Not anymore, in 1, 2, 5 years time the map is unlikely to be much different from now with a single dominant side unless their players get bored and leave the game.

Now I am not saying this change is going to make a huge difference to the situation, but at least it is a step in the right direction by removing one of the points that the dominant nation can use to coerce other nations. Lets be quite frank here if you really want a ship crafted in VC at the moment you can get one, you just have to jump through a few hoops and find the right person who has that access. All this change makes is that it becomes easier to access those bonuses. I agree that people who have worked to upgrade the ports may be pissed off, but this is why I suggested some form of compensation for them in the form of a neutrals tax to use the port. Lets change the whole reason for upgrading to port to be making the port attractive to neutrals to craft there and that boosts your wealth rather than the current we own the port and we can be as hard nosed as we want to other people, come beg if you want access.

[Despe]

[Archaos]

32 minutes ago, Despe said:

Please do not derail, take that nonsense to the Meme thread.

[van Veen]

44 minutes ago, Archaos said:

Just admit it, you do not want others to have those bonuses so your ships can remain superior by however little to theirs.

There is nothing to admit. It is the intended game mechanics. Clans were given the power to develop the ports for their own and their allies benefit. And the clans used that game mechanic for their best ability. There is nothing wrong with that, is there?  

[You]

54 minutes ago, Archaos said:

Look around the map at the current RvR situation and tell me that is good for the long term survival of the game? Most port battles are arranged or permitted battles, no one challenges the dominant side as used to happen in the game. It used to be that if one side started getting too strong the others would group up to counter that and another nation would then rise to power. Not anymore, in 1, 2, 5 years time the map is unlikely to be much different from now with a single dominant side unless their players get bored and leave the game.

Now I am not saying this change is going to make a huge difference to the situation, but at least it is a step in the right direction by removing one of the points that the dominant nation can use to coerce other nations. Lets be quite frank here if you really want a ship crafted in VC at the moment you can get one, you just have to jump through a few hoops and find the right person who has that access. All this change makes is that it becomes easier to access those bonuses. I agree that people who have worked to upgrade the ports may be pissed off, but this is why I suggested some form of compensation for them in the form of a neutrals tax to use the port. Lets change the whole reason for upgrading to port to be making the port attractive to neutrals to craft there and that boosts your wealth rather than the current we own the port and we can be as hard nosed as we want to other people, come beg if you want access.

i must add that one small reason that me and a group of friends didnt start to play agay was because you had to pay to destroy a building.. Imagine that you pay currency to burn down a building you seized, i could only understand that it would cost currency to clear out the old building if you wanted to build up a new one. We had plans on actually do raids where we would attack low BR ports that seemed unimportant, destroy the buildings there and make it neutral or atleast open for all. But that plan got scrapped.

Edited August 3, 2020 by You

[Archaos]

6 minutes ago, van Veen said:

There is nothing to admit. It is the intended game mechanics. Clans were given the power to develop the ports for their own and their allies benefit. And the clans used that game mechanic for their best ability. There is nothing wrong with that, is there?  

Just like neutrals will be able to craft in any port when they introduce the mechanics, why complain about it, the Devs say that is what they want to do.