-Aet- Charlie's page

Also AGC is not the only one in violation. Callambea is also in violation. In fact Callambea is an actual settlement where as AGC is its own company that is currently associated with Aragon.

I know it was not your intent, but I want to make clear that Callambea is not in any way ignoring this infraction. Like was stated on the last page we are investigating and have every intention of following the guidelines of the NAP we agreed to. That includes reparations requested by tribunal representatives if necessary.

Right now we are attempting to identify what citizens were involved in the tower capture.

Since Golgotha wants to help call me out, feel free to ding them for allowing Callambea from taking core towers around Iron Gauntlet.

I no longer lead Callambea (I hold no official position, I only offer advice or take direction when asked) but I do check the associated forums revolving around PfO multiple times a day.

I just wanted to drop a reply to let those rightfully concerned in this thread know that Kard Warstein (the current leader) has begun an investigation and has made the citizenship aware that while it is being conducted that such behavior is unacceptable.

I expect he will be in contact through this thread or directly with tribunal representatives as soon as he is back at his computer. Until he returns I wanted to make sure everyone knew that this infraction is not being ignored.

Cheers,

CG

Looks like Bludd has invented the Self Back Patter (patent pending)

Meh.

Never really cared for the guy, before or after the fall from grace. I am sure he will be by to say hello.

The guy is like Beatle Juice. You can't go invoking his name three times expecting him not to pop in.

Carebear is a slur, not griefing. It is no worse than calling someone a spiteful little so and so or any other derogatory remark.

I try not to do it, but I have been guilty of it as well a few times. That said while it is a whole lot more admirable to avoid commenting to complaints at all calling someone a carebear is not grief. It is just a hateful remark.

On the other end, developers have asked posters to specifically stop using the term in reference to other players. In my book that is a good enough indication you should at least not do that thing, MmKay.

I found no one guilty, nor innocent. That's Customer Service. I run QA. I care about fixing the underlying issues with the game, not the players. :D

Thank you for the replies, the investigations, and the way the results were presented.

I thought your explanation was pretty straight forward:

It does not point to cheating on the part of a single individual.

Emphasis mine.

If further digging does point towards cheating, I hope you post again with the findings. I think everyone in this thread would appreciate the information.

On watching the video it looks like no one was getting Opportunity for movement, just using feats/items/etc. That is obviously a bug. If anyone else runs into that sort of situation please let us know as this could be very difficult to track down.

So everyone was exploiting?!

Well, I guess in a witch hunt the one thing no one expects is the Inquisition :)

I'm sure Slammy wasn't hacking, and it was probably fully unintentional rather than deliberate bug abuse. That said, bragging about a "victory" and mocking those who "lost" to him for complaining, even after admitting it was probably a glitch, is pretty weak form. That's the sort of behavior I saw a lot in the Runescape community.

Trash-talking and bragging have their place in any PvP game, but good braggarts make sure their brags aren't bogus before boasting 'bout battles. ;)

Now that I could probably agree with.

I figured as much. That was the reason I made sure to explain I was not bringing the clarification up to be argumentative.

That sounds to me like a general rule: no judgment, ever, until the developers make their official ruling.

Bringing this up just to clarify. I do not believe that you can not know, without a shadow of a doubt whether someone has exploited or not. My position is that I don't think witch hunts and public shaming are necessary when there is any doubt that the perpetrator could be innocent (whether by ignorance or any other factor).

In those specific cases it is my preference to default to developer inquiry.

I understand that might not be your stance, I just wanted to clarify what mine was.

@Nihimon

Then I owe you an apology. I misinterpreted your intent on many accounts:

1. I mistakenly attributed your judgement as not subjective

2. I mistook your intent on posting the DF video. I thought it was drawing a comparison to the incident at hand as being roughly equal.

Those points cleared up I respect your stance and merely disagree with its conclusion.

And I'll also reiterate that it's a pretty big stretch to assume that someone with such obvious mastery over so many of the game systems and such obvious skill for gaining tactical advantages just didn't notice these other things or the tactical advantages he gained from them.

Besides Slammy's own confidence in his skills (of which can be inflated in such online pvp cases), do you feel like his skill level is so elite that it is inconceivable that he would miss not having a condition?

Merkaile seems to think he would miss it, and he isn't bad at pvp in other games. He is much more humble, and that is generally what I like about the guy. That said is Slammy just this darn good or are we under the assumption that his boasts are completely accurate?

I don't mind folks saying "I ain't giving him the benefit of the doubt, because of X,Y,or Z. That is business as usual and honestly it isn't going to change.

What I thought was being argued is that he certainly is guilty (in one case he is absolved only if he made a bug report). Indeed it is supposedly so clear that to think anything else makes you stupid or your faculties are suspect.

That is what I am having issues accepting. That is an especially harsh stance, and it seems to me the evidence SHOULD be equally as damning as flying around as Specter McMurderman.

So far I don't see that mountain of clear evidence. What I am reading is mostly "Just look around you" with no allowance for any other conclusion than "Yep, he dun dun it."

The benefit of the doubt is a precious commodity, and it's not something anyone can demand from anyone else. Much like respect, it's earned over time based on history. The fact that so few are willing to give Slammy the benefit of the (excruciatingly minute) doubt says more about Slammy than it does about them.

I'll reiterate that only the devs know whether or not he ever posted any bug reports about any of this stuff.

And I'll also reiterate that it's a pretty big stretch to assume that someone with such obvious mastery over so many of the game systems and such obvious skill for gaining tactical advantages just didn't notice these other things or the tactical advantages he gained from them.

I get that, and as subjective as it is I don't refute it. I prefer to offer the benefit of the doubt to everyone, even if I hate them. I do that because that is ultimately what I would like others to do as well. I understand not everyone holds that position.

Still, miles different that being equally as obvious as a flying murder hobo.

I am not comparing anything to flying; that was not my analogy.

The specific cue, to anyone (like Slappy) who has spent any amount of time fighting in PFO (PVE or PVP), is the giant opportunity icon that pops up every single time you are in battle stance (weapon drawn) and you are moving at faster than a walk.

My apologies then, I thought by your reply that you were offering support for the comparison.

So if Slammy is an experienced player, he should have noticed the lack of this icon in many cases?

Only he can speak to whether he saw the icon, or knew what to look for and notice it in the heat of battle(s) reliably. If he noticed it and did nothing to correct it he should announce that fact and refrain from using that tactic in the future.

I have no position of authority to enforce that, but that is my opinion and it falls within the guidelines of the community of which I belong.

If he did not notice it he might not want to state such, as apparently the criteria for not noticing it is mental retardation. It wouldn't bother me if such was truly the case, but I am much less skilled in pvp combat and have no real ego to speak of. The truth would simply be the truth.

To say that he 'didn't know' that something was wrong is either very naive, or telling us that you think he may have mental issues.

Explain how this is just as glaringly obvious as suddenly being able to fly.

What were the specific cues he had to have picked up on and ignored?

-Aet- Charlie wrote:

That Slammy was untargatable in some of those instances is not as definitive. It's obviously not, so much so that even comparing it oozes false equivocation.

That really is not the biggest issue, although it definitely is an issue.

That he should have been provoking opportunity for 90% of the time he was recording, that is the issue.

And even he should have known immediately that there was something wrong. To casual shrug and take advantage of the situation, that is another issue.

Even then, that Slammy was not provoking opportunity is not directly equivalent to flying around as MurderMan.

It might be that Slammy intentionally exploited, I do not discount that possibility. What I think is being missed in the witch hunt is the assertion he MUST HAVE DONE SO INTENTIONALLY.

In the heat of a battle I myself could easily miss conditions not being applied. Given I am not an expert PFO combatant, or even a mediocre one.

Still, saying that a vulnerability condition is JUST AS OBVIOUS as flying around (even as a corpse no less) as a bonafide super hero in a ground based fantasy game IS A FALSE EQUIVOCATION.

Am I missing something by not buying into my months since EE? Does provoking opportunity (or the lack thereof) turn you purple, into a disco ball, or incur some type of Mortal Combat vocal cue? What makes Slammy's "incident" so glaring obvious that it is equal to flying in the air in a game not designed for character flight?

-Aet- Charlie wrote:

Until the developers come back with an evaluation of the situation...

... it seems silly to pass definitive judgement just because the person involved is abrasive and has a habit of bragging.

Did you ever see the video of the guy in Darkfall flying around, even as a corpse? Did anyone really need to wait until the developers came back with their official evaluation?

Slammy is clearly not Provoking Opportunity when he obviously should be. That is why people are passing judgment, not "just because" he's abrasive or a braggart.

Your insistence on giving someone with his obvious...

Negative, I never gave Andius the benefit of the doubt irrationally, even when it would have benefited me. Of my many faults, that is not counted on my abacus.

Someone flying around as a corpse IS definitive proof of both exploiting and doing so intentionally. Why? Because you shouldn't be able to fly around. You should certainly not be able to fly around as a corpse. It is impossible to say you thought it was legitimate gameplay. It is such an extreme example you might as well call it god mode.

That Slammy was untargatable in some of those instances is not as definitive. It's obviously not, so much so that even comparing it oozes false equivocation.

We are going to try to reproduce some of the confitions seen in that video. At this time we don't think anything is happening other than that the game is not performing as expected in all cases. Nothing I saw in that video suggests hacks or cheating - it suggets that the programmers and the gme designers need to look carefully at some details of the movement and condition system.

If we detrmine there is an actual, reproducible bug that impacts play, we will describe it and tell players not to exploit it until we get it fixed.

Thank you for looking into this and the reply.

@All Accusers

Until the developers come back with an evaluation of the situation, the burden of proof is not on the accused. I am reading a lot of finger pointing not even attempting to be phrased as speculation (instead spoken as definitive proof of guilt). Present this definitive evidence or expect that the subjective speculations will be dismissed out of hand.

Golgotha and the EoX (as well as their partner community, Pax Gaming) has expectations on member behavior that do not include clear exploits (as defined by Goblinworks). I encourage as a member of the same partner community that anyone that feels like they have a serious claim do so and the leadership involved (Phyl, Gurzaak, Deacon, Valadryl) will evaluate its merit.

Otherwise it seems silly to pass definitive judgement just because the person involved is abrasive and has a habit of bragging. If that was the criteria for guilt most of this vocal community would be crowding the bottom of the jail right now.

Sure, I didn't build the straw man, I just googled it.

@all minus Slammy

Totes Accurate

Meh, I enjoyed it.

Carry on I say

KarlBob wrote:

The politics of PFO began about five minutes after the initial Land Rush started (if not sooner than that).

Far sooner than that :)

Yup, but it is ramping up!

It is nice to see the propaganda and counter propaganda systems are still evolving (and even picking up steam).

It's making an interesting first chapter to the on going story and from an outside perspective lends a hopeful light on the state of the game for me.

I really don't think the situation is as heavy as anyone from any opinion extreme is making it. That said the intrigue has to evolve from something. That it is happening at all is something. At the very least its not nothing.

I am assuming it is a reference to the Everbloom Alliance.

I was going to participate in the great X and Y debate, but in terms of variables it seemed more like an "A" and "B" conversation. That being the case I will "C" myself out of it.

Waka Waka!

Hold what you can, attack what is useful. Above all maintain what is profitable.

Good to see the Gollies building a reputation out of the gate.

Bless your little heart.

It's like the Star Wars Prequels where everyone was afraid to criticize the legendary George Lucas so he ended up filling the films with whatever he wanted. Except Ryan isn't a legend beyond these boards and has no previous masterpiece to point back at.

Yay, an opportunity to derail!

Nerds are by no means afraid to criticize, anything, ever. Nerds live to criticize the things they love. It is almost as sacred a sport for them as football is to America.

George Lucas, however, just didn't care. The prequels were for a new generation of kids, not for adults that had grown up watching the show. After everyone nerd raged about Jar Jar Binks, he went on to make him arguably the most influential character in the fall of the republic.

Its like Lucas bit his thumb at the adult fans, then totes tried to pretend he was just idly biting his thumb, Sir.

Meh

What is the best strategy for those that want to save their subscription time, and will game time be opt in or opt out in nature?

The Managing stuff dev blogged answered this question for me:

"For Month 1, if you log into the game client (not the website), even if you do not enter the game world, that will consume one month of your game time. The anniversary of your first month will be 30 days after the date that you logged into the game client."

Thank you Goblinworks for the answer.

What is the best strategy for those that want to save their subscription time, and will game time be opt in or opt out in nature?

Whelp, this has been a thread.

I have two invites as well. PM me email and stuff.

Nihimon wrote:

Ryan said something in the EN World interview that really struck me. Paraphrasing, it was something like "if someone gives you $1,000 for something, they're predisposed to really like it."

Sorry to be so blunt about it.

This is the emotional bias aspect of the sunk cost fallacy and often used in financial scams. While PFO is not a scam in itself I'm kind of terrified that aspects of one is mentioned in context of PFOs marketing.

I am constantly amazed and thankful that you are always willing to voice an honest opinion, regardless of its popularity.

Thanks Papaver

You get boats and islands by buying them, staking them first, accumulating the resources, or participating in the grindfest. Non criminals can have them as well.

Still a kinda true statement, but not exclusive content to criminals. The last part is totally true you can pvp as much as you wish with no real penalty.

We will help defend those left out of this treaty and continue in our plans wage war against TEO's new membership who promote these kinds of selfish programs.

Should this treaty bar us from either of those objectives and Aragon still sign it then we will find a new home from which to carry out those goals.

Honestly, I would stay in Aragon. Whatever collateral Aragon has with the EoX is already diminishing. Use the remainder of your effort to convince your settlement to align with your game goals.

You might have some good success. Moving forward towards your goals is more likely than us entertaining theirs.

-Aet- Charlie wrote:

Social ramifications rarely roll uphill. The fingers will point at the settlement or block and fall from there.

<Fult nods> Warriors who want to point at settlements can join Fingers here!

I see what you did there

DeciusBrutus wrote:

I would be cautious about thinking that everybody that has been in a discussion about a NAP will join it.

I would be equally cautious about assuming that everyone is negotiating in good faith. We know what alignment everyone says they want to be, but alignment won't actually reach the game for quite some time. It would be easy to claim lawful intentions right now, build strength during the early days of the NAP, then attack.

Then impose strong, meaningful consequence to breaking that faith. If you break the agreement your towers are forfeit.

Better to be honest now and lose some of your towers than dishonest and lose them all.

I'd be inclined to say that the NAP apply only to the "alpha 6" towers and the rest be, "have what you hold".

We do not know how quickly a settlement will be able to advance its training once WoT is over. Probably more than enough time before OE, to be well beyond the initial tier 2 stuff.

I disagree, the tower NAP brought to us includes ten towers. The EoX would rather not make a habit of seeming to agree with a diplomatic effort and then attempt to downgrade the scope.

Given that the Settlement must accept a Tower being pledged to it, it should be pretty obvious who the transgressor is, and that it was not something done by a rogue agent.

My hope is that anyone who violates the Tower NAP will have all of their Towers taken from them for at least a day, and only returned if they reaffirm the NAP. A second transgression should not be forgiven.

Wow, that's actually more lenient than I would call for. I would likely not be for a second chance at all.

If that becomes apart of the agreement, sure. Otherwise I don't see a reason to trust an entity that can't control a whole company. A lone player problem here and there maybe deserves some leeway.

Gol Cyneric Torrin wrote:

TEO Pino wrote:

Gol Cyneric Torrin wrote:

TEO Pino wrote:

Gol Cyneric Torrin wrote:

... no one besides the violator will take mine...

ahaha, I like your optimism !

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, unless you mean that I will have already over extended past my 10 designated towers before then.

Otherwise that puts said person in the position of violator, which again, isn't a wise choice if everyone else upholds it.

I'm saying if someone in an NAP group violates the NAP, the group should consider making a 'proportionate response', not cry 'free lunch', lest the entire NAP become one.

That follows too much cohesion, it is not the full NAP group saying free lunch, rather it is one group in that NAP deciding to take the towers of the violator, and then others following suit.

I'm unsure of what a properly portioned response would be, that would make economical sense. If I sign an agreement, I expect that agreement to be held to the letter of the law, if someone breaks that agreement, that trust is then broken. I'm not going to say, well it was only once, and appease them, instead I would assume they would do it again.

I was thinking if they took 1 tower, the group reduces them by 2, for a day, then all return to 'normal'. If they had one company go rogue, the rest of them could be pushed to follow suit by too aggressive a punishment. It's 10 companies to hold 10 towers, and by support rules, they may be from different Land rush groups.

Social ramifications rarely roll uphill. The fingers will point at the settlement or block and fall from there.

TEO Pino wrote:

I'm saying if someone in an NAP group violates the NAP, the group should consider making a 'proportionate response', not cry 'free lunch', lest the entire NAP become one.

I'm not sure I follow. If there are 20 groups in a non-aggression pact, and someone aggresses, the other 19 are going to fall on him, tear chunks from his flesh, and dance around a bonfire made from whatever possessions he has that no one wants.

It will serve as a marvelous warning to each of the 19 not to follow the path the 20th took. That 20th had a choice, made the "wrong" one, and knew what would happen when he made it.

This^

Social consequence is not only a possibility, it is a tactfully sound move.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

The Blog will be live at this link shortly!

Not shortly enough!

Wild predictions if what the blog holds? My guess, delay of EE. Guess away, fellow Goblinses!

TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:

My guess, delay of EE.

My guess is anything but delay of EE.

Congratulations Alexander!

I jumped in here expecting someone to post a meme. I left disappointed :(

Golgotha's voting body is unanimously in favor of the tower NAP as it is presented. We'll discuss what we want to do when OE hits, but for now, we are content with the relative stability that this NAP would provide the whole server.

We honor our agreements, and will abide by any stipulations set therein. A man is only as good as his word after all.

The votes for on the Callambea side are heavily in the "for" category as well.

The empire voting entities are unanimously for as well.

Our word can not be overstated, it was a huge reason it took us as long as it did to decide. Once we agree to something, we are bound by it.

It is the first block in the foundation.

Forgot to add, the ability of major power blocks to persuade peace (even if it is just during WoT) is meaningful interaction. The ability of imposing social consequence (if that becomes a thing, not saying that is happening here) would also be a meaningful interaction.

If it happens, I don't see it lasting forever. It could be extended post WoT with some potentially positive boons to the settlements that buy in. If it does it will most certainly be disturbed some time. It is basically a staring contest. Someone is bound to blink first.

It is much better to agree to an uneasy peace early than it is to be left a target for the rest of the map for the good of the game.

If the North and South power blocks want a WoT basis for relative peace, they will likely get it with minimal effort. I don't know if it is best for the game in the short or long term. I do know that for those wanting to maintain the settlement game as long as possible martyrdom is a poor option.

If enough political strength calls for it, and it remains open to everyone, it will get signed by anyone that does not consider their settlement an afterthought.

It will get signed after the WoT, if that is what most of the map wishes. It will break down only when someone decides to move aggressively first. The rest of the games history will follow that event.

To be honest Lawful Evil can be quite trustworthy. A good character may not approve of what they do but you can trust that if they say they will do it then they will do it. If they make an alliance then LE should stick to the letter of it until they find a valid legal loophole to get out of it.

Chaotic on the other hand can be a worry ...

EoX will not be looking for loopholes around agreements to suit our needs. If we sign an agreement we will stick to the letter as well as the spirit of the agreement signed. Our word is our bond, so if the agreement disadvantages us enough the correct response is to not sign it at all.

I agree that your summation could be true of Lawful Evil generally, I just wanted to clarify the position of the empire in respect to that statement.

Congratulations to Riverbank and Everbloom :)

Meh

Join companies and settlements you get along with or have similar goals. The political landscape could change dramatically over the next few days, months, or years.

If you want to avoid pvp, come up with strategies that limit your exposure or make pvp against you costly. When you see a bandit, run or bring buddies. Be aware of what groups are feuding whom when you are a member of a social group.

The target on people's backs are not painted. It is probably more like a t-shirt that gets passed around. Minding manners to avoid pvp doesn't even remotely sound like good advice.

Play the game, manage risk.

I'll try to be there to contribute again to this thing.