Neadenil Edam wrote:
Well there are quite a few players that have many characters that make their settlements look bigger anyways. I think Thod's statistics; while full of good intentions, didn't accurate represent the player base anyways.
Neadenil Edam wrote:
We are supposed to be able to have more than one leader in a settlement soon.
Fireside Chat with Lisa Stevens - Wednesday 2 / 18, 8PM Est in Thornkeep courtesy of the Pathfinder University
Yes! This would be great.
Both of you- I would check with Goblinworks on that. Whether you like it or not they said that ANY change to your sub status will break your DT. If that is not the case, I would be incredibly happy as well. From what I was led to believe based on their blog and further discussion, your sub must be continuous for you to keep your DT.
I agree with Tyncale. What is the value of having a smallhold at the settlement? I'm really not seeing it.
Reading the blog led me to believe that you click it once and get a certain amount of power. Then a cool down timer of two hours goes on you where you can't regain power in this way again.
Gol Guurzak wrote:
If Golgotha wants to petition to crowd forge a skull shape mountain, I will support it. That just sounds too cool not to have in game. ;)
I think TEO (like other gaming communities) deserve their success in this game so far. They've grown and organized when many discounted them before. I've seen numerous comments about how they'll suck at PVP when the game starts, despite their numbers. How funny is that?
I drink to TEO's health and their numbers.
InVigil did not capture a single tower that was defended.
Actually we did capture a tower every night we went for one [editors note- actually we missed one by under 60 pts and the timer ran out. :(]
Not sure where you got that information from, but it's wrong. The fact that GPunk and the gang couldn't take them back is why you dropped the NAP in the first place. If he was face rolling us, I seriously doubt there would of even been an incentive to go for our core 6. [editors note - removed the comment about Bludd. I know he's not a child because I met him. Irregardless of what I think of his recent posts. lol ;) ]
But Ozem's Vigil has never been about PVP with some PVP and a cup of PVP to dump our PVP in. What we have been about is trying to be honest, friendly and enjoy this game the best way we can. That friendship paid off last night. And I assure you it will be reciprocated ten fold. That's how we roll.
See this I'm not understanding, so maybe you can explain this to me. I keep reading that you guys attacked our core 6 to generate more PVP. What's odd about that is plenty of PVP was heating up already. We've been fighting with you guys and GPunk almost every night over the border towers to the east. What did the core 6 attack do other than give the same result?
side note- a random company took the border towers last night while we were away. So there's that mystery to solve I guess.
Considering the point of trying to take the core 6 was to embarrass us, I think you can forgive MBando for a little trash talk.
This was a great time time and great write up MBando. Your account was spot on. Kind of expected you guys would move on to try and hit another settlement's core 6. When you showed up with 9, I thought that could be it.
As for the mechanics of the game, I completely agree with Doc. "Highlights how fun the game can be, despite it tripping over its feet with clunky UI and mechanics" perfectly describes my experience as well.
Maybe a login message if possible? Like "Welcome To Pathfinder Online: Note - It is against policy to attack players while in an NPC settlement/hex. Please don't do it. Reported violations will be looked into and dealt with accordingly."
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
It is my understanding that the Highlander agreement has been dissolved as many within the agreement found the general NAP to be sufficient.
As for the taking of the other towers, Talonguard is well within their rights to secure whatever towers they want to increase their holdings and their settlement.
Tavernhold assisting them is their choice. If members of Ozem's Vigil has a problem with that, that is their problem.
In my opinion we should evaluate all settlements in the area, as a few are focused on crafting. Callambea and Alderwag included.
Seeing all of these settlements grow is in everyone's best interest at the moment. In the coming months this situation might become a little more tricky to navigate, but hopefully we can come to a relatively peaceful solution instead of some all out war filled with bluster posts in the forums. I'm not saying that this is what is happening right now, just addressing an issue that might rise in the future.
Border/Skirmish conflicts I expect to happen even among relatively peaceful neighbors.
For myself I have no ill-will for Talonguard or Tavernhold for what they did and understand why they did it.
Okay I was avoiding this thread because I had already said my peace on the matter before. But since Ryan weighed in on it in this thread, I feel I need to clarify something.
I am not the OP that created this thread. I don't know for sure because I'm not him, but I would bet my account that the OP is not MBando either. I would also like to think that any member of Ozem's Vigil that would post this thread would have the courage to use their real account name.
I did not like it when an anonymous poster created a thread about Golgotha and I certainly don't like it here either.
To my feelings on the OP concerns I didn't really have the same. I didn't even really think of it. But thinking on it now, I feel that the community would police that and GW would be able to verify the griefing and resolve the matter pretty easy. Also I thought I read that some of the guards were being moved around this patch. So that might help alleviate continual abuse from said players.
My concerns on this matter was something entirely different.
I will say that I am glad that Ryan did clarify the thread lock again. Communication is key in crowd forging in my opinion and it's nice to get further explanation on the matter (I did see Bonny's post too, which I appreciated as well.)
FYI-Ozem's Vigil still has not discussed if we even want to be involved in any of this.