Gol Tink's page

I agree that the PvE combat is boring and generic, but the PvP combat can be quite fun. It is most definitely skill based, there is definitely timing involved, and though it isn't particularly innovative it certainly has promise.

They really, really need to get everything working more smoothly, but they have a good basic system in place. A skilled player can kill multiple equally equipped enemies if they play the fight right. A skilled player can destroy quite a few lesser equipped enemies.

Consumables need to be fixed and balanced, casting times on expendables need to be a hell of a lot clearer, and there needs to be a better user feedback system, but that will come in time. Hopefully.

Hopefully the enchanting system actually adds enough value to items to make the cost of making those resources worth it.

+4 and +5 consumables are also technically superior, and currently craftable. Whether or not they are economically viable is an entirely different argument.

And Friday... and Saturday. Sunday. Really, the only time he isn't 'naked' is when he is covered in the blood of our enemies.

Ogg just want love. Ogg no understand why no one like Ogg.

Ogg is just pawn in game of life.

Want to see what it looks like when a Holding goes up? Don't want to sit about for an hour to see the different stages? Golgotha has got you covered!

Watch as we build a mine!, now with Peruvian Flute music.

I know you probably already know this, but for future "Loot at this cool thing" screenshots, the /togglegui command makes them look even purtier. Sure, you have to log off/log in to get the GUI back, but that doesn't much matter for just a quick screen capture.

Or Auroral, because Auroral is super secret actually an NPC town.

It's true, I am a massive carehobo.

Or pickup Channel Positive Energy and get back twice as much HP for no power cost!

Is that fixed in EE7 btw?

It is kind of exactly what Phyllain said.

Phy said that if Ranged combatants can move while attacking before Melee can reliably apply CC, then Melee will be completely pushed out of PvP. You said that yes, other games balance Ranged by giving Melee reliable means of applying CC.

Whee, tautology!

The current issues with Melee combat have nothing to do with when the attack fires, and everything to do with the desync between client character location and server character location, compounded with the fact that the server seems to do very little to mitigate the differences. You can very, very easily demonstrate that key press timing has very little effect by using trigger macros on all of your abilities. I guarantee you that you will see absolutely no difference.

The answer they have given to the second are, at least from memory, security concerns. The Xeilias website is more functional than the Goblinworks forums, but that is primarily because we are using XenForo. XenForo is generally secure, but it isn't good and tight.

The developers could, obviously, very easily have a functional forum set up and running in a few hours. Most of the technically savvy forum users could have one set up in that time. But I doubt that I could write up a forum solution from scratch, with proper security controls, while also working on a game, with a particularly low budget.

They want to have control over their own source code.

A wild Andius emerges!

That you chose to turn that into a scorched earth, all-out WAR against us and all of our allies was your choice. That you've continued that WAR despite the fact that we've once again unilaterally cooled things off is also your choice. That you're taking every opportunity to try to drive a wedge between us and our allies is, I suppose, understandable, but still transparent.

After the retaking of the tower that Phaeros aggressively attacked (and failed to hold), we came down to Phaeros' core 6 and began our own operations of reciprocation. Before doing so, we sent PM's out to both the leaders of Keepers' Pass and Brighthaven warning them of this fact, requesting that they inform their citizenry to keep out of the area. An attack on the Empire of Xeilias will be responded to with an attack against all citizens of the offending settlement.

We had no intention of beginning a war with Keepers' Pass or Brighthaven. We still have no real intention of being in a war with Keeper's Pass or Brighthaven, which is why we have been keeping the vast majority of our operations close to Phaeros lands. The ongoing scorched earth policy was only put into place AFTER the EBA performed their own blitz against every Imperial tower.

We will continue our scorched earth policy against Phaeros until further notice. This is a war that you invited upon yourself. This is not how you keep your citizens safe.

Nihimon wrote:

... including currently held Tower hexes.

I meant currently held Towers in other hexes. I don't think anyone should ever respawn in the same hex they died in.

Oh, in that case, yeah. That makes building a beachhead for further tower attacks really important as well.

Gol Tink wrote:

Personally I would prefer that you just always spawn at the closest allied town (home, ally's, NPC).

I'd be fine with a slight variation of this that let folks spawn at any shrine in any allied hex, including currently held Tower hexes.

I'm not sure I agree with *that* much of a defenders advantage. Personally I think that the defender should always have the advantage in a fight, but one side spawning right on top of a tower, and the other side spawning half way across the map, seems a bit extreme.

One side spawning half way across the map, and the other side spawning a few hexes away is a bit more tenable, in my books.

Samllholdings and basecamps should be allowed spawns and thus become a focal point for removing a hostile force. Much like the often alluded to siege camps will eventually function.

That depends on being able to destroy them. It would also have strange interactions with the ongoing spawn camping discussions to make spawn points active points of contention. I agree that there should be a plonkable spawn point, or a mobile one, but I don't think we have the technology in place to support it.

Fair enough, I get you.

I dunno, it must just be a gaming culture difference. For the last 4 years I have mostly been a MOBA player. The work gank is just a daily part of our vocabulary. "Mid is roaming bot for a gank".

Lone_Wolf, what would you call it when someone groups up to kill someone?

Personally I would prefer that you just always spawn at the closest allied town (home, ally's, NPC). It would make the map a lot bigger, it would fix most of the issues I have with tower warfare, and I think it would make trade a lot more important. But I don't think that that is going to happen.

I don't think that there is a moral issue here at all. Gank isn't a dirty word. Golgotha has been ganking people in the SE. I got ganked when I had to relog and accidentally found myself in the middle of Cheatle and his posse (shakes fist).

Standing outside of a dungeon with 5 friends, waiting for the people inside to filter out, is ganking.

True, but that is patching (currently) bad game design with more bad game design. I would rather just wait for the actual big patch that helps both issues along.

I don't think it makes sense to have everyone suffer just because the tower mechanics are god awful.

Ganking - when multiple characters gang up on an unsuspecting target to kill them quickly and efficiently.

Decius was using it correctly, in my opinion.

Yes, that is what you're doing...Nihimon and Decius post facts and recaps of actual situations; you all should try it.

No, they don't. Nihimon and Decius make off-hand comments that make it out as if they have evidence of events, but when asked to publish that evidence, they say that they wouldn't post it publicly. Or they call us cheaters in random threads. Or they try and get an entire settlement pulled out of the Landrush because they think, again with no evidence, that we might be cheating.

So Tink/Phyllain, placing a small holding and T2 farming an area where it was posted to do so is hostile is okay, but taking ONE tower to make sure said holding is removed and then relinquishing the tower is not?

We did not agree to your laws. You did agree to the tower agreement.

You didn't relinquish control of the tower, we took it back from you.

The two are not equivalent.

Had we taken one of your towers, an equivalent reaction would be to take one or more of ours.

Do you see the difference?

Personally, I thought it was going to be me. I just can't trust myself, these days.

TEO Cheatle wrote:

Tink,

You did not explicitly tell me anything like that, I made it abundantly clear that we would protect EBA territory. Perhaps, there was some miscommunication there, but I walked away understanding the above.

EDIT: After reading your edit, yea, there definitely was some miscommunication. Next time we make an agreement it will have to be in writing, as to be clear, concise, and no confusion.

You made a verbal agreement with a LE settlement and expected for the words to mean the same thing for you and them?

Eh. It had nothing to do with our alignment. It was a misunderstanding, one that has been addressed in private.

Get out of here, you deserting deserters!

*shoo*

Well, if the game ever gets to the point where the game is more acceptable to your crowd, the offer will stand.

As I have been outed(with my permission) sorry Pax guys you are a great bunch and it wasn't personal

Steelwing, how could you!

I thought we had something! *runs off sobbing*

(P.S you should listen to Pagan and bring some of your folks to the game and live in Golgotha).

Gol Tink wrote:

Well then he should actually provide some evidence to back up his inflammatory statements, like suggesting that we might be griefers. Something, I will add, that he has been trying to push onto Golgotha since before the Alpha.

When a settlement does very little but accuse my people of being cheaters (Nihimon) and griefers (Decius), it is rather difficult to take them seriously.

Goblinary.

"Very little"?

I'm sorry, I forgot who I was speaking to. I'll trying being a little bit plainer, shall I?

When one groups only political message is "Griefers! Cheaters! Psychopaths!", they are rather difficult to take seriously.

Next time I'll use smaller words.

Yup. I would love to have the chance to heal my downed buddies, but if I have to sit there and wait for a few minutes every time I die to bleed out, I'm willing to wait.

Well then he should actually provide some evidence to back up his inflammatory statements, like suggesting that we might be griefers. Something, I will add, that he has been trying to push onto Golgotha since before the Alpha.

When a settlement does very little but accuse my people of being cheaters (Nihimon) and griefers (Decius), it is rather difficult to take them seriously.

Given the nature of the 'credible reports' that have been passed on to us by other EBA members, I'm really not worried.

Keep implying that we are griefers, we don't much mind. You die the the same either way.

Rynnik, you will very quickly discover that Decius is easily ignored. He is a political troll, nothing else.

Decius, looking forward to finding and killing you a few more times tonight.

Also, I cannot wait until you people get some real griefers in the game. The naivety is astounding.

Golgotha does not have a policy of aggressive, extended attacks against non-combatants of those settlements we are not at war with. Barring the occasional roam into the lands of other entities, we have no business taking the fight to your home hexes. For those settlements that deal with us in an above-board, reasonable manner, we will extend the same courtesy.

The situation in the SE is an exception, not the rule. Unless Forgeholm does something to particularly provoke us, chances are you will only fight a dedicated, organised group within our own lands, or at a tower. Again, barring the occasional roam.

I agree with all of those but 4. Quite simply, there isn't any grinding if you are playing the game in a balanced manner. You know who I am, I'm all about that murder. But it took me very, very little time to hit my T2 achievement gates.

Attribute gates are doing what they are supposed to at least for Fighters. I looked outside of my Spear attacks and picked up a secondary weapon for STR. The Role gates are perfectly designed and implemented so far.

The other stuff, yeah, I agree in general. Not gonna lie though, Golgotha has been feeling really kinda free right now. I'm surprised that Aragon didn't try the no-tower free banditry thing early. It definitely isn't very profitable, but if PvP is what you are looking for, this is the way to do it right now.

Hey, I really enjoyed having Thornguards that were completely toothless, it made it much easier to shoot people with arrows while running around naked.

Bludd has literally nothing to do with anything relevant happening in this game. Why do you keep bringing him up? There is maybe one golgothan still playing who played alpha, hit, it wans't me. Everyone involved with the choices to ally with bludd the first and second time is no longer with us.

That was me! And I think your memory is faulty. I spent my time in Alpha plinking at people, but specifically not killing them. I probably still have the VoDs to prove it.

But as you say, who cares about silly things like facts.

Edit: Aww, Twitch deleted my VoDs.

that or the game just being bad.

And dear god is it bad.

You know, it's strange, Decius, we have been saying the exact same thing about you and Nihimon since pre-Alpha. We believe that you are toxic to a cohesive community, and that you will do everything you can to undermine positive influences while hiding behind the pretense of being "the heart and soul of the community".

So how about this. We will hand Callambea off when you and Nihimon unsubscribe form the game.

That would satisfy me as well and anything that I can tell you to do.

I can confirm that no attempt was made by the SE to contact us regarding cooling of aggressions. I believe we had spoken to Cheatle multiple times since Phaeros first took one of our towers, and his response was basically, "We aren't their masters".

From our perspective, we had no reason to believe that this was a one off strike from Phaeros. They both took, and then defended that tower over multiple days, with a reasonable force. They made no attempt at contacting us during that period.

We were/are under attack, and we responded to that attack.

@Tuffon

Out of curiosity cause I seriously don't know: is them farming the northern escalation in question in any way, shape, or form a violation of any territory claims or agreements? The status of any escalations in their own claimed territory is kinda irrelevant to the conversation in my Lawful Evil opinion.

No, it didn't breach any agreement. Just like AGC placing a base camp didn't breach any agreement.

Except T7V used it as their excuse to break a tower ceasefire. Which they never actually agreed to. Except sometimes they did agree to it. But only when it is helpful for their public image.

They weren't back room. They just weren't talked about through external channels. We weren't exactly super secretive about a ceasefire.

Right... that wasn't the point that I was responding to. I was responding to the claim that TEO wasn't involved in taking those towers. Which they clearly were. Nice try, though.

"Abort, abort! Rhetorical fail! I forgot that TEO actually was there! Run away!"

You are aware that 5 of our towers are literally in the hands of TEO right now, yeah?

You hit us first. You admit to hitting us first. It wasn't a detente, it wasn't temporary. You took a tower, and then defended it over multiple days until you couldn't hold it anymore.

We will continue to attack you at home until you admit fault and peace talks can resume.

First up, we didn't have an agreement with T7V, or the EBA. You told us that, because treating with EBA is a massive clusterf++*. It turns out we only actually had an agreement with TEO. Who knew!

And, though I was not around for the signing of the first agreement, I'm fairly sure that base camps and smallholdings weren't a part of it. From what I understand, the agreement was "Don't take our towers, we won't take yours."

Your people had been in our lands as much as we had been in yours. Don't try and flip this as some kind of Golgothan aggression.

Edit: Ha, hard earned. You got lucky with the RNG. You didn't earn those escalations, any more than Golgotha earned having s*~& T1 escalations for the last 3 months.

We took back the tower that T7V had taken in response to AGC plopping a base camp in a hex. We also took 2 Phaeros towers on Saturday.

We also went into Phaeros lands and killed everything we could. Because that is what T7V invited when they attacked us. Do you really expect us to let their industrial machine roll on as is? No. That would be stupid.

There are no civilians in this game. Like it or not, everyone is a target.

Gaskon, I'm going to release a few rough numbers for point of illustration. They aren't actual figures, but they are, by and large, fair assessments of each of the major powers.

Golgotha can field ~20 people on a good night. That means that if we spend a few days prior making sure that every knows exactly what and when an event will happen, we can get those 20 people to show up for a good few hours. After the event, they will trickle out and we will go back to our normal operations. At a moments notice, we can probably muster up ~10 people.

Phaeros seems to be in roughly the same situation. I imagine that we are actually extremely close when it comes to relative power. A fight between Phaeros and Golgotha would be interesting. They would take some fights, we would take others. It all depends on who is available at which day. When Golgotha fields our best and brightest, we tend to take the field. Phaeros has better retention rates, and so they have more high XP characters to make up for it. Their average character is probably stronger than ours, but I personally think that our top people outmatch theirs. They probably don't agree.

Brighthaven could roll every single settlement in the game. If Brighthaven put their forces on the field, you either retreat or you lose. There is no fighting Brighthaven right now; they are our version of BoB. This is especially true if they bring their allies.

So, it isn't a case of a 20v20 fight happening at a tower. That is certainly a possibility.

It is a case of a 20v20 fight happening at one tower, and then 5v2 fights happening at every other tower that we hold. We have to make a choice; do we hold this tower for one more day? Do we try and have some fun in an even fight?

Or do we take to the woods, and make use of our only advantage? We are willing to live for a time without towers. We can be a thorn in the paw of the lion. We might get a few recruits out of it.

And so that is what we are doing, for now. Because Brighthaven makes any fight unwinnable, and your 4-5 dwarves would do nothing to change that. If Brighthaven decides that we don't get to play in their sandbox, then we don't play.

Well, this is going to quickly descend into "He said, She said". We told you that we would attack Phaeros. We told you that we hoped that your people would be kept out of the crossfire. I, personally, told you that you should expect Golgothan operations inside Phaeros lands.

You told us that you would defend your friends, and we agreed that that was perfectly reasonable. You told us that we should not expect TEO forces on any attacks against our towers.

Gaskon: We are vastly out numbered by the SE. For every soldier we can put on the field, they can put down 5. It would be stupid for us to engage the SE in symmetric warfare. We believed that we could easily hold up against Phaeros in such a fight. The introduction of TEO, by far the largest group in the game, changes that.