Search Posts
This blog post current says Cubicle 7 Entertainment. Shouldn't it be Catalyst Games? As far as I can see C7 has nothing to do with this project. C7 of recent has been pushing their LOTR themed products and their new Cthulhu mythos based Unspeakable Sigil & Sign kickstarter. "Wizards of the Coast and Cubicle 7 Entertainment have leapt into the deckbuilding fray with the Dragonfire Deck-building Game, now available for preorder!..."
Well, Guurzak, and it comes from you being on the outside, but (Phaeros') policy, which may shock you but doesn't make it any less true, is not shoot first unless you've earned that special place in our hearts. We attacked AGC and took and AGC tower. Not attacked GOL and took a GOL tower. There were GOL towers we could have taken, but we took an AGC one. Additionally, protecting our innocents...something I'm truly tired of hearing as it's part of that whole propaganda to paint us all as avoiders of PvP or that we aren't good at PvP...does not mutually exclude declaring/taking/holding territory (in a game based on it even if the mechanics aren't fully in) nor setting guidelines for those who wish to enter said territory. There's this perception that some or all in the SE have to be defensive and can never proactively stand up against a wrong or a perceived test against our sovereignty. Of the entire map...our area was chosen. If we didn't respond with action then the days news reels would be all about how the EBA doesn't attempt to defend their claim, yadda, yadda. And as Phyllain said, asking you to remove it was only a 50/50 proposition, if that. If good faith is shown and communication consistent, much of the misinformation floating around here would clear up.
PvE isn't the hostile act as I see it. I don't need to run anything by them. It may shock you but there are more folks in TSV that have a say than the two of your ire. I was there the night AGC was chased out and gave the weapons free for Phaeros members as well as being there the next night to cap that tower. Trust me, I know more about this than you do as I'm actually there taking part in it. I know that snippet fits your agenda, but the full context of the quote still stands and reflects my stance.
Along with clear, and loud communication down the chain to all members of all groups. Agreements should also have representatives (leadership) from all parties involved from any two groups when in negotiations.
You could have asked AGC to remove it, Golgotha had nothing to do with its placement. I saw no distinction between having that there or just banking up a hex away. The building aside, there is still the matter of AGC farming that hex and that action itself being considered a hostile action in addition to blatantly thumbing your nose (absolutely your choice) at our requests to not farm T2s in our area. Especially when there were T2s in other hexes elsewhere. Additionally, if you want to separate yourself from Golgotha (and Phaeros from the EBA), AGC has built up a pretty good share of bad credit and we consider the fighting merchants hostile anywhere on the map. Will that change...only your actions can decide that. I can say that farming in our alliances area after alliance representation has asked non members not to doesn't help. It is what it is from our view.
See, and there in lies the issue. "We might not have agreed". Your purview, sure, but clearly we (Phaeros) understood that since you condoned the action in the first place, it was highly likely if we didn't take that action you wouldn't have. Especially since you knew we didn't want it there in the first place. We wanted it gone, placing one in your lands and/or asking you to remove it did not seem like very options that would get the result we desired. A tower for a day or two did. I'm curious, though, that in reply you chose "kill them all" as opposed to asking us to lay off the tower taking or otherwise engaging us (Phaeros) in dialogue. Both were hostile actions. It's not a matter of what Tink said with regard to you (GOL) agreeing to our laws so much as knowing they exist and knowing if you do x action how it will be perceived and what the possible responses are. On our (Phaeros) side, we agreed to our EBA partners to chill out with respect to the fight with you guys, but we did not agree to the "on paper" armistice. Part of that reasoning for not agreeing to the on paper was shown in that your AGC company did something that representatives from ALL EBA settlements considered hostile after the armistice was done. I'm not pointing fingers or trying to gotcha. Just illustrating a point of view. Take it for what you will.
We agreed to not taking CORE 6 towers. That was not a core 6 tower as those were removed from the game. So we did in fact keep to that core 6 tower agreement.
Posturing, internets, meh...
So you're saying you don't have to agree to our "laws" (which is fine) but we have to agree to your method/means of correcting an attack against our sovereignty by you? So we should have put down our own holding next to Golgotha OR asked real nicely for GOL leadership to have it removed?
Nothing. In fact I'm probably through talking to you before my more cynical side takes over. Please do carry on with your insights and wisdom as to what the EBA is and isn't. The floor is yours. "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" ~BB
So did that... Incidentally, you are quick to take the same stance when Aragon is talked about. Oh, you don't speak for any of the other companies in Aragon. Your quote is absurd yet predictable. There are plenty of identified leaders at all of those levels with the exception of kingdom for obvious reasons. Thanks, though, as anyone reading Avari's post and then reading yours here can see you are for what you are. In less than 5 minutes. Weighed
Reading this thread, I've breathed several big sighs of relief that I'm taking a break from caring about the politics of this game. Apathy is much less stressful than whatever y'all are doing here. There you go reading what you wan to read instead of what is written again. It was said that Cheatle was like the president of the EBA COUNCIL, not President of the EBA. Big distinction there. But, far be it from me to deter your spin. Please, spin on.
Considering your personal history with Phaeros I'm not sure why you think Phaeros is obligated to answer your questions. If Thod has such concerns he knows who our leaders and diplomats are. He can contact them more directly if he still has concerns about the answer he was given. That said, if anyone takes an honest look at Phaeros and asks the question "Does Phaeros have a sustained history of going out and attacking those who are not affiliated with groups that have declared it enemy or groups/individuals who haven't first taken hostile actions toward its members?" The answer is a resounding no. You do. Do you plan to attack Thod after he gets his stuff and is transporting it back to EL? *grin*
That hasn't been my experience reading your posts of the years regarding TSV and TEO. The action of not signing a contract in your view gave you right (in your mind) to interdict any and all of those belonging to the non signing group. I also remember remarks and insinuations you and other UNC comrades have made with regard to Nihimon and his kind as well.
Just because one talks politely does not mean their words are sweet.
When someone has the role of speaking for the EBA on a topic it is made a plain as day and that person speaks having had dialogue with all EBA settlement leadership. That clarified, I don't make a habit of speaking out of turn or stepping on the toes of those above me in position. At this time in hexes outside of the settlement hexes of Keeper's Pass and Brighthaven (as I obviously do not speak for them), and with no prior notification that individuals have been invited by members of EBA government, members of your settlement are considered hostile by TSV with no current objections from our EBA partners (they know our stance toward Aragon). Should you want to change that posture I'm sure Nihimon and Decius will listen to what you propose (which doesn't mean they would agree to it, but I'm fairly sure they would listen to what you had to say). Believe what you will. Ride with outlaws...
Well, maybe you should start. "Being chaotic" (loose toss toward the alignment card) doesn't justify not having communication and/or coordination. The attention your settlement received and that is part of the subject of a post Doc has going on the GW forums was due in no small part to your other companies actions in KP. UNC members will be held accountable for the actions of their fellow settlement members, regardless of company affiliation. It's the same standard you and your comrades have applied toward EBA members since long before there was an EBA. Obviously if one of you do it/condone it, then you all do, right?
There will be dancing and alcohol the day reliable IFF is introduced. That said, I think amongst those that fight most often there will still be a bit of the name recognition/target preference factor.
I may have cast too large a net in my reply as my last sentenced addressed KP proper. That said Nihimon rarely has had to attack first. It seems to be a badge of some sort to kill him by most of our enemy. He's always getting attacked. Sorry boss. *shrug* That night was no different.
@Bluddwulf Well, I guess it was just poor timing that you arrived at KP with a host of Golgothans, the same one that went on to attack BWG later that night, and were considered to be in with them. As I was standing right next to you standing next to Nihimon I know what went down there. Your companion flagged up which is why they were attacked. That said, other members of Aragon had all along been coming down and attacking. Doc even got one of my crafters in KP and then logged out. As he was of your settlement and as you had not condemned such attacks I have only to reason then that you condone it and all other members of Aragon condone it. So be it. No, you were not in TSV's settlement. You were in the settlement of a TSV ally. An ally who had also suffered attacks from residents of your settlement. Aragons's policies are their own, but for us, defending an ally is the same as defending a settlement member. Very little distinction drawn. If KP or BH says "hey we are being attacked" I can assure you members of Phaeros will show up to fight. The same can be said for KP and BH members as well. We have all aided each other over the last few weeks and become even stronger, more coordinated allies for it. TSV will respect the rights of all settlements in the EBA and their individual laws. If Erian walks you into EBA lands and into KP to the tavern, it's none of my business. If I find you roaming EBA lands in the company of your comrades, I can only reason that you are here to kill/rob from EBA members and would be shirking my role/responsibilities by not engaging you since the EBA does not have a contract with UNC. @Tigari KP is combat free, until you, Elsworth, Tabomo and others come down and make it not combat free. Then we fight for a while, then most times you guys go home. Unfortunately for BWG you didn't last week. Combat free does not mean people won't defend themselves. During that evening, with respect to any engagements in KP proper, TSV members attacked only when GOL and Aragon members went red.
Well, that's not anyone in EBA's fault that you assumed a forum personae would act a given way and it is not living up to your expectations. It's not our purpose (or desire for many) to live up to your expectations. As far as a "positive way" is concerned let's clearly define that it is n't positive for you. It is for many, many others. EBA is is not NBSI. We've established public policies that anyone can be directed to with respect to behavior in lands we have now declared and are holding. Territory control is part of the design of this game, remember? As Throgrim said we are NRDS...to people who have not made declaration or have taken past action to prey upon our members. You and your settlement have made it very clear time and again over the years that you consider Phaeros (and the EBA) fair game to attack and steal from. That noted, I find it unfathomable that you would not understand why we wouldn't consider anyone from your sphere of influence (settlement) KOS. The expectation that I have of those affiliated with Aragon is they see me as a member of Phaeros and the EBA as a target to be attacked. Why, then, am I not allowed to defend myself (or my friends) OR if I am why am I only allowed to defend myself in a manner approved by you? Why should I only be allowed to worry about your combat character but not be equally guarded for your tavern roaming one? Because of your say so? Just about every reason you use to justify stopping and robbing EBA non-combatants I believe is equally valid to intercept your non-combatant. Many of us in the EBA have had our characters jumped and killed by NC folks where they were outnumbered, yet you don't see us coming to forums complaining about it or doing so in game. No, we do as was suggested: We mobilize and do something about it in game. That's what the ones who expected us to be defenseless told us to do here on these forums pre-Alpha and EE. Now that we are doing it, now defending ourselves is a huge problem that we are made out to be horrible people for doing so. We're being disparaged for claiming territory and defending ourselves. Things you are supposed to do in this game. I mean, wow. Just, wow. As for the issue with Bellows...Having known Decius for 2+ years, debated with him over various topics on voice coms...and having been in voice comms with him when this happened...Decius has nothing to worry about with respect to being honorable.
Claiming territory in a game based on claiming territory is not being a "bad guy". And this "their share" talk? Really? Please link the location where it establishes how much a group can hold as "their share". If there is any enmity to be had I highly doubt it is from your PvP attention. I think it's more from how some of you present yourselves on forums such as this and the manner in which you communicate with/at others. The incessant need to paint anything and everything anyone from the EBA says or does has done way more to that end than any in-game PvP. Frankly, there are days that I feel the community doesn't *deserve* our content. This is an example of what I meant above. It is also very presumptive in thinking "your content" is the reason keeping people in game. It's not though I'm sure your opinion differs. I like PvP (as much as I like crafting and PvE). I like killing Golgothans. If you guys left, I'd like killing the next guys that step in to fill that role. 18 plus years of playing MMOs has shone me there will always be a "next guy" that wants to be evil and murder some carebear noobs, lol!
Tyncale, there's no question in anyone's mind that predators need prey. My question is, how many of those who are currently playing primarily as prey are prepared to step into the role of predator? If, by predator, you mean going into the sovereign areas of other groups and killing random gatherers/crafters, from my experience...none. If, by predator, you mean those who prefer the non-PvP play style yet in the past few weeks have gained interest in it to defend their groups interests...more than a few.
I'll step all back to nearly all as I admit I have not heard of a documented attack on Emerald Lodge members. That's not to say it hasn't happened, just that I haven't heard of it. Nearly all also being in the context of established settlement entities and not including the non-affiliated.
1) I think when the games systems and it as a whole get more fleshed out in the coming months other "NC-like" groups will find their way to PFO. 2) I think the game will survive until that time comes. As the NC has essentially declared themselves enemy to all I'm not sure why other entities currently in game would open up "second fronts" by creating hostilities with other groups that just want to stake out their claim and hold it. If the NC just stopped playing as a whole, well, then I imagine relative peace would maintain until it didn't. That said the new resource regeneration changes will certainly maintain a certain level of conflict as groups seek to police their claims and maintain their crafting endeavors. * If the NC is the sole target of all non-NC content creators, how long do you think that dynamic can realistically be expected to survive? Again, until the next NC comes along. They will come and most likely they will see the current NC as competition and adopt a hostile stance toward the current NC (as well as all the rest of us) as well.
The Grey Guard is currently seeking adventurers of all types as well as Commoners and Experts to join our ranks. Managing a POI takes all types and an organization that prides itself on teamwork and respect. Join today. Make a difference. Help extinguish Frozen Fingers bonfires! (We really do need the help with the bonfires!)
Service guarantees citizenship? ...you wanna live forever?
The point (in my mind) is that those leaders, from Joshua Chamberlain to Caesar, weren't martinets barking out orders from a sense of self: they were all other-focused, learners, listeners, and most importantly, they stood out in their time and context as innovative problem-solvers. I agree. Gen. Moore fits those descriptors as well.
Chamberlain is a good example. Having been an US Army NCO I've read a bit about Gen. Harold "Hal" Moore and based on what I have learned of the man I'd follow him to hell and back. Though I am biased and will say CSM Plumley, RIP, had much to do the success of air cav as well. We were soldiers once...and young is certainly a good read for anyone wanting to know a little more about leadership, teamwork and self sacrifice. My career did not allow me to have the honor of being in the 7th, but out of respect: "Garryowen!"
Name: Grey Guard POI: Watchtower Alignment: Lawful Neutral Accepted Alignments: LN, LG, NG* Classes Accepted: Any that can meet alignment Deities Worshipped: Aroden, Iomedae, Torag, Angradd, Kols (Collectively called The Five) Grey Council: General of the Grey; High Commander North [NA]; High Commander West [EU]; High Commander East [AP] NPC Faction Affiliation: Hellknights(LN) Purpose: As Citizens of Phaeros our charge is maintaining a fighting force, keeping within the values of The Five, capable of protecting the interests and assets of Phaeros, The Seventh Veil and its allies. Introduction: The single most important belief to a member of the Grey Guard is maintaining the laws and keeping order in the lands in which he or she is charged to protect. Each member is expected to follow The Vow, the Law of the Grey as well as their respective Guardian Code both in letter and in spirit. This will aid them in the defense of our interests and as ambassadors for The Seventh Veil and the Roseblood Accord. Joining the Grey Guard:
Please also feel free to PM me here if you have any questions about the Grey Guard. *As far as alignment considerations if you feel that Neutral Good means you never follow orders in your pursuit of Good, then maybe not. If you feel, in the context of joining the Grey Guard, that it means that with whatever orders are given you find a way to further Good in the completion of those orders, then most certainly.
The idea of having to sign a contract and pay was my disconnect. .If "mutually beneficial" is no longer the goal... I am not aware that this is the case nor do I attempt to speak as one who has any say either way. Just had a personal question that was graciously answered and one that helps form my opinion for when I express my opinion in other venues. I personally don't see banditry as not being positive gameplay however logic keeps me from agreeing that taking from one in such a manner is mutually beneficial. C'est la vie. Note that doesn't mean I view UNC as a whole in any manner. I take each individual as they come. Thanks as well for the reply.
Thank you for the information. Speaking personally I think that NAP (as discussed above) and our "mutual benefit" clause have many points in common and was a concern I had during the UNC signing RA beginnings. The idea of having to sign a contract and pay was my disconnect. Anyway, once again thanks for taking the time. It is appreciated.
This is mainly directed at The Goodfellow because he is a good fellow from what I've heard. :P In effort to not further derail FMS's post... You mentioned NC's NAP. I'm assuming UNC has agreed to this. I also assume NAP stands for Non-Aggression Pact. If those are true my ultimate question is did UNC require all the members of the NC to sign a contract with them to not SAD or otherwise be aggressive toward them? Was wondering how that part was worked out. I don't frequent these forums much preferring to stay in my own little corner of the PFO world.
In effort to not further derail FMS's post I started this. You mentioned NC's NAP. I'm assuming UNC has agreed to this. I also assume NAP stands for Non-Aggression Pact. If those are true my ultimate question is did UNC require all the members of the NC to sign a contract with them to not SAD or otherwise be aggressive toward them? Was wondering how that part was worked out. I don't frequent these forums much preferring to stay in my own little corner of the PFO world.
This could still be a nice thread about an awesome map somebody made. There is no question that the map is awesome. I think the question is toward the context or pretense in which it was made. People have worked very hard to put the RA together in the light that it is advertised and to have others suggest and continue incorrectly characterize it as something else because they are more familiar with that something else has generated passionate responses and in turn questions of intent. I personally don't think the RA as intended needs defending. It is what it is as listed on paper. Others in the RA differ in that opinion with me. C'est la vie.
Calling others "haters" is always so convincing as a principle held by those who claim to be bastions of "positive game play"...."coalition"...Our non-American participants informed us that word has unavoidably negative connotations with which we didn't want to deal. Positive game play does not mean we can't call things as they are. A spade a spade if you will. It does mean that I am not going to argue with you back and forth over that point. We've put our definition of what we are trying to accomplish out there. If others choose to ignore it and make claims of something else and try to spin it as sinister, so be it. Anyone truly wanting clarification knows to go to the source and ask as opposed to relying on what others assume. |
