Goblin Squad Member
|
Given that we are still a month or more away from EE... and then several more months away from the settlements around which the NC is organized even existing... I consider the whole thing interesting long term planning, but effectively meaningless for now.
Think about it. If players who engaged in regular PvP against each other prior to the existence of settlements then become members of different NC settlements have they been violating the agreement? How would they even know? Even if they have a plan for which settlement they are going to end up with, and nobody changes their minds/switches settlements, how would anyone know that random character #123 over there is a likely member of future settlement ZYX? Heck, even once the settlements DO exist, do we know if there is going to be an easy way to see in-game what settlement a charater belongs to? Are people going to keep lists of dozens of character names and say, 'hold on a minute while I look up whether I am allowed to rob you or not'?
Until settlements exist and there is an easy way to tell what settlement a character belongs to there is no point in dithering over the details of what the agreement 'means'. It doesn't mean anything yet because we aren't even in the game. Once there is some way to actually implement it I'll start paying attention to the details and seeing whether they work for me. Until then this is really a plan to have an agreement once it is actually possible to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its not at all meaningless.
GW will implement a way for each group to see each other as their groups. It may not be red and blue, but there will be a way. Its part of the whole settlement warfare process. If they do not implement an easy way to tell who your allies are, then they failed in creating a political warfare game.
As far as not knowing who each other are once EE starts, it is possible. Why should that stop us from planning it out?
With that logic, why should we even bother recruiting for your companies or bother having a land rush?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its not at all meaningless.
Is there a game we are able to play right now? If not, then yes an agreement on how to play that non-existent game is very much meaningless.
GW will implement a way for each group to see each other as their groups. It may not be red and blue, but there will be a way. Its part of the whole settlement warfare process.
The settlement warfare process won't exist until months after settlements exist... which won't be until months after the game exists... which won't be for another month or two.
As far as not knowing who each other are once EE starts, it is possible. Why should that stop us from planning it out?
So... you're saying we can plan out what the NC will mean once settlement warfare is implemented or there is some other way to determine what settlements people are from? Guess what? That's also what I said.
With that logic, why should we even bother recruiting for your companies or bother having a land rush?
The land rush actually DOES exist. You can make and implement actual plans for it right now. People can agree to apportion their votes in different ways. It exists in the present. Not the future.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its not at all meaningless.Is there a game we are able to play right now? If not, then yes an agreement on how to play that non-existent game is very much meaningless.
GW will implement a way for each group to see each other as their groups. It may not be red and blue, but there will be a way. Its part of the whole settlement warfare process.The settlement warfare process won't exist until months after settlements exist... which won't be until months after the game exists... which won't be for another month or two.
As far as not knowing who each other are once EE starts, it is possible. Why should that stop us from planning it out?So... you're saying we can plan out what the NC will mean once settlement warfare is implemented or there is some other way to determine what settlements people are from? Guess what? That's also what I said.
With that logic, why should we even bother recruiting for your companies or bother having a land rush?The land rush actually DOES exist. You can make and implement actual plans for it right now. People can agree to apportion their votes in different ways. It exists in the present. Not the future.
So what your saying is that you just came here for an argument?
Have you played any other MMO's that were not themeparks?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what your saying is that you just came here for an argument?
I said nothing remotely like that. Indeed, the existing argument(s) over the details of the NC strike me as pointless until it is actually possible to see how things will work in the game.
Have you played any other MMO's that were not themeparks?
Yes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As we look at where people are landing during the Land Rush, as we see who our neighbors are during this process (while keeping an eye on the future weeks when these locations will become permanent), and as we attempt to help solidify relations with those neighbors, I think agreements such as the NC are quite beneficial. Do we have to worry about getting wrongly attacked at this moment? No. Does showing that we all have the same understanding and interpretation of this agreement as a further means of demonstrating our good intentions and cooperation...does that matter at this time? Certainly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...they agree with their opposite number, not to waste each other's time, and to go to the pub instead.How do we write up that agreement so it sounds all highfalutin and proper? That's one worth signing; Tavernhold will save us a table.
Clause 1) "Any encounter between members of The Company which would require them to take up arms against each other shall automatically void all other terms of the contract and require the hiring party to fund an immediate shift to the nearest tavern where the victor of the encounter shall be decided by means of a drinking test which shall include any members of The Company who were involved in the original contract, or who happen to be in the tavern, or who are picked up along the way to the tavern, or who show up at the tavern after the game begins and prior to the declared win, which shall occur when only one member of the company remains standing."
This is a Non-Aggression Pact.
There will be no attacking of other members or territories with two exceptions.
1)An NC member is guarding a war targets caravan. In this case, anything goes.
2)Planned friendly combat.
That is all.
Again, this is a full Non-Aggression Pact.
...More-Or-Less.
;)
But it's apparently still being worked out, so whatevs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a Non-Aggression Pact.
There will be no attacking of other members or territories with two exceptions.
1)An NC member is guarding a war targets caravan. In this case, anything goes.
2)Planned friendly combat.
That is all.
Again, this is a full Non-Aggression Pact.
...More-Or-Less.
;)
But it's apparently still being worked out, so whatevs.
Nothing is being worked out atm.
This is a Non-Aggression Pact.
|
@KC: The things are only in imagination and creativity fields by now. Not only for NC, but for everyone. When the EE start, and we really see what is going on, we will have a lot of change minds between accords and behavior. Because the game will frustrate some predetermined ideas. Even now the games system are in great changes from what they said in a post 1-2 years ago.
The difference is that, inside NC, this is well-known, constantly explored and already trasparent to each other. I don't know (and possibly don't care too much)how other settlements arrangements are threating this unknown factor.
I can tell about Lion Council: We're, at this moment, with NAP with entire NC and friends. And we are not even planning doing any kind (meaningless-ful) of PvP right now...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its not at all meaningless.Is there a game we are able to play right now? If not, then yes an agreement on how to play that non-existent game is very much meaningless.
Meaningless in regard to in-game benefits currently being received? Yes, this is true, but so obvious that I think other people may be missing that's what you meant.
If that's what you meant.
If what you meant instead that making plans on how you intend to play the game with your neighbors, and viewing the map and saying, "Hey! A NAP sounds like a good idea for when we set up shop, what do you think?" then I disagree. Conversing and discovering intent among the community you plan to live alongside for years is a very meaningful action. It's the simple process of planning ahead, and if we didn't have the ability to plan, society as we know it would cease to exist in rather short order.
So not only do I find it meaningful, I find it asinine to suggest otherwise. But that's just my 2 copper's on the matter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Meaningless in regard to in-game benefits currently being received? Yes, this is true, but so obvious that I think other people may be missing that's what you meant.
I can't help it if some people 'miss' the meaning of "for now" and "currently".
It's the simple process of planning ahead...
Or, as I called it, "long term planning"?
Since my previous statements were somehow unclear, despite being "obvious", let me re-state it: In order to have a 'non aggression pact' between members of various settlements there has to be a way to identify what settlement a character belongs to... and that probably won't happen until some time next year.
Damn goblins.
Anyways, it's not quite that hard to recognize what settlement a group serves. Just learn the names of some of their members.
"Who's that group? Friend or foe?"
"There's someone leading them."
"Well? Who is it?"
"Looks like Xeen. S@$~."
I think Paizo's trying to move their servers onto Boxbot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So... that thing I was saying about waiting to see how things are actually implemented? Seems there has been a 'minor development' on that front.
Some of the questions this raises: Does the NAP mean that NC members can't attack each other's towers? Given that most of the NC members are in close proximity to each other that might mean that the settlement which grabs the most nearby towers first (i.e. who logs in the most players the first few hours of EE) gains an advantage. Is claiming one of the towers adjacent to another NC settlement 'aggression'? Or would the local towers be 'divvied up' amongst the NC settlements?
And while people start thinking about and discussing these and other new issues... I'll say again that we still don't know how a lot of things are going to work and it won't help to get ahead of ourselves and 'debate' how we think things will be implemented and what that 'means' for the NAP, because we won't know for sure until we are actually playing the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And while people start thinking about and discussing these and other new issues... I'll say again that we still don't know how a lot of things are going to work and it won't help to get ahead of ourselves and 'debate' how we think things will be implemented and what that 'means' for the NAP, because we won't know for sure until we are actually playing the game.
It also doesn't hurt to discuss these things with the information we have at hand. We need something to do more than sit around with thumbs in our rears. Discussing plans based on what we know fills some of that time. Not that real life comparisons are ever truly accurate or valid, but still: You don't know that you'll still be alive this weekend. But that doesn't stop you from planning stuff. We don't know if things will change in game, but we can plan with what we've got.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
CBD- Remember this is Alpha, and everything is subject to a wipe so I think it would be best at least until EE just to play with the system and try to have fun. I don't see anything about canceling the great catastrophe yet so.
This is nothing to do with alpha. This is what will be happening the first day of EE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For those involved, we are conducting discussions at the Empire of Xeilias right now. The location may be subject to change, but as of right now, SOME talks have began about details. No decisions being made, just proactive conversation about possibilities. All concerned are encouraged to participate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As the Keepers of the Circle continue to discuss the Northern Coalition, I wanted to check on a specific concern I have. Note that this is not from the Circle as a whole, but me as an individual. The concern is two-fold, or really two sides of a coin (and I'm guessing there's a third side--crazy Jiskan coins from down south...). On one side, the current constituency of the coalition is very divergent in Alignment beliefs (and of course, Aragon is thus in its own settlement). It seems to me that this could lead to the NC falling apart from in-fighting if its founder organizations come to disagreements based on this divergence. On the other side, several founding groups of the coalition have characteristics that would indicate at some future point they might consolidate a hold over all the rest and simply take over to form one large Nation. In either case, should the Circle be a member at that time we'd simply withdraw as I can't see any agreement other than non-aggression being in our interests with regard to the founding NC groups (I'm always open for folks to prove otherwise--you know how to reach me in that event).
Has there been discussion on how this will be handled proactively? Basically, is there a third side to the coin that will allow this coalition to combat these two extremes in the future? I'm not rabble-rousing here, but rather am genuinely interested in how this diverse group is looking to hold itself together, but independent, moving forward.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For Freevale's part, we joined The Northern Coalition NAP because dumping on our neighbors seems pointless. We wanted to lay the groundwork for a trade network. Nation building is off the table. Our individuals and companies can enter what ever agreements they want - Freevale will not be held.
I think in fighting can be resolved with open lines of communication and clear, concise terms in which we can all agree. Your right to walk away if you want out is yours. No one can take that away from you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a legitimate concern, as there is no inherent guarantee that can be readily seen that this would not happen. However, I ask that you also keep in mind that this coalition came into being from the efforts of four very different play styles. I would like to believe that the four entities came together -much like Roseblood Accord- under a single ideal.
I can only speak from the view of Aeternum and Callambea, but I think we as a Settlement and entity have always let it be known how much we value open, clear and mutually beneficial agreements. Our founders all have history in sandbox and pvp games. There's a realization there that an entity, no matter how strong they are, will fall at some point during the life of the game. Only through strong friendships and proactive discussion (like the creation of the coalition before the game is playable) that we can ready ourselves for that inevitable fact.
The Northern Coalition is founded on experienced sandbox / pvpers who realize what is at stake and want to maximize both the lifespans of their organizations and the fun (we seem to forget that word on the forums) that can be had enjoying a game we are all, now, deeply invested in.
Can I make guarantees, Erian? I am not in the position to do so, for the coalition. I can suggest to you that this coalition is a projection of the values and experience that are embodied in each member state, and in the form of a simple NAP there is still much room for discussion and growth, now that we are all at the same table.
- Krow
Callambean Ambassador
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The current signatories of the NC are extremely proactive player versus player enthusiasts. Our vote structure for admitting new members into the coalition is unanimous because of that ideal. A game with no enemies on the table stands to grow stale quickly.
That said it is both possible and likely that individual signatories might take the non aggression pact as a first step in a more beneficial alliance.
That will not be happening as a whole, as Gpunk has mentioned with Freevale. It will not change the NC itself if it does happen. Any further alliances exist as a separate entity between the NC groups in question.
For example, the Fluffy Bunnies are signatories of the Northern Coalition. They have been doing bandit cleaning ops with the Squirrels of Doom in EE for the last six months. SoD is also a signatory of NC.
They enjoy pvping together and see a true advantage in forging more friendly terms. They form a meta alliance because their alignments don't match to form a nation and they are unwilling to bend enough to make them match. They make a new alliance contract called the "Caring Critters Preserve".
The Northern Coalition exists, but remain unchanged. The other signatories either form their own deeper friendships or remain under the NAP as they wish.
Both the SoD and the FB abide by the terms of the NC, both of them abide by the separate terms of the CCP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A good point as well, considering the potential conflict(s) of interest a group might get into after signing multiple agreements with different groups.
A follow-on question not directly related. I believe it's already been addressed but is there any preference/restriction for membership in relation to geographic location?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Given that the current signatories reside in the North, the question you pose concerning geography has not been previously considered. The NC consists of four separate entities, and we would not wish to post any decisions without the other members being involved. Being a diplomat yourself, we know you will understand if we suggest that out of respect for our other signatories, the answer to your question be postponed until they are available to provide their views on the topic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Absolutely, there's no need to rush an answer and having time to consider it is exactly why I'd want to bring it up. I like organizational decisions to be deliberate and (generally) accepted by members prior to moving it forward. It just makes for a better overall approach with regard to long-term success, avoiding confusion, etc.
It is an entirely reasonable position to take that only "grouped" settlements are part of the coalition, and as such, you could let others know that applications are only accepted in a given region. Alternately, if it is determined that remote members might be beneficial--for instance, in providing a means of gaining trade goods not otherwise available in the area--that is also a reasonable stance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The NC is explicitly a Non-Aggression Pact. The NAP is among proactive PvP groups that reside next to each other in the land rush. It is imperative that the number of signatories is exclusive in proximity and number to allow for the content our respective groups enjoy. Those parties wishing to join the Northern Coalition will be reviewed on a case by case basis and must be unanimously approved with all factors considered.
Trade is not within the jurisdiction of the Northern Coalition. While I cannot speak for other NC members, in regards to trade with Aeternum, for Callambea specifically, trade is conducted through a Free Trade Agreement.
As an overview, the FTA would outline the protocol for goods, scheduling, caravan accommodations, and other technical aspects of trade logistics. Included in the FTA would be a "status of forces section" covering conduct and expectations while in each others' territory. In an effort to keep the Northern Coalition thread about the Northern Coalition and Non-Aggression specifically, further details will be made public soon in our Aeternum Trade Alliance thread.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
How is the non-aggression pact expected to be implemented in the War of Towers?
Will the NC settlements simply prohibit companies that are pledged to them from attacking towers held by companies pledged to other NC members, or will they try to divide up territory proactively?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Those conversations are being held internally now. A NAP pact does include non aggression on each other's towers. How we want to determine ownership is the aspect being discussed.
Communication is the key, and while the signatory focuses are varied we have thus far been able to keep up commendable line open.
If the NC finds it beneficial to share that information, we will post our consensus here for record.
Thank you for the questions :)
I'm a dog, too!
Wait, what?
