Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Areks, thanks for clearing that up. The conversation we had, is very similar to the one I have had with most of those considering any sort of tower NAP.
Not a problem. You provided me with something with an understanding that I would correctly articulate its purpose. I never got the chance to do that with Aragon leadership and then one of them decides to propagandize it for his own purpose, the least I could do is set the record straight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the Settlements who've never introduced themselves or their members on these boards, nor any others we've found so far, how are we supposed to be consulting them to learn their feelings about the War of Towers? Is it more arrogant to assign them towers, or not to do so?
There are smaller groups who have done a fantastic job of taking care of their business in the political ring (the Aeonian League for example) and then there are some that haven't done jack and I don't see any reason to defend their territory or do their diplomacy for them.
This thread is easily the most absurd of all time from our beloved Andius. Basically it says, "TEO is bad because they won't defend the following settlements...from us".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Areks, thanks for clearing that up. The conversation we had, is very similar to the one I have had with most of those considering any sort of tower NAP.Not a problem. You provided me with something with an understanding that I would correctly articulate its purpose. I never got the chance to do that with Aragon leadership and then one of them decides to propagandize it for his own purpose, the least I could do is set the record straight.
Since we are clearing things up, Andius is not part of "Aragon's Leadership", and he did not claim to be. Andius is an officer in a company that has asked to be sponsored by Aragon.
Andius has actually declined to hold a seat in our settlement council and he is not an officer in the UNC. Sponsored companies in Aragon retain their identity and autonomy, with very few restrictions or obligations.
At least there was a positive that came out of this, and it appears that more people, from more companies / settlements are expressing their opinions on that matter, and a compromise is actually very close to had in the other thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some settlements have 17 or fewer members, that does not make them slums, or any other slur. They just don't get the mechanics of this game.
Speaking as a representative of one of the tiny, slummy settlements let me say this--we get the mechanics. We understand what GW is trying to do. We've just done a crappy job of attracting bodies.
Our hope is that as EE expands the player base beyond the limited (and already spoken-for) population of these message boards, we will have an opportunity to remedy the situation.
If not, so be it. We'll swallow our pride and move on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since we are clearing things up, Andius is not part of "Aragon's Leadership", and he did not claim to be. Andius is an officer in a company that has asked to be sponsored by Aragon.@Areks, thanks for clearing that up. The conversation we had, is very similar to the one I have had with most of those considering any sort of tower NAP.Not a problem. You provided me with something with an understanding that I would correctly articulate its purpose. I never got the chance to do that with Aragon leadership and then one of them decides to propagandize it for his own purpose, the least I could do is set the record straight.
While I didn't mean to imply "one of the leaders of Aragon", instead, "one of them = Aragonian" not "Aragonian leadership".
My bad.
Still, he's an officer of a company in the settlement of Aragon. That's a leader in my book, YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We've just done a crappy job of attracting bodies.
I'd not call it "crappy". I'd simply re-write the sentence with liberal use of the word "yet".
As someone pointed out in another thread, not all Settlements are thinking of PFO as a real game right now, while others've been playing for months. If there are Settlements that haven't actively joined the game, one can only imagine there are far more people who haven't either, but will be joining those Settlements in due course.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
AO- Area of Operations
AI- Area of Influence
AOI- Area of Interest
Whatever nicknames have been attached to our AO, AI, or AOI do not represent the greater aspect of strategic and tactical choices being made within the Golgothan Senate.
Claiming you have irrefutable knowledge of Golgothan Strategic and Tactical planning is foolish. You listed off a number of settlements that do not mirror my notes. In fact the majority of information provided does not mirror my notes. There are some resemblances, as in they both list cardinal directions and utilize the word settlements.
The attempted "scare tactic" being utilized is nothing but hot air being distributed in an attempt to slander TEO. The mistake was dragging Golgotha into this vendetta.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The New TEO Promotes Agreement That Will Make Sacrificial Lambs of Smaller Settlements or as an alternate title The New Golgotha Agreement Will Put Meat on the Table.
It's a joke, personally I hope for an Epic War of Conquest by someone .Who will think back a year from now and think about how cool it was when we were so nice to everyone, we need an all out epic fight for the world to get server growth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For the record, there are several relevant people who currently oppose any NAP that includes Aragon as a member.
Considering that the War of Towers is the major content of the first section of the came, making it not really happen is probably a bad idea.
Those several supposedly relevant people are welcome to wage a feud or later a war, and then let the real game begin.
We are here for the Open World PvP. We have agreed to the principle of the Nap but also to limit it in scope so as not to take too many potential targets off the table. However, we have also been the first to suggest the that limitation be extended to just the six Alpha Towers, which in fact does benefit both the smaller and weaker settlements, and at the same times allows the larger settlements to take on as much risk as they wish in trying to hold more (as long as they are not someone else's alphas).
If you choose not to join a nap, well that is your choice. If you are really anxious to do so, lend your voice to ours in asking the Devs to bring on other forms of rep neutral PvP a lot sooner. I'd love to see SADs, Feuds, Factions and Wars inside the first 3 - 6 months of EE, wouldn't you?
PFO Community Manager
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys,
I have mentioned this on several other threads that ended up being locked... If you are not going to play nice and keep the insults out of these types of conversations then other actions will have to be taken. Please respect the others here and stop posting threads that entice this kind of behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay. Place your bets. How long will this thread last before it is locked like the others.
We got a warning from Bonny on post #61 of page 2, so I hope things calm down a bit. The NAP/6 Alpha towers topic is worth debating, but not with this level of ... animosity. Perhaps this should topic can be debate on a separate thread?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
For the record, there are several relevant people who currently oppose any NAP that includes Aragon as a member.
Considering that the War of Towers is the major content of the first section of the came, making it not really happen is probably a bad idea.
Those several supposedly relevant people are welcome to wage a feud or later a war, and then let the real game begin.
We are here for the Open World PvP. We have agreed to the principle of the Nap but also to limit it in scope so as not to take too many potential targets off the table. However, we have also been the first to suggest the that limitation be extended to just the six Alpha Towers, which in fact does benefit both the smaller and weaker settlements, and at the same times allows the larger settlements to take on as much risk as they wish in trying to hold more (as long as they are not someone else's alphas).
If you choose not to join a nap, well that is your choice. If you are really anxious to do so, lend your voice to ours in asking the Devs to bring on other forms of rep neutral PvP a lot sooner. I'd love to see SADs, Feuds, Factions and Wars inside the first 3 - 6 months of EE, wouldn't you?
Or they could (and some probably will) engage in behavior that has the desired results within the NAP. Since I, personally, would see that result (for example, engaging all targets in the rep-free area around Aragon during their PvP window, or supporting a "unaffiliated" company in taking those towers) as using a loophole, I would rather that outcome did not come to pass and that the players not have to conceal or fail to make public their affiliations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or they could (and some probably will) engage in behavior that has the desired results within the NAP. Since I, personally, would see that result (for example, engaging all targets in the rep-free area around Aragon during their PvP window, or supporting a "unaffiliated" company in taking those towers) as using a loophole, I would rather that outcome did not come to pass and that the players not have to conceal or fail to make public their affiliations.
Oh Noooo! We might have to PvP in an Open World PvP game??
Oh Noooo! We might not have the luxury of picking who we use for PvP, what gear they have, time and place..... It might not be Consensual PvP!!??
Oh Noooo! Players might use unaffiliated alts, and not abide by agreements??
Oh Noooo! PFO sounds like it will be EvE with Swords!!!!
Decious, all kidding aside, you are describing the game we hope PFO will be. "Eve with Swords" is a Win, Win in our opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I might disagree with Andius over a lot - but there is at least one tiny detail in the map that I will disagree with and why I thank Andius to have brought this to my attention.
There is a lot of talk about the inner circle of 6 towers. I'm suprised that one of the six towers surrounding Emerald Lodge is inside the green boundary.
Nobody can claim that Emerald Lodge is a tiny settlement nor that it wasn't possible to contact us. I answered every single PM so far and you find my contact e-mail in my profile.
If it was an oversight - then please correct it.
Otherwise please contact me as I would like to know who placed that tower outside our boundary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you choose not to join a nap, well that is your choice. If you are really anxious to do so, lend your voice to ours in asking the Devs to bring on other forms of rep neutral PvP a lot sooner. I'd love to see SADs, Feuds, Factions and Wars inside the first 3 - 6 months of EE, wouldn't you?
Whether we would like to or not, those are complex systems partly based on other complex systems and may not be possible any earlier.
GW will tell us if there is something else we can delay in favor of SADs, etc.. When they ask us then we can know what we are choosing and what we are delaying.
It is unintelligent to make a decision uninformed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I might disagree with Andius over a lot - but there is at least one tiny detail in the map that I will disagree with and why I thank Andius to have brought this to my attention.
There is a lot of talk about the inner circle of 6 towers. I'm suprised that one of the six towers surrounding Emerald Lodge is inside the green boundary.
Nobody can claim that Emerald Lodge is a tiny settlement nor that it wasn't possible to contact us. I answered every single PM so far and you find my contact e-mail in my profile.
If it was an oversight - then please correct it.
Otherwise please contact me as I would like to know who placed that tower outside our boundary.
Again, it was a a mock up of the map, that map going around isn't official in any sense of the word. The map was an exercise in political prediction, based on an offhand comment Golgotha made BEFORE Emerald Lodge was being talked to on a NAP level.
This is a case of someone taking the map, and posting it out of context.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would leave us with 119/317 to fight over, which sounds about right.
Everyone would have the potential to have access to 8th level training. With no need to go past 13 each (unless you just want to take someones), because that is as high as you need for most T2 gear, and you can't really get past level 12 in six-months.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay. Place your bets. How long will this thread last before it is locked like the others.We got a warning from Bonny on post #61 of page 2, so I hope things calm down a bit. The NAP/6 Alpha towers topic is worth debating, but not with this level of ... animosity. Perhaps this should topic can be debate on a separate thread?
Agree. The NAP/6 Alpha Towers is worth discussing and debating but the OP had too much animosity toward TEO to make this thread worthwhile tool/thread to bring about serious discussions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I might disagree with Andius over a lot - but there is at least one tiny detail in the map that I will disagree with and why I thank Andius to have brought this to my attention.
There is a lot of talk about the inner circle of 6 towers. I'm suprised that one of the six towers surrounding Emerald Lodge is inside the green boundary.
Nobody can claim that Emerald Lodge is a tiny settlement nor that it wasn't possible to contact us. I answered every single PM so far and you find my contact e-mail in my profile.
If it was an oversight - then please correct it.
Otherwise please contact me as I would like to know who placed that tower outside our boundary.
Again, it was a a mock up of the map, that map going around isn't official in any sense of the word. The map was an exercise in political prediction, based on an offhand comment Golgotha made BEFORE Emerald Lodge was being talked to on a NAP level.
This is a case of someone taking the map, and posting it out of context.
Cheatle can also confirm that I made those corrections to him as soon as I opened the map.
I explained to him that neither the hex in the outer ring of EL nor the entire settlement west of Golgotha were EoX nor NC territory.
Cheatle made note of it. This was the initial draft of a map detailing the political lay out as he saw it. Cheatle and I spoke, it was probably the first time TEO and EoX had spoken in "official" channels since I gave Lifedragn the information that was getting fed to us about Brighthaven's settlement location choice.
Cheatle was making assumptions and requested clarification of details at a level which I had to have approved before clarifying. At that time, all I could do was clarify what was significantly in error. I could only give him part of an answer, so it wouldn't make sense for him to revise it then and there. He was still waiting on the rest of an answer from me.
The inclusion of the Emerald Lodge hex was an innocent, incorrect assumption made by Cheatle in an information vacuum and he was corrected by myself, acting on behalf of the EoX, as soon as I was make known about it.
It was nothing more than that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@
Dario
Cheatle
Pinosaur
Golgotha has suggested "The Slums" is still up for grabs. Basically All of the settlements west of the NC.
The quotations imply that the term was originally used by someone else. Quotation marks always infer the words within them have been used somewhere else previously. In this case logic might infer it was originally used by a member of Golgotha.
The reason I used that term is I was told by a member of Aragon that Golgotha suggested one way to get PvP after this agreement would be to fight for towers in "The Slums", which is the area west of the EoX.
I did not make the term up, and I would trust if you had actually bothered to read my fairly short and concise OP you would understand that.
I question which if you honestly missed that, and which of you intentionally ignored it in an attempt to smear me.
@ Deacon Wulf
Same quote. This does not suggest I have indisputable/intimate details of Golgotha's planned strategies, nor does it indicate that all of the settlements later labeled as "Settlements thrown under the bus by TEO's Suggested Map" are part of what Golgotha refers to as the slums. You are making that part up. I can't be faulted for the positions you incorrectly assume I have taken, and things which I have never said or even implied.
@ Pinosaur
Show me the screenshots of TEO leadership threatening anyone about touching 'our' towers. Or stop slandering us, sir.
It's the entire premise of this agreement. You want people to sign an agreement. If they sign up they are agreeing not to attack certain towers (many of which belong to TEO and their allies) in exchange for protection of certain towers of their own.
Of course they are free to not sign the agreement but as at least two of the three major empires have indicated a strong desire to reach such an agreement not doing so could very well be suicide. Especially for smaller independent communities.
So basically you are going to force a gun down the throat of the entire game and say. "Sign this agreement, if you do it we get these towers and you get these ones, if you don't, you are now a potential target for all the major empires whom don't have to worry about fighting us anymore."
So either you're creating a welfare state where all settlement's get an equal number of towers, or a document where the creators dictate who gets what based on criteria determined by them.
EoX and the EA have huge power to sway the terms of this treaty as it loses much of it's meaning if they do not sign. We can already see you abusing this power by trying to force out settlements who hold stances you disagree with (Aragon). Not that I will be sad to see Aragon left out of this tyrannical farce, but it clearly demonstrates just how power drunk you are.
@Areks
There was no talk dividing up to the map or anything dastardly like that. It was a simple premise. "No touchy touchy during War of the Towers". It wasn't "target other folks, not us." It was "we'll worry about defending our stuff and not attacking you if you promise to do the same." No other parties were discussed. As Cheatle said, the map was given to me and we spoke about EVERYONE that had a settlement having a solid foundation.
That may be the nature of the discussion but I'm thinking a step deeper. When you take a significant number of targets of the table through such an agreement, but not others, that's something those other targets should be concerned about.
Here is where I will not "claim to have indisputable information about Golgotha's plans" but talk a bit about the logic I might use if I was in place of the EoX or EA.
I feel as though the EoX is playing this game the way I play games such as Risk or Monopoly. Build as powerful of a position as possible while downplaying the strength of your position to everyone else at the table (except when you need to intimidate them) and making it seem like you are friends with anyone who has the power to thwart your plans.
Along the way you will trample or betray anyone if you feel you can use it to strengthen your position while spinning yourself off in a positive enough light to avoid retribution by those with the strength to bring you down.
If EoX is playing that way this treaty makes a HECK of a lot of sense. The two other players on the board with the strength to threaten you are the EA and Highlander Alliance. If both of them sign onto this agreement you are free to leave a skeleton crew to defend your home towers from the few remaining threats while you focus the bulk of your forces on conquering the towers of the weakest factions on the board. Not only that, but the EA at least, may be so non-aggressive and PvP averse that you won't even have to worry about competing with them (or very many of them at leat) for those remaining towers.
I trust that this isn't the first time these aspects of this treaty have been considered, and that the EoX is very well aware of them.
On the other hand thinking as the EA, their populous is very PvP averse. Having towers means having to defend towers. If there are other major players such as the EoX on the board who may compete with them for their home towers then they will have to muster a great many of players non-interested in PvP to go fight to defend their homeland, or pay astronomical sums for mercenaries to go do it for them.
If they sign onto such a treaty they can let the 90%+ of their alliance who would prefer to avoid PvP sit at home crafting and PvEing while the tiny fraction of them that actually derive any enjoyment from it can go out and defend their towers from the few groups not willing to sign this treaty.
TL:DR- So basically, while I'm sure you discussed all the things you said you discussed, and kept the cards holding your secret schemes toward yourselves, I believe the end result of this treaty means EoX conquering huge portions of the map while the EA sits back and avoids getting any blood on themselves.
And I think both parties are well aware of that to some level.
@Bonny
Guys,
I have mentioned this on several other threads that ended up being locked... If you are not going to play nice and keep the insults out of these types of conversations then other actions will have to be taken. Please respect the others here and stop posting threads that entice this kind of behavior.
If I may defend myself. This community will not always play nice with each other especially once blades meet blades. I think the most that can be reasonably asked is we do so in a manner that does not drag too many personal insults or matters entirely unrelated to the game into it. That would put us leaps and bounds ahead of the communities of similar titles such as Darkfall, Mortal, and EVE.
I have focused the vast majority of my posts on aspects of PFO and the PFO metagame community which I consider to be directly relevant to those playing this game.
I may be in disagreement with a huge portion of the server, and my statements may anger them, but I do not feel that is reason not to state what I believe to be the truth.
This is information I find hugely relevant to the community. They need to understand the nature of what are some of the largest groups announced for this game.
I believe I have done my part in trying to mind what I say when posting in public topics on the Paizo boards. I do not feel as though other people coming into my topics and filling them with personal attacks should be my responsibility, or grounds for the locking of my topics.
I would hope my enemies could meet my relevant information with relevant information of their own instead of insults and vitriol but ultimately I can only control the actions of myself.
The intention of my posts is to inform. Not to entice. They are posted for the benefit of third parties, not those already firmly supporting or opposed to the parties I'm in conflict with.
The issues I have brought to light since this conflict began has drawn the thanks of several third parties who are glad I highlighted particular points and issues I have. I believe that is what justifies the existence of these kinds of topics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there's a significant part of the server that would prefer that there not be a NAP and is only considering participating because they think they have to if EoX does, please contact EoX leadership to discuss your concerns. That's not at all the impression that I've gathered, but I'm sure we'd be perfectly willing to adjust our position based on sufficient new feedback.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBH ... even without a NAP it is highly unlikely the larger settlements will stunt their growth by tieing up resources fighting each other.
I suspect the most you are likely to see between large settlements is a single contested tower they decide to fight over "duel" fashion nmore as a contest and for practice than anything else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TBH ... even without a NAP it is highly unlikely the larger settlements will stunt their growth by tieing up resources fighting each other.
I suspect the most you are likely to see between large settlements is a single contested tower they decide to fight over "duel" fashion nmore as a contest and for practice than anything else.
It's actually extremely likely, just not this early on. Basically they'll gobble up all of the smaller groups either by burning them out of their way or "Look at that big evil empire burning everyone out of their way! Join us and we'll save you!"
Once that process is finished and everyone has loose ties to one of the big empires then they will turn on each other.
The part I'm interested to see is if the fighting will break out between EA and NC, Highlanders and NC, EA and Highlanders will turn on NC together or if the map will expand fast enough that they expand out and new empires emerge before the fighting happens.
Of course I didn't account for EA and Highlanders fighting eachother because the NC separates them from eachother. The only way that will happen is if they both conquer into "The Slums" and end of fighting eachother for control of them. An incredibly unlikely scenario for many reasons. Or if one of them joins with the NC against the other. Also unlikely IMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some settlements have 17 or fewer members, that does not make them slums, or any other slur. They just don't get the mechanics of this game.Speaking as a representative of one of the tiny, slummy settlements let me say this--we get the mechanics. We understand what GW is trying to do. We've just done a crappy job of attracting bodies.
Our hope is that as EE expands the player base beyond the limited (and already spoken-for) population of these message boards, we will have an opportunity to remedy the situation.
If not, so be it. We'll swallow our pride and move on.
Sorry, I stand corrected. But don't feel bad about recruiting numbers at this point !
There is very little buzz about this game. At Dragoncon, a tiny handful of the people who sat through the PFO panel were interested in talking to Alpha players. I'm hoping it is just too far out from OE to be attractive. We have a year yet to be 'player ambassadors' so things should improve.|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The only way that will happen is if they both conquer into "The Slums"
Could you stop calling them "The Slums", please ? There is a difference between Golgotha using that word in a private conversation, and you using that again and again on Paizo.
Oh, and by the way, I don't see anything forbidding TEO to offer military protection to unaligned settlements, in the NAP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a party to the political undertones in the thread. I do see that this NAP could very well funnel rabid PvP forces in specific directions (those that don't sign for example). Personally I'd rather see no NAP in the War of Towers at all. Whether I was in a small/large or good/evil guild it wouldn't matter. I'd want to test the logistics and ability of my PvP forces to have what we hold prior to OE. It will build necessary experience at a reduced cost. Getting this experience in settlement warfare has a much higher potential cost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Could you stop calling them "The Slums", please ? There is a difference between Golgotha using that word in a private conversation, and you using that again and again on Paizo.
While Andius does tend to use "the Slums" in a provocative fashion, he was not the first to use them in public. I'm pretty sure that honour went to Guurzak in a joke about settlement sites that nobody wanted being down-wind from Golgotha--at least a month ago, before the landrush was over.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not a party to the political undertones in the thread. I do see that this NAP could very well funnel rabid PvP forces in specific directions (those that don't sign for example). Personally I'd rather see no NAP in the War of Towers at all. Whether I was in a small/large or good/evil guild it wouldn't matter. I'd want to test the logistics and ability of my PvP forces to have what we hold prior to OE. It will build necessary experience at a reduced cost. Getting this experience in settlement warfare has a much higher potential cost.
Nobody is forcing us to agree to anything. If we really want to test our mettle, being the only non-signatory might provide significant practice....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that honour went to GuurzakBut not Again and a...again and -- And again. *takes a shot* And again and again and again... And then one more time.
...This... reminded me of... something
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...This... reminded me of... somethinglol... That was hilarious.
Or, at least, it was ----something.....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some points...
- When I was recruited to TEO (then the Great Legionaires) I was under the impression that our mission was primarly to defend players, particularly new players from RANDOM PLAYER KILLERS and GRIEFERS.... I was not under the impression that our mission was to defend every settlement in the game from settlement vs settlement PvP (i.e. what the Dev's designed as a core function of the game). Had I been informed of this, I likely would not have joined....because I would have no interest in trying to nullify a core design principle of PFO... I simply would be playing another game... not that I mind entirely PVE games, but this wasn't advertised as one.
- It would be presumptious of TEO or any organization to negotiate on behalf of OTHER organizations who have not granted TEO thier consent to act as proxy for them. I would be rather upset if my leadership did this. The fact that not every organization will be included in a diplomatic agreement should not preculde TEO or any organization from negotiating diplomatic treaties with other entities, even ones to (gasp) our advantage.
- I was unaware of our leadership, or anyone elses of pointing a target at anyone else.... a NAP is simply that, a mutual agreement NOT to engage in agression against certain specific targets... it is NOT an Offensive Alliance. That is an entirely different animal.
- I am unaware that our leadership has sought to preclude ANY group or organization from participating in this or any other negotation. If they fail to do so...that's simply thier own choice.
- Advantageous diplomatic agreements are part of the way PFO was intended to be played, as is settlement warfare, as indeed is banditry. I have never had a problem with how UNC or GOL have intended to play the game (though I may have expressed some disagreement over specific design mechanics with some of thier membership)..... as nothing in the past or present has indicated that they intend to engage in RPKing or GRIEFing of players or any purposefull attempt to wreck thier play experience. My impression of TEO's current goal is to generaly provide a relatively safe haven for those players who don't want to be exposed to constant PvP... I see nothing in the proposed agreement that would weaken that goal. Speaking only as a member, not an officer.... we aren't out to play as some server or world wide "police force" and prevent ANY act of agression or conflict from happening... indeed that would be preventing other parties from enjoying thier play time, as well as be entirely unachievable..... we are simply trying to provide a place where people can pursue the play style then enjoy most with less risk of that style being disrupted then in some other settlements that aren't focused on that goal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wait wait wait, some settlements will lose while others win ?
Shocked, I am shocked by this revelation !
"Is this gonna get ugly, now? Huh? I hope not. Because I thought what we were here, racial differences notwithstanding, was just a couple of old friends. You know, just both of us Golarions."
Guys,
I have mentioned this on several other threads that ended up being locked... If you are not going to play nice and keep the insults out of these types of conversations then other actions will have to be taken. Please respect the others here and stop posting threads that entice this kind of behavior.