Goblin Squad Member
|
Speaking a mostly independent...
I think y'all are making way too much mountain out of this molehill. The NAP was a gentleman's agreement. However it seemed to have no provision for "abandoned" settlements.
If Hammerfall wants to make their case, they can. But everyone else seems to be wanting a reason to go to war over someone else's actions.
Also AGC is not the only one in violation. Callambea is also in violation. In fact Callambea is an actual settlement where as AGC is its own company that is currently associated with Aragon.
So either put on your big boy pants and declare war, or keep your nose out of someone else's affairs.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys know Atheory is their main recruiter, right?
I'm calling this a very shrewd recruiting move. He can likely recruit dozens of combat PvP players who don't want to be chained by the NAP. Combat PvPers are constantly grumbling about the NAP.
This is just about the time where any players who are discontent with their first choice of settlements (especially if they also feel constrained by their settlement's upcoming policy on husk looting) would be looking to jump ship.
I'm guessing we'll see player numbers take a decided jump upwards at Atheory's settlement.
Atheory is the main recruiter for whom? You are welcome to visit the UNC website, and you'll find AGC is not there. They have their own website / own gaming community and own TS.
Atheory is the main recruiter for AGC, none of his recruits have joined UNC. His company's growth is largely due to his activity, AGC being primarily a crafting company, and PFO being primarily a Crafting Sim.
Most people don't know that Atheory is "our" main recruiter, including myself.
This isn't about UNC. This is about Aragon.
I observe that AGC is a company of Aragon, and that the leader of AGC has claimed that the move was knowingly and intentionally in violation of the terms of the NAP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking a mostly independent...
I think y'all are making way too much mountain out of this molehill. The NAP was a gentleman's agreement. However it seemed to have no provision for "abandoned" settlements.
If Hammerfall wants to make their case, they can. But everyone else seems to be wanting a reason to go to war over someone else's actions.
Also AGC is not the only one in violation. Callambea is also in violation. In fact Callambea is an actual settlement where as AGC is its own company that is currently associated with Aragon.
So either put on your big boy pants and declare war, or keep your nose out of someone else's affairs.
You're completely wrong. It very specifically covers abandoned settlements, which is why we're even having this conversation.
Settlements can't take towers. Only companies can take towers. A company allied with Callambea took a tower, just as a company (that later) allied with Aragon took a tower.
We specifically talked about what to do when companies took towers their settlements didn't want, and we agreed to what's happening.
This was Allegiant's affair until they chose to ally with Aragon, then it became a specific issue under the NAP.
Again, you are entirely incorrect about everything you questioned. If you are allied with a signatory then your settlement leader should make themselves and you aware of this. If you are not allied with a signatory, then "keep your nose out of someone else's affairs"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also AGC is not the only one in violation. Callambea is also in violation. In fact Callambea is an actual settlement where as AGC is its own company that is currently associated with Aragon.
I know it was not your intent, but I want to make clear that Callambea is not in any way ignoring this infraction. Like was stated on the last page we are investigating and have every intention of following the guidelines of the NAP we agreed to. That includes reparations requested by tribunal representatives if necessary.
Right now we are attempting to identify what citizens were involved in the tower capture.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it's any help I hope my words, and more my actions, both in-game and here have proven my capabilities as a neutral party when needed. I am happy to defend Aragon in this instance, though I certainly understand why they might be hesitant to accept such an offer. But, so long as folks know I'm available for this or any future need I'm happy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Petitioner and Accused may select any Signatory that is not a member of their Power Bloc as their Advocate.
There is nothing in the NAP to preclude both the Petitioner and the Accused from selecting the same Signatory as their Advocate, and there is nothing the NAP to preclude the same Signatory from serving in both capacities if that is what the Petitioner and the Accused both want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is what I see. AGC has open violated the NAP and even has admitted to it. They are calling out the NAP and flaunting everyone's inaction.
What is going on now is whole bunch of procedural brouhaha about who should do any retribution.
This little "League of Nations" is trying to prevent War in a game where the main focus is player contention over resources.
So once again...Fight or wibble indecisively.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is what I see. AGC has open violated the NAP and even has admitted to it. They are calling out the NAP and flaunting everyone's inaction.
What is going on now is whole bunch of procedural brouhaha about who should do any retribution.
This little "League of Nations" is trying to prevent War in a game where the main focus is player contention over resources.
So once again...Fight or wibble indecisively.
Again, independent groups waving their arms and chanting "fight!" repeatedly does not mean that the rest of us have to do so. We are no longer in grade school, and get to select which peers' pressure matters to us.
(edit: I assume most of us are no longer in grade school)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Petitioner and Accused may select any Signatory that is not a member of their Power Bloc as their Advocate.There is nothing in the NAP to preclude both the Petitioner and the Accused from selecting the same Signatory as their Advocate, and there is nothing the NAP to preclude the same Signatory from serving in both capacities if that is what the Petitioner and the Accused both want.
The only problem is that it would leave a tribunal of two, which works fine if they agree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, some of us do not believe that "player contention" must specifically mean war and conflict. If words win the day, diplomats like me call it as much a victory as any PvP match. If words do not win the day, I've still had fun playing the game I want to play...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is what I see. AGC has open violated the NAP and even has admitted to it. They are calling out the NAP and flaunting everyone's inaction.
What is going on now is whole bunch of procedural brouhaha about who should do any retribution.
This little "League of Nations" is trying to prevent War in a game where the main focus is player contention over resources.
So once again...Fight or wibble indecisively.
They made an agreement and are adjudicating it according to their chosen process.
While I personally don't care for the NAP, the signatories (including the settlement I obey) felt it was in their best interests to sign it at the time, and whether they can now handle this process to people's satisfaction will likely determine the viability of future agreements.
While it is definitely a popcorn friendly situation, it is also VERY important in determining whether settlement leaders who hope to wield considerable influence in our game, actually CAN.
It also has considerable crowdforging importance, though that should probably be split into a separate topic. Can you say company authorized tower/POI capturers?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is what I see. AGC has open violated the NAP and even has admitted to it. They are calling out the NAP and flaunting everyone's inaction.
What is going on now is whole bunch of procedural brouhaha about who should do any retribution.
This little "League of Nations" is trying to prevent War in a game where the main focus is player contention over resources.
So once again...Fight or wibble indecisively.
One of the problems is fighting doesn't resolve anything like this definitively at this point in the game. Thus a diplomatically negotiated solution is the only way to really resolve this sort of violation. This game is intended to not just be a giant ongoing brawl everytime a few people run into each other, if that's what you are looking for you are in the wrong place.
As the situation appears to stand (until the we hear otherwise from the eventual tribunal) it very much appears that AGC is blatantly at fault. The question for the Tribunal will most likely be what is Aragon's solution to the problem or are they willing to accept the consequences of AGC's actions? Remember, taking the towers benefits Aragon, not just AGC so Aragon needs to respond if they wish to keep their WoT NAP status.
For example if they choose to boot AGC the towers leave Aragon, become 24 PvP window, do AGC absolutely no good for holding them, and quite possibly blacklists AGC for the immediate future from any WoT NAP abiding settlements.
Edit: How this is resolved will also show us which people can keep their word and which people can be trusted to follow the directives of their leadership.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what i unerstand a core group that wants to quietly build its power is imposing the "nap" on others so they don't actually have to earn what they have.
To hell with that, if you want we was taken, then take it back, words are useless.
Incorrect. Anyone not already in a settlement can do whatever they want, as can any settlement that chose not to be part of the agreement. This is only an agreement not to fight among ourselves over certain things. Nice try, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a Settlement doesn't want to be part of the NAP, they're no worse off by ignoring it than they would be if it never existed in the first place. The only thing that happens if you ignore the NAP is that your Core 6 Towers will no longer get a free pass from the folks who aren't ignoring it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlements can leave the NAP any time they decide to. Anyone that never signed does not have to do anything. If they don't attack another settlement's core six, we will generally treat them as though they are members and leave theirs alone, if they take them. If they are absent, they are up for grabs. If they come back, they can join in the NAP, or not, as they choose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Certainly not Hammerfall, though we could definitely do with more towers.
One problem is that there are small population settlements, I mean I have been on my own for the last 4-5 days. Where as it takes 83 minutes to take a tower for me, if one of Hammerfall's core six towers were taken there is probably no way I could get it back on my own.
This is where the NAP comes in, Hammerfall is protected by this otherwise it would most probably be overrun, again, in minutes.
The settlement has to rely on the protection from the NAP and other companies.
If the game descended into a free for all PvP brawl, you would see an exodus from the server.
Not everyone like full PvP, but we have to live with it and try to work around it.
I played on an full open PvP server in another game, you had gankers standing at the new player spawn point and they would kill new characters as they appeared, just for the kill count, not something I would like to see here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's not imposed if all parties agreed to it.
All parties agreed to it? Not from what i heard.
It only impacts the parties that agreed to it. All the parties that it imposes upon agreed to it. It's a tautology.
Here are the Settlements that agreed to it by indicating their support in Official WoT NAP Treaty:
- Talonguard
- Brighthaven
- Keeper's Pass
- Freevale
- Stoneroot Glade
- Riverbank
- Golgotha
- Aragon
- Phaeros
- Callambea
- Canis Castrum
- Sunholm
- Hope's End
- Alderwag
- Ozem's Vigil
- Forgeholm
So, those are the only Settlements which have any obligations under the NAP. You'll note that Hammerforge doesn't appear in the list, but that doesn't matter because the NAP doesn't impose anything on Hammerforge. It imposes things only on Signatories, and you'll see that Aragon is a signatory.
While it's true that less than half of the Player Settlements signed on to the NAP, I wouldn't be surprised if others sign on in the future. We recognized that some Settlements would simply be unaware of the NAP, and tried to make sure we gave them every opportunity to sign on once they did become aware of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I if you want back waht was taken do something, otherwise stop wasting time witt your useless jsutifications Big Brother.
You, along with several others, seem to want to turn the NAP insto some kind of police state. We don't care what settlements do, as long as they don't take each other's core six towers, and if they do, we don't "take them back" we just stop giving them the protection for their own.
And, once more, if the pressure of people we actually know and interact with on a regular basis doesn't bother us, the peer pressure of people who create an account just to egg us on to do something is of such little consequence that I really can't imagine why you thought it would work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your not here for full pvp you should not be playing in a sandbox game,,,,, a themepapark game with pvp is better suited to that kind of play.
Welcome to PFO.
a lot of people will come to Pathfinder Online with two incorrect preconceptions about the way the game is played. Those two preconceptions are:
1: Open World PvP implies a murder simulator
2: Killing early, often, and without discrimination is the route to long-term success
These two preconceptions mutually reinforce each other. If #2 is true, #1 is inevitable. This is the trap that game after game after game fell into. (Sometimes they didn't "fall" into it as much as they embraced it as a design paradigm on purpose.)
We are going to break this pattern and we are going to redefine those preconceptions. In order to do that we must repeatedly and powerfully shock the system. One of those shocks is a negative feedback loop that links random killing to gimping character development.
(emphasis in original)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If your not here for full pvp you should not be playing in a sandbox game,,,,, a themepapark game with pvp is better suited to that kind of play.Certainly not Hammerfall, though we could definitely do with more towers.
One problem is that there are small population settlements, I mean I have been on my own for the last 4-5 days. Where as it takes 83 minutes to take a tower for me, if one of Hammerfall's core six towers were taken there is probably no way I could get it back on my own.
This is where the NAP comes in, Hammerfall is protected by this otherwise it would most probably be overrun, again, in minutes.
The settlement has to rely on the protection from the NAP and other companies.If the game descended into a free for all PvP brawl, you would see an exodus from the server.
Not everyone like full PvP, but we have to live with it and try to work around it.
I played on an full open PvP server in another game, you had gankers standing at the new player spawn point and they would kill new characters as they appeared, just for the kill count, not something I would like to see here.
When I paid for my Kickstarter there was no mention of full PvP, PvP yes, but not full PvP.
There are other players I know who do not like to PvP either, but are interested in the crafting system. I am playing out my investment here, after which we shall see.I did not participate in the PvP discussion, but was presented it as a 'fait accompli', would I have backed the kickstarter if I had known it was going to be full PvP, I have no idea.
One problem I have, apart from connection speed, is reaction time, I am too OLD to keep up with the younger players, by the time I react to the situation I quite often at a disadvantage.
One reason I liked 'Pirates of the Burning Sea', reaction time meant very little in the ship to ship PvP combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to think other join afther is was sighned will blindly follow this agreement. Yow Also seem to for get the How Aragorn is a more chaotic settlement and you "Laws" Means nothing to us devoted to chage and will rebel agains the stagnation caused by Treaties like Nap.
You seem to have a terrible grasp of what I think, which doesn't surprise me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Persistent sandbox != fantasy shooter
Social consequences are a thing. Players are under no obligation to play on the social plane, but those who choose not to will find that politics impinge slowly but dramatically on the tactical environment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to think other join afther is was sighned will blindly follow this agreement.
No. We understand that it doesn't matter in the slightest whether you follow it or not.
Rebel against your own misunderstanding all you want, why should we care?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If your not here for full pvp you should not be playing in a sandbox game,,,,, a themepapark game with pvp is better suited to that kind of play.This is a great idea, and Gol Phyllain take it under consideration.
And my apologies to Phyallain if he takes umbrage at that, but I don't think he will.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aragorn is a more chaotic settlement and you "Laws" Means nothing to us devoted to chage and will rebel agains the stagnation caused by Treaties like Nap.
Nipping the "Aragon is chaotic" discussion in the bud:
While many inhabitants of the surrounding kingdoms think of the people of the River Kingdoms as back stabbing curs they are wrong as one of the codes of the River Freedoms is that oathbreakers must die (usually in a very painful manner), as a result most people from the River Kingdoms would die before they broke their word but are also very cautious about giving their word in the first place.
For those of us with interest in lore. Chaotic is not equal to compulsive liar or rule-breaker.
