Actually, it depends on the offending party's settlement. The accused company has taken a protected tower, but that company's settlement could choose to side with its company (likely removing that settlement and its protected towers from the NAP) or evict the company from affiliation with the settlement in an attempt to retain its protection under the NAP.
Either way, the end result is up to the Tribunal, but Aragon in this case would have some sway in the decision by choosing to embrace AGC's actions or sever ties with them.
Edit: To be clearer, the "biggest" sanction that can be dealt to the offending party (remember, the company) is to be forced to find a new settlement to affiliate themselves with. And based on this infraction, only a settlement willing to break the NAP would likely take them. But this would all be imposed by the settlement, not the NAP itself.
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't care why are you bothering to reply?And my apologies to Phyallain if he takes umbrage at that, but I don't think he will.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.
You seem to be mistaking "don't care very much about the opinions of random anonymous people" with don't care about anything. Incorrect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say you didn't do enough research. When i looked into it early on they very clearly mentioned it wass going to be a sandbox game.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.
And yet, somehow, here I am having more fun in the sandbox than I've had in years, while you whine about how we're all doing it wrong. Interesting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Correct.
Whether that means "nothing of consequence" or "you have zero towers for the next six months" is then up in the air.
And this is where it all will lie :)
This will be fun to watch
There was another thread recently, lamenting the fact that under the current mechanics, it's much easier to take a tower than it is to defend a tower you've already taken. In a post-NAP War of Towers, I suspect that the major powers' holdings would fluctuate wildly day to day, and the small settlements' holdings would hover near zero most of the time.
It has already been fun to watch, and the fun shows no signs of slowing down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh look a random anonymous account railing against the vocal group consensus by citing the indisputable fact of what a 'sandbox' must be, despite numerous posts from the development team filled with evidence to the contrary.
So should we start placing bets on whose troll account this is? I'll place a wild bet, 1 Silver it's a dev trying to rile us up!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to go with a hunch, and bet five non-existent goblin balls that Whispers to Ravens' typing and grammar is a linguistic disguise. In the era of auto correct, it takes more work to type that badly than to let the system fix your typos.
Edit: Drat! Ninja-ed by Duffy. (The betting and disguise parts, not the "one of the devs" part. It is an interesting theory, though.)
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Actually, it depends on the offending party's settlement. The accused company has taken a protected tower, but that company's settlement could choose to side with its company (likely removing that settlement and its protected towers from the NAP) or evict the company from affiliation with the settlement in an attempt to retain its protection under the NAP.
Either way, the end result is up to the Tribunal, but Aragon in this case would have some sway in the decision by choosing to embrace AGC's actions or sever ties with them.
Edit: To be clearer, the "biggest" sanction that can be dealt to the offending party (remember, the company) is to be forced to find a new settlement to affiliate themselves with. And based on this infraction, only a settlement willing to break the NAP would likely take them. But this would all be imposed by the settlement, not the NAP itself.
No, the settlement of Aragon is the respondent here, not the company of AGC. One of the possible resolutions that might be found acceptable would be kicking AGC and blacklisting AGC and the leader of it. But the only only *sanction* possible is withdrawal of the protection provided to Aragon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But the only only *sanction* possible is withdrawal of the protection provided to Aragon.
It is possible for the Tribunal to recommend actions the Accused could take to "make things right", but the worst punishment the Tribunal can impose upon the Accused is to remove the protections of the NAP from them.
No, the settlement of Aragon is the respondent here, not the company of AGC. One of the possible resolutions that might be found acceptable would be kicking AGC and blacklisting AGC and the leader of it. But the only only *sanction* possible is withdrawal of the protection provided to Aragon.Actually, it depends on the offending party's settlement. The accused company has taken a protected tower, but that company's settlement could choose to side with its company (likely removing that settlement and its protected towers from the NAP) or evict the company from affiliation with the settlement in an attempt to retain its protection under the NAP.
Either way, the end result is up to the Tribunal, but Aragon in this case would have some sway in the decision by choosing to embrace AGC's actions or sever ties with them.
Edit: To be clearer, the "biggest" sanction that can be dealt to the offending party (remember, the company) is to be forced to find a new settlement to affiliate themselves with. And based on this infraction, only a settlement willing to break the NAP would likely take them. But this would all be imposed by the settlement, not the NAP itself.
Agreed. I think I'm failing to clarify my point sufficiently, but I'll leave it be. You're entirely correct that the NAP can only remove Aragon from its protection. I'm merely trying to say that the repercussions of the NAP violation may have larger impacts on the companies who take towers, even if it's not directly because of the NAP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the upcoming change bringing PC settlements up to the level of starter settlements, losing some of your core 6 is no longer as big a deal. Settlements that have NAP status stripped, or small settlements under constant attack could focus on just defending 2 or 4 and still see relevant training improvement at this point in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game is as much about politics as actual fighting. It is interesting how futile the arguments from the agitators seem to be. Big endeavors will ultimately require nations and trade agreements. Political respect now will ease your paths to such things in the future.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We in Early Enrollment have a unique opportunity to help set the long term flavour of the game. It may, or may not, last, but if we are committed to building the game we want, and treating each other with respect outside the game, we won't likely do any worse than if we don't commit. There will be plenty of people who don't like it. That's their right. If there are enough of them, they may get their way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to clarify?
For the signatories of the NAP, the core 6 towers of a non-occupied settlement are now open to capture? On the uderstanding that if the settlement becomes active the core 6 towers must be returned to them?
Yes, they are open. Not so much "returned" as you can't provide any impediment to them retaking them.
| 1 person 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.
Obvious day 1 troll is....
obvious.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a post-NAP War of TowersAnother World...
Another Time...
In the Age of Wonder.
A thousand years ago, this land was green and good...
...until the NAP failed.
(Camera pans over a DESOLATE WASTELAND)
Guurzak wins this thread. Now I want to play a Skeksis.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guurzak wins this thread. Now I want to play a Skeksis.In a post-NAP War of TowersAnother World...
Another Time...
In the Age of Wonder.
A thousand years ago, this land was green and good...
...until the NAP failed.
(Camera pans over a DESOLATE WASTELAND)
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)
FIGHT
FIGHT
FI...
*Sees Cal*
...IIIII...
...IIIGHT
...
I couldn't think of another word.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, it depends on the offending party's settlement. The accused company has taken a protected tower, but that company's settlement could choose to side with its company (likely removing that settlement and its protected towers from the NAP) or evict the company from affiliation with the settlement in an attempt to retain its protection under the NAP.
Either way, the end result is up to the Tribunal, but Aragon in this case would have some sway in the decision by choosing to embrace AGC's actions or sever ties with them.
Edit: To be clearer, the "biggest" sanction that can be dealt to the offending party (remember, the company) is to be forced to find a new settlement to affiliate themselves with. And based on this infraction, only a settlement willing to break the NAP would likely take them. But this would all be imposed by the settlement, not the NAP itself.
This is sound thinking and there are several options besides these that can be considered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PARLAY! PARLAY!
I'll 'ave yer guts fer garters!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Triaxus is where it's at. Just stay away from its flying poet whales.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just do it is understood, at no time did the leadership council of Aragon give its blessing to take anyone's alpha six towers. We agreed to the Nap and we would remain with that agreement to its last moment.
I have not had an opportunity to speak to any member of the UNC / Aragon leadership since all of this was revealed to me and has subsequently blown up. I'm a leader, not a despot, and I will await to have council with my fellow brethren of the UNC.
I will also have a talk with Atheory, and after I get passed the WTF were you thinking moment, I'd like to get down to how does he make this up to Aragon depending on where this goes?
Whatever we decide, it was not the UNC's intention to violate the NAP, we have our word and we were intending on honoring that. However, when a fellow in our citizenry f's up, we don't immediayely look to kick them to the curb either.
I'm at least relieved it was not a member of the UNC. That would have really forced our hand, and our response would have been "F you All, We'll Burn Down With The World!!!"
Until I've spoken to a few people, nothing will be decided by me, the UNC or the Aragonian Council.
I would like to hear from a representative of Hammerforge. I'd like to know for certain or as certain as possible, when the first tower was taken?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, good, now just post that in triplicate. Gotta be all official-like, bro.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Great, now this is on repeat in my brain place.Guurzak wins this thread. Now I want to play a Skeksis.In a post-NAP War of TowersAnother World...
Another Time...
In the Age of Wonder.
A thousand years ago, this land was green and good...
...until the NAP failed.
(Camera pans over a DESOLATE WASTELAND)
LOL!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The northern tower of Iron Gauntlet was indeed claimed by Pax Aeternum of Callambea at some point. Since our tower numbers haven't changed in some time, I'm fairly certain at this point it was an error in the initial rush to claim towers.
Should this had been brought up at any point during that time, Callambea would of course not contested Iron Gauntlet retaking their tower. Iron Gauntlet, however, does not seem to be active as all their other towers were 'Unclaimed'. Of course now that a week has passed, those Unclaimed towers are being acquired by various companies, but before today the Northern Tower was the only one that appears to have been wrongly taken.
As all this was brought up less then 24 hours before the point became moot, my personal feeling is no-harm, no-foul. Just as the Empire of Xeilias didn't make an issue about Phaeros taking Kreuz Bersteins Northern Tower, we simply took it back. Since Phaeros didn't contest, no harm, no foul. We simply felt it silly to blow something causing absolutely no harm completely out of proportion.
At any rate, we are cleansing our roster and re-enforcing with our people what the NAP means. If any person(s) want to pursue this, feel free to contact me directly.
- High Thane Kard Warstein
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, thank you for your response.
The screen shot in the OP showed that the Aragon PvP Window had been open, I am not sure how long you have your window set. Under these circumstances, the tower had to have been taken at least 27-28 hours BEFORE my OP. I believe Atheory himself said that they had already taken then for several days.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Aet Kard Warstein,
Including yourself, there have been 5 organizations where a lone tower was taken (or in the process of being taken) within the EoX or EBA. Although we have a responsibility to make things right, and sometimes these things aren't blown out of proportion and fixed right away, I personally feel that a third party is attempting to cause strife among NAP signatories, or perhaps between our two nations.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cheatle knows too much.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although we have a responsibility to make things right, and sometimes these things aren't blown out of proportion and fixed right away, I personally feel that a third party is attempting to cause strife among NAP signatories, or perhaps between our two nations.
Our official title is the Unsold Accounts of Andius or the UAA. I've managed to split my multiple personalities into multiple physical beings as well as AI representations of me that have infiltrated every major power in this game.
The ultimate goal is to cause you all to hate eachother so much that you grief eachother into leaving the game and PFO shuts down.
Then I'm going to buy Zog, convert it into a computer chair, and sit on it in my boxer shorts and a crimson bath robe drinking bourbon and puffing a cigar while laughing maniacally.
I disagree with Andius on a great many things, but that was pretty funny. Well played, wolfman/first edition kobold. Well played.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The ultimate goal is to cause you all to hate eachother so much that you grief eachother into leaving the game and PFO shuts down.
I would ask you to show us on the doll where the Goblinworks touched you, but you know you loved it. You were posting too provocatively. Lesson learned!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Although we have a responsibility to make things right, and sometimes these things aren't blown out of proportion and fixed right away, I personally feel that a third party is attempting to cause strife among NAP signatories, or perhaps between our two nations.
Our official title is the Unsold Accounts of Andius or the UAA. I've managed to split my multiple personalities into multiple physical beings as well as AI representations of me that have infiltrated every major power in this game.
The ultimate goal is to cause you all to hate eachother so much that you grief eachother into leaving the game and PFO shuts down.
Then I'm going to buy Zog, convert it into a computer chair, and sit on it in my boxer shorts and a crimson bath robe drinking bourbon and puffing a cigar while laughing maniacally.
Best Andius post in I don't know how long!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would LOL, but I can't tell if he is serious or not.
I always said Anduis had his Chaotic Evil spurts, and many poo pooed that idea. I also know that Anduis would take no small measure of glee if all of the world burned, he has become a Disciple of Rovagug. Lol, too funny... But probably not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"As penned by Needsha, philosopher of the Laws of Man and propagandist of the the Pure Legion:
'Whoever fights the followers of Rovagug should see to it that he does not become one in the process. And when you gaze long into Gormuz, the Pit also gazes into you.'
He of course was speaking metaphorically, and conflating the well documented tendency for those who spent time around the chasm to go crazy...with the tendency of Rovagug followers to also be insane, as well as trying to indirectly hint that spending time in the presence of any god will have a like effect. Then in 2558 AR, during a lecture he gave at the..."
The small gnome stops talking...realizing that everyone's eyes had glazed over...nor is this the proper locale for such a discussion. He bows his head, muttering as he walks away.
"Well...just saying..."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"As penned by Needsha, philosopher of the Laws of Man and propagandist of the the Pure Legion:
'Whoever fights the followers of Rovagug should see to it that he does not become one in the process. And when you gaze long into Gormuz, the Pit also gazes into you.'
Is that "Writings of Needsha, philosopher of the Laws of Man (12 of 53)"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is that "Writings of Needsha, philosopher of the Laws of Man (12 of 53)"?"As penned by Needsha, philosopher of the Laws of Man and propagandist of the the Pure Legion:
'Whoever fights the followers of Rovagug should see to it that he does not become one in the process. And when you gaze long into Gormuz, the Pit also gazes into you.'
Looking at Nihimon, obviously abashed, "I read it in a little grey book someone keeps leaving in the "Self Target Skills" section of our library.
Pssshht...pseudo-magicks..." The gnome continues in obvious disgust.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So let me get this straight, several companies including primary settlement holders have also violated the NAP, and we are catching grief because a company that only joined us 3 days ago, may have violated the Nap as an independent company?
You may all recall, we had one of our primary six towers taken on the first day of WoT as well, and we just took it back.
In light of these revelations, I'm inclined to say that the dormant settlements have every opportunity to enter the game and take their towers back, and their efforts will not be contested.
If Hammerforge wants to make a case that they have somehow been negatively affected, we will discuss with them some form of return. I would be willing to put an alt in their settlement and help them recapture their towers.
I would dedicate my time as repayment, freeing them up to do something else.