Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@DeciusBrutus - Aragon had no knowledge of our actions. We were accepted Saturday Night, I took the towers Sunday. Someone finally noticed either tuesday night or wed and here we are.
Obviously the only true error here, from the NAP standpoint, is I took an inactive tower a few days before they were legally allowed to be taken. Since AGC does not recognize the NAP, it would be silly of us to adhere to terms set forth in the NAP.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Caldeathe - I take offense to your challenge that AGC lacks any sincere interests in Aragon as a settlement. Do not judge what you do not know or understand.
Earlier you said that you knowingly caused Aragon to enter and remain in a state of treaty violation. That does not strike me as looking out for their interests and respecting their decisions.
What is it that I don't understand about AGC and Aragon?
Edit: didn't see your last post.
If it would be silly of you to adhere to settlement-level commitments you don't like, it would be silly of a settlement to keep you on their roster.
If it would be silly of you to adhere to settlement-level commitments you don't like
Are you referring to those settlement-level commitments that 99% of the player-base has no say in, and of which have to abide by because the active settlement leaders invoke it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Going over the NAP, it seems to bind all players to abide by it even though it is settlement leaders that signed on to it.
This comes up all the time, including at least once in this thread.
The NAP protects the alpha 6 towers of settlements that did not sign it.
The NAP does not impose any conditions on anyone other than the signatories.
Those players that did not have any stake in any settlement before joining the game are now playing by social rules that are imposed on them.
Players and companies joining Settlements should examine the policies and agreements of those settlements before joining. It is the responsibility of a settlement to explain its pre-existing obligations to any company or player interested in joining.
And if those players do not chose to play by those social rules, their is currently no recourse allowed them in order to play a game that they paid for.
You pay Goblinworks for the right to log into the game server, and maybe to earn experience (even that's not guaranteed). That's all.
Settlement membership, access to training.. those are things you take for yourself. Goblinworks doesn't sell them to you.|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If it would be silly of you to adhere to settlement-level commitments you don't likeAre you referring to those settlement-level commitments that 99% of the player-base has no say in, and of which have to abide by because the active settlement leaders invoke it?
I can say that about 10% of the active player base participated in the NAP discussion directly. You also have indirect input via your settlement internally or by seeking to be named leader of one of the inactive settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I said your lack of activity makes it appear that way, because you made no effort to explain yourselves other than thumbing your noses at the world and effectively saying do something about it, despite the distress it appeared to be causing your fellow settlement member. You may take as much offense as you like at that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you referring to those settlement-level commitments that 99% of the player-base has no say in, and of which have to abide by because the active settlement leaders invoke it?
If you don't have any say in your settlement's policies and commitments, you might be in the wrong settlement.
Kindly direct me to the non-NAP player settlement people can play in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Caldeathe - we, rather I, am not responsible for the lack of action taken by others. What else can I do other than admit what I did? Did I forget to send flowers or something?
You say we were thumbing our noses at the world? Again your own conclusion, and I've already remarked to this and will not do so again.
@Kryzbyn - that is not entirely accurate, but can appear so as we only have one incident to judge by. As I've already expressed the reasoning behind the matter, anything beyond is just your own interpretation, which is fine, but does not accurately portray AGC.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kindly direct me to the non-NAP player settlement people can play in.
Any of the 17 settlements not on this list (which has already been posted previously in this thread).
Talonguard, Brighthaven, Keeper's Pass, Freevale, Stoneroot Glade, Riverbank, Golgotha, Aragon, Phaeros, Callambea, Canis Castrum, Sunholm, Hope's End, Alderwag, Ozem's Vigil, Forgeholm
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you referring to those settlement-level commitments that 99% of the player-base has no say in, and of which have to abide by because the active settlement leaders invoke it?
You are badly underestimating how many of us participated in the conversations, let alone asked our membership for their opinions. If it is truly only representative of 1% of people, then there must be 4500 players currently, because I was present for a meeting that had 45 people in it, and it was not the only discussion.
Any of the 17 settlements not on this list (which has already been posted previously in this thread).
Sorry, I forgot to include "not empty or not active".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've had the towers nearly 3 days now, I was wondering when the "we are the world police" would show up.
I took'em, damn straight, what you gonna do about it! And I'd do it again.
As I sit cross legged, arms folded at my offline tower during a dream session chanting "heck no we won't go, heck no we won't go"
Since Golgotha wants to help call me out, feel free to ding them for allowing Callambea (yes also Golgotha with a different name) from taking core towers around Iron Gauntlet.
Yes, what a web we weave!
Atheory
Allegiant Gemstone Company
Bump
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You say we were thumbing our noses at the world? Again your own conclusion, and I've already remarked to this and will not do so again.
I took'em, damn straight, what you gonna do about it! And I'd do it again.
See bump above. I'm not sure in what world that isn't construable as thumbing your nose at us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@DeciusBrutus - Aragon had no knowledge of our actions. We were accepted Saturday Night, I took the towers Sunday. Someone finally noticed either tuesday night or wed and here we are.
Obviously the only true error here, from the NAP standpoint, is I took an inactive tower a few days before they were legally allowed to be taken. Since AGC does not recognize the NAP, it would be silly of us to adhere to terms set forth in the NAP.
Whether you agree to the NAP is irrelevant. Unless my reading comprehension is entirely shot, you have openly stated that at the time of the capture your company was a mechanical member of a Settlement that had signed the NAP. No loopholes or fringe cases are in effect. Therefore the Settlement in question (Aragon) is directly in violation of the NAP terms and is subject to an accusation should someone choose to make one.
How that accusation is resolved is a matter between Aragon, the Accuser, and if necessary a Tribunal. Nothing else regarding your company or it's motivations matters in the least insofar as this matter is concerned. What Aragon chooses to do concerning their relationship with you is subject to their discretion and will most likely be influenced by the eventual, if any, resolution of this matter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any of the 17 settlements not on this list (which has already been posted previously in this thread).Sorry, I forgot to include "not empty or not active".
*shrug* The fact that you are having trouble finding a settlement that caters to your personal specifications is your problem to solve.
I'm sure you can figure out the options for yourself, but the two simplest ones I can suggest are:1) change your personal specifications.
2) convince some settlement to change theirs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any of the 17 settlements not on this list (which has already been posted previously in this thread).Sorry, I forgot to include "not empty or not active".
You could make it not empty. Have you considered asking Goblinworks to make you settlement management of an empty spot until the owner resurfaces?
You could make it not empty. Have you considered asking Goblinworks to make you settlement management of an empty spot until the owner resurfaces?
Yes, we would love to (I feel safe in saying). But, Ryan has said no, they will be made inactive and then most likely redistributed later in a second land rush.
*shrug* The fact that you are having trouble finding a settlement that caters to your personal specifications is your problem to solve.
Maybe settlements shouldn't have such dramatic control over people's ability to play the game.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You could make it not empty. Have you considered asking Goblinworks to make you settlement management of an empty spot until the owner resurfaces?Yes, we would love to (I feel safe in saying). But, Ryan has said no, they will be made inactive and then most likely redistributed later in a second land rush.
*shrug* The fact that you are having trouble finding a settlement that caters to your personal specifications is your problem to solve.Maybe settlements shouldn't have such dramatic control over people's ability to play the game.
Meaningful choices. Meaningful human interaction. If it can't do serious inconvenience to you, it's not meaningful.
Meaningful choices. Meaningful human interaction. If it can't do serious inconvenience to you, it's not meaningful.
Considering people suggested in this very thread that blacklisting AGC from joining a different settlement is a legitimate punishment, you might see why I tend to think the prevailing mechanics (or lack thereof) create an environment when the "meaningful interaction" you speak of becomes a form where Settlement leaders can effectively "grief" companies they do not like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you referring to those settlement-level commitments that 99% of the player-base has no say in, and of which have to abide by because the active settlement leaders invoke it?You are badly underestimating how many of us participated in the conversations, let alone asked our membership for their opinions. If it is truly only representative of 1% of people, then there must be 4500 players currently, because I was present for a meeting that had 45 people in it, and it was not the only discussion.
The NAP was in Place before EE started. So those of us who just started have to work within its framework.
Although I agree with idea and principle of the NAP, it seems being used to enforce a level of "play nice" which some do not think is reasonable given their expectations of the game.
The NAP states that ALL settlements are considered protected until the signatories say otherwise. So only the signatories get to decide if a settlement is protected, active, or inactive. And thus can enforce the NAP at their own discretion.
My issue is that the NAP is being used to impose a certain playstyle without any recourse or appeal. People are being told effectively, if you don't like the agreement of the NAP then don't play the game.
I do consider this event as very significant. And I hope that the Devs are keeping a quiet eye on it. A few flaws in the current system have been shown. Fortunately, parts of the game that have been announced will address some of the concerns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think any sort of blacklisting would be required. Such a thing is a natural occurrence.
After this, if you get booted, you'd need a settlement that does not have any agreements with any other groups, as it would be an act of insanity to accept a company that deliberately and willfully breaks such agreements unless there are none to break. There are no actively settlements in that state that I am aware. Thus, defacto blacklist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am very interested. I'm even more interested to know who took it.
I took it :P (*EDIT* I assume you meant, who took the screenshot, not who took the tower)
I've been keeping an eye on Kruez Berenstin's towers, curious to see if they became active after the NAP protections on inactive settlements got removed.
I won't have access to the screenshots until later tonight, but I'll send them to you.
My issue is that the NAP is being used to impose a certain playstyle without any recourse or appeal. People are being told effectively, if you don't like the agreement of the NAP then don't play the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@all - It is not AGC's intent to restart the debate on the NAP, but merely function in game within the limits of its existence. To seek avenues around it, through it, as if in some form of role-playing.
Individual opinions surely matter, but lets remember to keep them where they are, with those respective individuals.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My issue is that the NAP is being used to impose a certain playstyle without any recourse or appeal. People are being told effectively, if you don't like the agreement of the NAP then don't play the game.
If you don't like the agreement, and can't find a settlement that will support you in that view, then you have the option to operate as an independent company, with the pros and cons that entails. Meaningful choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue is that the NAP is being used to impose a certain playstyle without any recourse or appeal. People are being told effectively, if you don't like the agreement of the NAP then don't play the game.
Speaking for myself, I'm not telling you "don't play the game".
I am telling you that politics is the game.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meaningful choices. Meaningful human interaction. If it can't do serious inconvenience to you, it's not meaningful.Considering people suggested in this very thread that blacklisting AGC from joining a different settlement is a legitimate punishment, you might see why I tend to think the prevailing mechanics (or lack thereof) create an environment when the "meaningful interaction" you speak of becomes a form where Settlement leaders can effectively "grief" companies they do not like.
That would be players getting a bad reputation for doing bad things. That's a core mechanic of the world and an emergent behavior in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you referring to those settlement-level commitments that 99% of the player-base has no say in, and of which have to abide by because the active settlement leaders invoke it?You are badly underestimating how many of us participated in the conversations, let alone asked our membership for their opinions. If it is truly only representative of 1% of people, then there must be 4500 players currently, because I was present for a meeting that had 45 people in it, and it was not the only discussion.The NAP was in Place before EE started. So those of us who just started have to work within its framework.
Although I agree with idea and principle of the NAP, it seems being used to enforce a level of "play nice" which some do not think is reasonable given their expectations of the game.
The NAP states that ALL settlements are considered protected until the signatories say otherwise. So only the signatories get to decide if a settlement is protected, active, or inactive. And thus can enforce the NAP at their own discretion.
My issue is that the NAP is being used to impose a certain playstyle without any recourse or appeal. People are being told effectively, if you don't like the agreement of the NAP then don't play the game.
I do consider this event as very significant. And I hope that the Devs are keeping a quiet eye on it. A few flaws in the current system have been shown. Fortunately, parts of the game that have been announced will address some of the concerns.
The NAP specified what inactive means, which includes, as of yesterday, any unclaimed towers on the board. Any core six tower that has been taken by company other than one aligned with the settlement it surrounds is open to anyone that wants to take it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody is being told that. People are being told "if you don't like the agreement of the NAP then find a way to deal with those who disagree with you." This is a social game; play it on the social level.
You have lots of options. Each of those options has different benefits and also has different costs. If you can't find ANY option that gives you the benefits you need at a cost you're willing to pay, that may be a shortfall of the game or it may simply be a shortfall of your imagination.
If you can't find any better option, then you should consider postponing your participation in the game until it's more nearly feature complete- but I suspect that you'll find a better option if you look for it hard enough.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
People are being told effectively, if you don't like the agreement of the NAP then don't play the game.
No. They're being told if you don't honor the NAP, don't expect anyone to leave your Core 6 Towers alone. That's all.
There is no difference between playing without the protections of the NAP and playing as if the NAP had never existed. The only thing that might change is how others treat you and you have no more right to demand they treat you a certain way than they do to demand you play a certain way.
That would be players getting a bad reputation for doing bad things. That's a core mechanic of the world and an emergent behavior in PFO.
*Quite bad*, for a group of people to take *unclaimed towers* from a settlement that is *essentially inactive*, while other larger groups have done the same very thing and brushed it under the rug or done behind the scenes agreements for them.
My, we're basically the devil!
Naughty fellows indeed! Ban them!
Queue video of the burn the witch scene from Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My issue is that the NAP is being used to impose a certain playstyle without any recourse or appeal. People are being told effectively, if you don't like the agreement of the NAP then don't play the game.
There are 300 towers. The NAP protects 198 of them. That leaves 102 towers to fight over.
There are 33 settlements. 16 of them are signatories to the NAP. That leaves over half the settlements in the game that don't care about the NAP at all.
The only "playstyle" the NAP discourages is a very specific one that insists "I must be a member of one of these 16 settlements, and at the same time, I must be allowed to capture any tower I want."
That is about as specific as saying "my playstyle requires me to be allowed to harvest copper in Golgotha's hex without being attacked."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would be players getting a bad reputation for doing bad things. That's a core mechanic of the world and an emergent behavior in PFO.*Quite bad*, for a group of people to take *unclaimed towers* from a settlement that is *essentially inactive*, while other larger groups have done the same very thing and brushed it under the rug or done behind the scenes agreements for them.
My, we're basically the devil!
Naughty fellows indeed! Ban them!
Queue video of the burn the witch scene from Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail.
So you feel that you should be able to violate the contracts your home has signed without getting a bad reputation for it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My issue is that the NAP is being used to impose a certain playstyle without any recourse or appeal. People are being told effectively, if you don't like the agreement of the NAP then don't play the game.Speaking for myself, I'm not telling you "don't play the game".
I am telling you that politics is the game.
However, by not having the ability, at this time, to take control of a settlement, I can not play politics. I can not affect change on the status quo, I can not create a quorum of like minded players and set up things the way I would want to run them.
So until such time is made, I can only voice my displeasure of the actions taken by those that get to play the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Quite bad*, for a group of people to take *unclaimed towers* from a settlement that is *essentially inactive*, while other larger groups have done the same very thing and brushed it under the rug or done behind the scenes agreements for them.
Now you're playing the political game! Welcome to PFO :)
So you feel that you should be able to violate the contracts your home has signed without getting a bad reputation for it?
Not accurate. I accept the bad rep hit. What I don't accept is being denied the ability to train skills and play the game if/or because a player doesn't like me.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Are you referring to those settlement-level commitments that 99% of the player-base has no say in, and of which have to abide by because the active settlement leaders invoke it?You are badly underestimating how many of us participated in the conversations, let alone asked our membership for their opinions. If it is truly only representative of 1% of people, then there must be 4500 players currently, because I was present for a meeting that had 45 people in it, and it was not the only discussion.The NAP was in Place before EE started. So those of us who just started have to work within its framework.
Although I agree with idea and principle of the NAP, it seems being used to enforce a level of "play nice" which some do not think is reasonable given their expectations of the game.
The NAP states that ALL settlements are considered protected until the signatories say otherwise. So only the signatories get to decide if a settlement is protected, active, or inactive. And thus can enforce the NAP at their own discretion.
My issue is that the NAP is being used to impose a certain playstyle without any recourse or appeal. People are being told effectively, if you don't like the agreement of the NAP then don't play the game.
I do consider this event as very significant. And I hope that the Devs are keeping a quiet eye on it. A few flaws in the current system have been shown. Fortunately, parts of the game that have been announced will address some of the concerns.
The only effect that someone completely out of the loop would notice is that some of their towers weren't attacked until after a period of time. The only effect that simply dropping out would have is that six more torwers would be fought over.
For that matter, the only real negative effect of claiming to follow the NAP and ignoring it and/or denying blatant violations would be developing a reputation for untrustworthiness and possibly pissing some people off. (Pissing too many people off can be game-ending).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, by not having the ability, at this time, to take control of a settlement, I can not play politics. I can not affect change on the status quo, I can not create a quorum of like minded players and set up things the way I would want to run them.
Sure you can. Join Aragon. Use the threat of violating Aragon's agreements to force them to change the status quo.
If they kick you out, repeat with some other settlement.
If they all kick you out, take alpha six towers and use them to blackmail some settlement into reaching an accommodation with you.
Just out of curiosity, Doc, have you ever expressed the opinion that anyone who logs into a PvP game accepts that they might be killed by other players?
Not really sure what you mean. I don't recall typing that. Either way, I don't equate PvP with necessarily with combat. I equate it with player conflict in general.
This whole situation was PvP.