The Tragedy of Blackwood Glade


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Diego Rossi wrote:
Gol Tink wrote:


I have dumped almost the entirety of my main characters XP into being a better PvP combatant. My build is nearly identical to that of a PvE combatant, though I probably use a few different utilities than they do.

I doubt that your build is so similar to that of a PvE combatant.

A PvE combatant would have spent a good number of XP in knowledge skills to get more loot. How many you have spent there?
AFAIK a good number of conditions don't work on NPCs while they work on PCs. I am fairly sure that your actions bars are different from those of a PvE combatant and more efficients at killing PCs.

Actually I bet my build is pretty similar to a PVE build. I have rank 3 in most of my Knowledge skills, expect arcane, that is 2, and i have 6 Geography, and 7 Local. PLUS I have Forester 7, miner 3, Dowser3. Everything else goes to combat (But I'm no where near Min/max) as I have dipped into odd things to experiment with some things.

EDIT:I also have 35k Xp to boot, from not being able to enter a town to train.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Sorry, Gol Tigari, but unless you are a alias of Gol Tink (and it don't seem so), your build has little to do with Gol Tink position.

His position is that there is little difference between his character and that of a character build for PvE combat. Not between yours and that of a PvE combatant.

From what you say your build is similar to that of my PvE combatant, but I have a good crunch of XP into crafting skills (to be able to make my arrows when we will stat using ammunitions and to get the dexterity high enough). As I tend to play alone for time zone problem I have privileged defense, making a heavy armor switch hitter. But, like in EVE, that work well when fighting NPC alone, not for PvP. When the PvP players is set to stack conditions on you, having a good armor don't help. You need to be able to kill or incapacitate him rapidly.
A PvErs will try to find what combos work better on NPC and stick to them, a PvPers will try to find what combo work better against PC.
Even at this early stage they are different builds.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Neadenil Edam wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

What exactly was the tragedy here?

From what I've been reading the game, as it's intended to be experienced, happened.

No.

The game as some of the PvP fraternity intend it to be experienced happened.

In EVE the philosophy is learn to PvP or go play another game. People go out of their way to harass PvE people in EVE with the idea they need to either get into PvP or just quit.

Pathfinder is not actually meant to be that way longterm.

The problem is that peer pressure don't work to maintain "predatory" behavior in line, actually I think that it work in the other directions as the people that like to play "predators" is more likely to try and pressure other people into playing the kind of game they like, while people more interested in building stuff and a cooperative game tend to let other people play as they like until they are the target.

You will not get a herd of bison into stalking a wolf.

Predatory behavior need not be toxic, though. Just today I tried to organize a new settlement to defeat all the other settlements.

It would have all been with the intended settlement game mechanics, and could easily have been a year of rep free PvP.

I wonder if this community is capable of accepting that someone might actually want to WIN this game? I can be a happy player doing whatever my mates and allies do. In most games, I'm just Joe Average, and most days I'm just Joe Average in PFO, too.

But I or someone else will eventually decide to actually WIN this game, and people will have to find ways of coping with such aspiring overlords.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

In war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers.

Goblin Squad Member

Diego Rossi wrote:

Sorry, Gol Tigari, but unless you are a alias of Gol Tink (and it don't seem so), your build has little to do with Gol Tink position.

His position is that there is little difference between his character and that of a character build for PvE combat. Not between yours and that of a PvE combatant.

From what you say your build is similar to that of my PvE combatant, but I have a good crunch of XP into crafting skills (to be able to make my arrows when we will stat using ammunitions and to get the dexterity high enough). As I tend to play alone for time zone problem I have privileged defense, making a heavy armor switch hitter. But, like in EVE, that work well when fighting NPC alone, not for PvP. When the PvP players is set to stack conditions on you, having a good armor don't help. You need to be able to kill or incapacitate him rapidly.
A PvErs will try to find what combos work better on NPC and stick to them, a PvPers will try to find what combo work better against PC.
Even at this early stage they are different builds.

Pretty sure he was comparing his build (as a pvp'er) to that of a PVE'er. I am doing the same. PVE'er builds can be just as effective in PVP.

And my "PVP" build was done to Farm Mordant Spire mobs (PVE). As that was what we were doing alot of at the time of my early xp days.

If people are not aware, Gol = Golgotha. Its how some of the original (and i think a couple of the newer) people show they represent Golgotha.

Goblin Squad Member

Traianus Decius Aureus wrote:
My fear is the current system will ultimately push the bulk of the population into heavily defended settlements with a few excursions every day or so for bulk resources.

This is exactly what I expect will occur. By the beginning of OE, with the exception of fulfilling crafting or quartermaster duties, I expect I will be logging on for large(-ish) pre-planned events only - be those events harvesting, PvPing, PvEing, or RPing.

While the PvP system might add to my prediction, it only has minor efficacy. More importantly, being a sandbox, it will be absolutely necessary for players to develop their own content (read preplanned events). In fact, I would go so far as to claim that the eventual "winners" will be the settlements who manage that best...in the long-term this will be more important even that who can PvP the best.

In addition to this, PFO is specifically designed to require groups (as opposed to solo play) to accomplish most goals. The bigger the goal, the bigger the group...probably. Considering the difference in timezone and playtimes, I will be planning mine so I can participate in the big goals.

Finally, with high level skills requiring weeks/months to train, the usual drive to log on an MMO to grind and "accomplish" just is not as powerful or relevant. Playtime (for me at least) will boil down to the points above.

So, I agree that the current system will eventually drive people to the above behaviour. I think that the entire dynamic of the game (PvP least of all) is designed to do so. Like every other aspect of the game, the winners will be those who embrace and utilize the mechanics as given.

EDIT: Sorry for being off-topic. I wish the residents of BWG had tried joining forces with another settlement before deciding to leave the River Kingdoms. Best of luck in their travels.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:
Traianus Decius Aureus wrote:
My fear is the current system will ultimately push the bulk of the population into heavily defended settlements with a few excursions every day or so for bulk resources.

This is exactly what I expect will occur. By the beginning of OE, with the exception of fulfilling crafting or quartermaster duties, I expect I will be logging on for large(-ish) pre-planned events only - be those events harvesting, PvPing, PvEing, or RPing.

While the PvP system might add to my prediction, it only has minor efficacy. More importantly, being a sandbox, it will be absolutely necessary for players to develop their own content (read preplanned events). In fact, I would go so far as to claim that the eventual "winners" will be the settlements who manage that best...in the long-term this will be more important even that who can PvP the best.

In addition to this, PFO is specifically designed to require groups (as opposed to solo play) to accomplish most goals. The bigger the goal, the bigger the group...probably. Considering the difference in timezone and playtimes, I will be planning mine so I can participate in the big goals.

Finally, with high level skills requiring weeks/months to train, the usual drive to log on an MMO to grind and "accomplish" just is not as powerful or relevant. Playtime (for me at least) will boil down to the points above.

So, I agree that the current system will eventually drive people to the above behaviour. I think that the entire dynamic of the game (PvP least of all) is designed to do so. Like every other aspect of the game, the winners will be those who embrace and utilize the mechanics as given.

EDIT: Sorry for being off-topic. I wish the people of BWG had tried joining forces with another settlement before deciding to leave the River Kingdoms. Best of luck in their travels.

Unfortunately (though it's not really the case) the impression currently being given is that GW wanted all the PvE/TT players to sub early to pay for the early development then quietly quit to be replaced by low maintenance (no need for quests) PvP types once the game was rolling.

I am aware that is far from the true situation but its easy to see how people could get that impression.

Goblin Squad Member

What we really need is a good old-fashioned war. Lots of well-armed, veteran soldiers around who know nothing but violence but lack an enemy to fight, and so they turn to banditry. If we had a war between factions going, it wouldn't make gatherers immune from getting ganked, but the number of people ambushing them would surely be reduced.

Goblin Squad Member

Capitalocracy wrote:
What we really need is a good old-fashioned war. Lots of well-armed, veteran soldiers around who know nothing but violence but lack an enemy to fight, and so they turn to banditry. If we had a war between factions going, it wouldn't make gatherers immune from getting ganked, but the number of people ambushing them would surely be reduced.

I must admit, I do not think there are enough people in game to make a war interesting to me.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For EBA folks that keep talking about BWG going it alone and how that led to their failure, do please curb that. BWG is/was part of the EBA. They were beginning to work with us. This event occurred at the most inopportune time, right as they were getting their feet under them. The EBA failed BWG in that regard, just as BWG failed in not taking advantage of the alliance earlier.


Quote:
The EBA failed BWG in that regard, just as BWG failed in not taking advantage of the alliance earlier.

I heard rumors that EBA was pretty much throwing BWG under the bus and they were talking to other groups and alliances for help.

Goblin Squad Member

That would be incorrect to my knowledge. They were engaged with the Keepers and Hammerfall, and the Keepers were starting to provide their equipment needs. It would be rumors like that, though, that drive me to caution EBA folks not more fully aware of what BWG was doing. I will say early interaction among EBA members was rough, and another failing on our part to address. The EBA proved its alliance support, however, in our last tower distribution wherein all member settlements received equal numbers of towers. And if anything positive can be seen in what happened with BWG, it is that it brought the EBA together even faster.

Goblin Squad Member

KotC - Erian El'ranelen wrote:
For EBA folks that keep talking about BWG going it alone and how that led to their failure, do please curb that. BWG is/was part of the EBA. They were beginning to work with us. This event occurred at the most inopportune time, right as they were getting their feet under them. The EBA failed BWG in that regard, just as BWG failed in not taking advantage of the alliance earlier.

In case this was aimed at me...what I meant by "I wish the residents of BWG had tried joining forces with another settlement before deciding to leave the River Kingdoms." was that I wished they had consider joining another EBA settlement en masse before just leaving. Sorry for my ambiguity.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Savage Grace wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Neadenil Edam wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

What exactly was the tragedy here?

From what I've been reading the game, as it's intended to be experienced, happened.

No.

The game as some of the PvP fraternity intend it to be experienced happened.

In EVE the philosophy is learn to PvP or go play another game. People go out of their way to harass PvE people in EVE with the idea they need to either get into PvP or just quit.

Pathfinder is not actually meant to be that way longterm.

The problem is that peer pressure don't work to maintain "predatory" behavior in line, actually I think that it work in the other directions as the people that like to play "predators" is more likely to try and pressure other people into playing the kind of game they like, while people more interested in building stuff and a cooperative game tend to let other people play as they like until they are the target.

You will not get a herd of bison into stalking a wolf.

Predatory behavior need not be toxic, though. Just today I tried to organize a new settlement to defeat all the other settlements.

It would have all been with the intended settlement game mechanics, and could easily have been a year of rep free PvP.

I wonder if this community is capable of accepting that someone might actually want to WIN this game? I can be a happy player doing whatever my mates and allies do. In most games, I'm just Joe Average, and most days I'm just Joe Average in PFO, too.

But I or someone else will eventually decide to actually WIN this game, and people will have to find ways of coping with such aspiring overlords.

Community vs community warfare is something that I will enjoy. It give a reason for the fights.

The problem is that toxic predatory behavior can't be controlled by peer pressure unless the number of toxic character is very small.
A really toxic player will not budge or change his way (the same of a player that adamantly refuse PvP in every situation) so you need to maintain the number to a physiological level that can be supported by the game without making it PvP only, all other stuff is support.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Gol Tigari wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Sorry, Gol Tigari, but unless you are a alias of Gol Tink (and it don't seem so), your build has little to do with Gol Tink position.

His position is that there is little difference between his character and that of a character build for PvE combat. Not between yours and that of a PvE combatant.

From what you say your build is similar to that of my PvE combatant, but I have a good crunch of XP into crafting skills (to be able to make my arrows when we will stat using ammunitions and to get the dexterity high enough). As I tend to play alone for time zone problem I have privileged defense, making a heavy armor switch hitter. But, like in EVE, that work well when fighting NPC alone, not for PvP. When the PvP players is set to stack conditions on you, having a good armor don't help. You need to be able to kill or incapacitate him rapidly.
A PvErs will try to find what combos work better on NPC and stick to them, a PvPers will try to find what combo work better against PC.
Even at this early stage they are different builds.

Pretty sure he was comparing his build (as a pvp'er) to that of a PVE'er. I am doing the same. PVE'er builds can be just as effective in PVP.

And my "PVP" build was done to Farm Mordant Spire mobs (PVE). As that was what we were doing alot of at the time of my early xp days.

If people are not aware, Gol = Golgotha. Its how some of the original (and i think a couple of the newer) people show they represent Golgotha.

Yes, he was comparing his build to a PvE build. Not your build. From your post he was comparing his build against yours or mine, not a build like yours to a build like mine.

You don't have "dumped almost the entirety of my main characters XP into being a better PvP combatant", you have spent them for several non PvP things, so comparing my build and yours will show that (probably) they aren't so different. Comparing my build or yours to his will give different results, I think.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

KotC - Erian El'ranelen wrote:
That would be incorrect to my knowledge. They were engaged with the Keepers and Hammerfall, and the Keepers were starting to provide their equipment needs. It would be rumors like that, though, that drive me to caution EBA folks not more fully aware of what BWG was doing. I will say early interaction among EBA members was rough, and another failing on our part to address. The EBA proved its alliance support, however, in our last tower distribution wherein all member settlements received equal numbers of towers. And if anything positive can be seen in what happened with BWG, it is that it brought the EBA together even faster.

Sadly I think that, at least partially, the problems with communication are a byproduct of playing EVE. In EVE infiltrating spies in other alliances and corporations was the norm so most informations were distributed on a "need to know" basis. Now in PFO we tend to do the same, but that tend to stop the distribution of useful informations and our numbers aren't high enough to balance that through personal interactions.

Goblin Squad Member

Let me understand this. (I have responded in another thread and expect there dis Golgotha target on my back after spending more that a week trying to have exchange in their city, I am not their big (not biggest target))

Attacking minot targets,because eveil will not target tough opponents, to the point of making players leave the game, arguer that this game, two month into EE must provide the PvP ultiment play (2 year from now) or they will destroy the game now. Never mind that many level of the game are not 2 years mature, THEY MUST HAVE THEIR ULTIMATE PLAY NOW, or there will drive sheep and sheep dogs out for a wolf vs wolf game. which has little audience.

I am not saying don't play evil, BUT STOP PLAYING EVIL STUPID! Evil need s victims who survive to become valuable victims again. Duh!

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I did start this thread and I used the word tragedy for a reason

1) Golgotha didn't drive BWG out by purpose. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Them being part of EBA backfired because they got treated like Golgotha would any member from Brighthaven or Phaeros - who should be able to get support

2) EBA didn't proactivly protect BWG. I had a single look at the map and my though was OMG. BWG is in the ideal place to play buffer for Keepers Pass as well as Phaeros. It should have been predictable that without some active protection or some treaty that BWG would be thrown before the proverbial bus.

3) BWG was naive not seeing this themselves. There was a 'war' between EBA and Golgotha and they didn't ask questions to either party what does this mean for us.

4) I should have seen it and could have said something to Xilanthus when I met him in EL the night before. I'm following politics closely - to enable EL to stay out of the fate that has become BWG. A single glimpse of the map made the situation obvious to me - but in my mind I had BWG still as incactive / mixed them up with Blackwatch - so it never occured to me to look until after it happened.

Either of these four groups had the power to stop the event. The way BWG wanted to play might not have been 100% possible - but something close is possible as I'm trying to showcase with the Emerald Lodge.

The tragedy is that none of the groups acted ahead of what happened.

Golgotha assumed to have a valid EBA target in BWG and felt their actions justified at the time. For EBA it seems they looked too much at the large settlements to realize the downside for the smaller ones. They seem to act now but that is too late. BWG failed to communicate with their allies as well as with their enemies. They might just not have not seen it spending time gaming and not here on this boards. And I was occupied with my own situation.

None of these four parties wanted the outcome and all four have lost. Golgotha in reputation, EBA an ally, BWG the game and EL a fellow minded settlement.

With all respect to PvP sable rattling - this was NOT meaningful PvP. It was an accident.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a pity.

I hope in the future, that there will be enough players, game-systems and political framework, that large parts of the server will (be able to) come to the rescue of any Settlement that is enriching the world of Golarion, and is in danger of getting annihilated.

I am not saying Blackwood Glade was there yet, but Roleplay-initiatives like that could really spice up the place. Sure, it would have required putting effort into Diplomacy for them too, but right now it was too soon, too fast. Indeed an accident, in a too early stage of the game.

In the future I would expect a Settlement or "cohesive group of people" not to be snuffed out quit so quickly. There will be more players, fortifications, enough time to create alliances, *much* more time to react and most importantly, lots more players that will *want* to react, in order to prevent the extinction of a settlement that is maybe bringing something unique to the game.

Nothing *truly* comes for free, this includes the help from other players, but right now there simply was too little framework yet to prevent this accident from happening.

Mind you, we *will* loose cool settlements that may have been around for years in the future, but at least I expect that several Wars have been fought over it first, or at least many Feuds, that Diplomacy will have been involved, and that the members of that settlement will at least have the feeling that the players (the game) cared and tried to stop it. I am also sure that when such an event happens that lots of help can be expected to get such a group on their feet again.

However, right now that is probably very hard to see for players such as the members of BWG.

At this stage, I would call the downfall of the Blackwood Glade Settlement a premature event, and a HUGE anti-climax.

(I also expect some settlements to go in decline, loose their social bonds and then be assimilated/annihilated, but that's another matter)

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Tyncale
Thanks for the input. The difficulty right now is getting the balance right. Small settlements shouldn't be immune to do what they want just because they got a spot during the landrush.
At the same time both players and GW have to be aware that with so much missing in the game that they can be driven out before some better solutions are found for them.

That reminds me of one more party I forgot:
Ryan (Goblinworks) did contribute to BWG downfall by trying to instill more PvP into the game. His tough talk about small settlements should fold hasn't been useful either.

Ryan (Goblinworks) are maybe the biggest loser in all of this. They lost some current customers and it will be even more difficult to attract a certain kind of players in the future.

I'm not saying Ryan's long term vision is wrong - but short term 'hard' means collateral damage and 'hard' means that BWG isn't with us anymore.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This game do not have custom chat channels to track events/ gather intel in real time. This game do not have company and/or settlement storages so players must wait for each other to move materials/products from the gatherer down to the user of finished product. This game do not have NPC warriors to form (relatively) safe zones. Right now.
But we have some unpolished PvP mechanics and we were encouraged to do some PvP (alpha towers removal).
This is work in progress and all that, but if the people drops out of game by whole settlement something goes seriously wrong. Small settlements must be jack-of-all-trades and giving them more trouble due to clunky communication and trade system while pushing people into fights is a bad thing imo.
I'll miss BWG guys - they were adding another bit of content to PFO. Currently I have only two things which holds me in this game - people in my settlement (what we did and what we're doing) and some fun that I derive from my in-game activities.
2 months later my free time in PFO will come to an end. And I don't know if this game will be user-friendly enough for me to pay for subscription later.
I hate to see this game become second Darkfall. Stepping on the same rakes twice is unwise.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Forencith, that clarification does indeed help. Thanks.

Tyncale and Thod, I think your comments and assessment are very accurate. I would further add that of everything I've done in the game, this is the one area where I've been "beaten" so far because diplomacy and intra/inter alliance coordination is the one area of the game I like best. I think if EBA had come out of the gate with a more cohesive alliance mentality, rather than individuals playing in groups playing with other groups, the state of BWG at the time of this attack would have been very different. I can't say the outcome would have differed, but there would have been much better preparation at least regarding possible threats and responses.

I hope we learn from our mistakes, all of us, as both players and characters so that this becomes a better game.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see the EBA making all these mistakes, like some of you are going on about. We gave the understanding that they were in a combat zone, we gave them the tools to contact us, several groups gave them gear/recipes/expendables, and divided towers evenly.

The issue here is that they didn't understand the political climate. Maybe we could have been more clearer, maybe they misunderstood what we were saying, personally I think there was a miscommunication, and it wasn't double checked. My point is that we did not throw BWG under the bus, whether some of you want to say so or not.

We gave them the keys to success, they didn't use those keys. Furthermore, it specifically states in our alliance agreement that they will defend themselves to the best of their abilities, and if they need help they request help, they did not request help, nor even contact us that they were being attacked. We can't be everywhere all the time, we can be in key locations, and the hex they were attacked in wasn't a key location. We don't have the manpower (yet), to patrol every single hex in our territory.

You all can agree or disagree with me, but short of stationing people to handhold, and protect their settlement 24/7, we did everything else we could possibly do.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think that in this stage of the development of the game, anyone could have done much more. Players like the BWG members (and me, for that matter) are vulnerable now because the big picture is not there yet.

It's not like Golgotha razed their settlement. But it is currently very easy to make people feel they have no place here.


Quote:
Players like the BWG members (and me, for that matter) are vulnerable now because the big picture is not there yet.

Players like the BWG players were vulnerable because they didn't play very smart. They thought they were operating in a vacuum, and had grossly distorted expectations of how the game worked.

Players like that will always be vulnerable, even if this game makes it another couple years they probably still will be within future mechanics.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tyncale wrote:
But it is currently very easy to make people feel they have no place here.

This. So, so, so much this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
But it is currently very easy to make people feel they have no place here.

This game was marketed to such remarkably different styles of players, that *both* sides are doing a fine job of making the other feel unwelcome.

Perhaps if Goblin Works had a community manager person on staff they could devote a lot of time to talking with players each and every day, in game even, to discuss the realities of the game as to where it is at in development and the ramifications of that, but as well the intent of the game design and how people should expect to be able to play within such an environment.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

GW should also be open to the possibility that their player base may want to crowdforge the game toward making PvP more difficult and making it easier for people to get in, create something through their own play-style and then have the buy-in needed to want to defend it.

Goblin Squad Member

If I had thought that was even remotely a possibility, I would not have sold my account.

EDIT: It's been made clear that the vision is the vision, and that crowdforging efforts will be toward that vision.
In order for what you've said to come true, Harneloot, the vision would have to change.
I do not see that happening. Like, ever.

EDIT 2: Not that that's a bad thing. I can tell from these forums folks really enjoy this game, so more power to 'em.


Why people would want to crowdforge the vision for a game to become something other than what the vision was is kind of strange.

If you want an MMORPG with robust PvE elements, where PvP is opt-in, and crafting and questing, and roleplay is supported and totally viable and fun - there are like a dozen games out there already that provide that.

Why not play those instead? Like, seriously.

Why the need to take PFO and totally redo it into something other than originally described, so that some players who evidently didn't read any of the promotional materials about what the game design will be built towards, can play it in a far different manner?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Al Smithy wrote:
I heard rumors that EBA was pretty much throwing BWG under the bus and they were talking to other groups and alliances for help.

I am pretty certain that the EBA has been as or more proactive with our struggling settlements as anybody else in the game.

We haven't attempted half arsed coupes in game or out, we haven't taken "administration" of any settlement and we most certainly haven't thrown anybody under the bus since BWG up until last week still had full towers allocated to it.

What we HAVE done is give free sets of gear, proactively get people in a room to suggest mergers, purchase with real money settlements that don't wish to play and provide a road map to folding in an organized manner WHEN AND IF leadership of that settlement decides its time to do so.

All the while patrolling the entire SE from roaming bands of bored PK'ers who are looking for PvP just challenging enough that they don't have to take their left hand away from where it usually is.

This isn't rumor, I know because I was THERE.

Now, I triple dog DARE you to say you have done anything close to that for anybody in this game before you open your pie hole again with this kind of Grima Wormtongue-mud grenade-horse doodoo.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ooo, that's a new one! Now we are sociopathic chronic masturbators. But remember, Golgothans, calling them idiots would be rude.

I kinda miss Andius. At least his rhetoric had some oomph behind it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could always ask Mourn if he asked other alliances and groups if they wanted BWG to join them, or to move there, because that is the word that has been going around. From what I heard, one of his complaints was that EBA partitioned away his towers without him really having much of a say in the matter.


Tyncale wrote:

I don't think that in this stage of the development of the game, anyone could have done much more. Players like the BWG members (and me, for that matter) are vulnerable now because the big picture is not there yet.

It's not like Golgotha razed their settlement. But it is currently very easy to make people feel they have no place here.

The accurate thought for such a victim truly is "they have no place here", but I'd redefine "here" to mean that LOCATION.

They could have used the same wisdom that Hammerfall did and evacuated from an obvious buffer position to simply give themselves time and space to lessen their exposure while also granting themselves the time to learn to defend or hire others to do it (since BwG was so opposed to paying off enemies).

To the EBA's credit, thay have never forced a less defensible settlement to remain in place as a buffer. Hammerfall stands as proof of the EBA's accomodation towards those members who are geographically challenged.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Al Smithy wrote:
You could always ask Mourn if he asked other alliances and groups if they wanted BWG to join them, or to move there, because that is the word that has been going around. From what I heard, one of his complaints was that EBA partitioned away his towers without him really having much of a say in the matter.

Yeah, that never happened. There was an offer on the table to merge with Hammerfall. Mourn didn't take the offer, so it didn't happen. The EBA never had a top down order to take away BWG towers, BWG had full towers up until Mourn left the game.

Goblin Squad Member

How does T7V respond to ongoing rumours that Tink is actually their super secret leader, and this has all been a ruse? It's all anyone is talking about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nonsense, we're all just Thod alts, roleplaying villains and victims.

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Tink wrote:
How does T7V respond to ongoing rumours that Tink is actually their super secret leader, and this has all been a ruse? It's all anyone is talking about.

How does Golgotha respond to ongoing rumors that Phyllain changed Golgotha's PvP Window to the middle of the night when no Golgothans were online to defend their Towers, despite all the rhetoric about how much you guys want PvP?


Yes, I'm sure Mourn would have been completely transparent with you guys about him having talks with other groups. You'll never believe that it happened, though it did, but then that's how the world works sometimes.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Savage Grace wrote:
Tyncale wrote:

I don't think that in this stage of the development of the game, anyone could have done much more. Players like the BWG members (and me, for that matter) are vulnerable now because the big picture is not there yet.

It's not like Golgotha razed their settlement. But it is currently very easy to make people feel they have no place here.

The accurate thought for such a victim truly is "they have no place here", but I'd redefine "here" to mean that LOCATION.

They could have used the same wisdom that Hammerfall did and evacuated from an obvious buffer position while waiting for the game mechanics to (perhaps) make a settlement more defensible, and to simply give themselves time and space to lessen their exposure while also granting themselves the time to learn to defend or hire others to do it (since they were so committed against paying off enemies).

Hammerfall's would be the ideal response, yes. :) Can't always expect that though, and the outcome is rather sad.

I also think there is a division to be made between how an individual player reacts to a mishap, and the effect that can be had currently on an entire settlement/guild. I am sure that in the future, even with all gamesystems implemented, we will see players come and then leave after being looted once; even if they are part of the strongest, safest Settlement in the game.

It is true that BWG as a group could have reacted in another fashion. I do think that they got hit soon and hard though. I just think a group like theirs would have had more chance of adapting, in a more developed game and social enviroment (with notably more players too).

Maybe they would never have survived here, that's true.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Gol Tink wrote:
How does T7V respond to ongoing rumours that Tink is actually their super secret leader, and this has all been a ruse? It's all anyone is talking about.
How does Golgotha respond to ongoing rumors that Phyllain changed Golgotha's PvP Window to the middle of the night when no Golgothans were online to defend their Towers, despite all the rhetoric about how much you guys want PvP?

The same way that TEO responds to moving theirs to 11am server time? You said you wanted a war, we aren't going to be stupid about it.

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Tink wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Gol Tink wrote:
How does T7V respond to ongoing rumours that Tink is actually their super secret leader, and this has all been a ruse? It's all anyone is talking about.
How does Golgotha respond to ongoing rumors that Phyllain changed Golgotha's PvP Window to the middle of the night when no Golgothans were online to defend their Towers, despite all the rhetoric about how much you guys want PvP?
The same way that TEO responds to moving theirs to 11am server time? You said you wanted a war, we aren't going to be stupid about it.

Squirrel!

Phaeros capped three Towers from Golgotha last night without a single peep from any of you guys. We defended our Tower right on your doorstep, too. Can we haz some more of your smart warfare, please?

Goblin Squad Member

Al Smithy wrote:
Yes, I'm sure Mourn would have been completely transparent with you guys about him having talks with other groups. You'll never believe that it happened, though it did, but then that's how the world works sometimes.

What other groups? No League settlement representative was ever proactively contacted by BWG players during Mourn's administration. I can't speak for Cal, Fanndis, and the northern settlements, but it is doubtful their reps were contacted. The Keepers attempted to reestablish communication with them on BWG's public forums right before the incident. They wouldn't proactively contact Golgotha, the Chaotics, and the Northern Coalition! Unless your implying a mysterious unaligned third party outside of the map's current power blocs, this statement doesn't hold water.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

BWG was in the worst possible position - in the middle between two large alliances opposed (in principle) to each other. In short, they were doomed because anyone in the middle of a warzone, unless they take a side and develop a militant mindset and develop characters and supports accordingly is not going to last.

I just don't see a 'being Switzerland' strategy working in this game for anyone. In fact, what I do see happening eventually is smaller settlements falling to Golgotha, other settlements by necessity having to align with the anti-Golgotha alliance to survive and then we have a game with two factions - Golgotha and anti-Golgotha.

Why do I think that? Because in this very thread, someone from Golgotha has stated the intention to WIN the game. And I think that will be bad for the health of the game long term. Might as well rename Pathfinder Online the "War of the River Kingdoms" because that is what it will become.

Thousands of players will join once Open Enrollment opens and shortly will be faced with a choice forced upon them. Join Golgotha or join the other side. Anyone espousing neutrality is going to struggle in the face of two behemoth alliances in the game who can leverage resources and manpower.

If a significant number of new players join Golgotha, then they could very well 'WIN' the game as was stated.

I signed up for Pathfinder Online, not a looming never ending war between the PvPers and the anti-PVPers. The day what I say above happens, that is the day I quit Pathfinder Online because it is not the game I signed up for and it sure as hell isn't the vision of Pathfinder Online that Ryan talks about.

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Tink wrote:
How does T7V respond to ongoing rumours that Tink is actually their super secret leader, and this has all been a ruse? It's all anyone is talking about.

The genius of the ruse is how we say it publicly and nobody believes us ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Horde vs Alliance?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
T7V Avari wrote:
Gol Tink wrote:
How does T7V respond to ongoing rumours that Tink is actually their super secret leader, and this has all been a ruse? It's all anyone is talking about.
The genius of the ruse is how we say it publicly and nobody believes us ;)

Exactly. My public persona is so ridiculous, no one could ever believe I was competent!

... wait a second.

Goblin Squad Member

Al Smithy wrote:
Yes, I'm sure Mourn would have been completely transparent with you guys about him having talks with other groups. You'll never believe that it happened, though it did, but then that's how the world works sometimes.

I have never and will never speak for Mourn. I do speak on behalf of Phaeros, and in this particular situation the EBA, as to what we did in respect to trying to keep BWG in the game and with a settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Savage Grace wrote:
Nonsense, we're all just Thod alts, roleplaying villains and victims.

That's another part of the problem, just villains and victims. We've got some proactive robbers, but we don't have many people playing cops yet. I suspect that will change with time, but it would be nice if there were some sort of brute squad people could call on to come fight bandits that are just camping around ambushing people.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Cheatle wrote:

I don't see the EBA making all these mistakes, like some of you are going on about. We gave the understanding that they were in a combat zone, we gave them the tools to contact us, several groups gave them gear/recipes/expendables, and divided towers evenly.

The issue here is that they didn't understand the political climate. Maybe we could have been more clearer, maybe they misunderstood what we were saying, personally I think there was a miscommunication, and it wasn't double checked. My point is that we did not throw BWG under the bus, whether some of you want to say so or not.

We gave them the keys to success, they didn't use those keys. Furthermore, it specifically states in our alliance agreement that they will defend themselves to the best of their abilities, and if they need help they request help, they did not request help, nor even contact us that they were being attacked. We can't be everywhere all the time, we can be in key locations, and the hex they were attacked in wasn't a key location. We don't have the manpower (yet), to patrol every single hex in our territory.

You all can agree or disagree with me, but short of stationing people to handhold, and protect their settlement 24/7, we did everything else we could possibly do.

This sounds completely reasonable to me.

I'd like to suggest that however little responsibility EBA had for teaching their member state BWG how to play PFO effectively, Xeilias had even less.

101 to 150 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / The Tragedy of Blackwood Glade All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.