Maybe I'm just feeling feisty this morning, but after hearing there is a settlement account for sale I'm curious if there are enough people interested in world domination to make it worthwhile to buy up a settlement.
We'd be using PvP to extract tribute from every settlement on the map and eventually (when the game allows) eliminate all those settlements who refuse to pay tribute.
Yes, there will be pitiful attempts to unite against us, but it is eminently clear that this population can be crushed and brought to heel, and great fun will be had in the process.
Relpy to this thread or P.M. me on these forums if you are interested. There is obviously a critical mass of members we'd need to make this concept viable.
---
And if there isn't enough interest... I never posted this. :-)
Seriously, this probably sounds out of character to some folks, as well as allowing others to think it has been my way all along. In reality, a new settlement starting this late simply needs needs a hook, and well... I woke up feeling feisty.
The settlement account sold before I got sufficient responses.
World domination (at least through the game mechanics of settlements) will have to wait for another time.
It would have been a lot of work to start a settlement 60 days after everyone else (actually hundreds of days if you count from the landrush).
Goblin Squad Member
|
The settlement account sold before I got sufficient responses.
World domination (at least through the game mechanics of settlements) will have to wait for another time.
It would have been a lot of work to start a settlement 60 days after everyone else (actually hundreds of days if you count from the landrush).
It would not be that hard if you already had a settlement with a few hundred players, just move some of your more bored PvP focused companies to the new settlement and "claim" all the surrounding hexes and start chasing people away.
I personally am very surprised GW allow settlement leaders to just sell a settlement regardless of the wishes of the current membership (who can all be kicked out and made settlement-less the instant the new buyer takes over) or any longstanding political agreements the previous leader may have made.
Note I have no evidence this is currently happening it is the future possibilities that concern me.
Settlements belonging to one individual personally and being sell-able is extremely odd.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In a world of politics, where nearly anything is possible, I would not expect anything less.
I see no difference between an acquisition through means outside the game as with one made within the game.
Also, GW could see it as a means to maintaining settlement viability. Perhaps the new owner can bring life to it in some way, maybe they will pocket it so no one else does, maybe its another settlement to add to an empire/nation....
I would not be concerned, but rather excited at the possibilities. And there is yet more to come!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm curious which settlement that account was attached to?
Edit: found it, Blackwood glade
Yeah it was part of the Everbloom Alliance but was actually a small roleplay non-combatant settlement with only a handful of members.
It's main significance to EBA was tactical, it is located right on the main pass between Phaeros and Keepers/Brighthaven and will make movement between the main EBA settlements very difficult if it was bought out by someone belligerent.
I would have been an equal opportunity belligerent warlord.
I'd have accepted tribute from all settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious which settlement that account was attached to?
Edit: found it, Blackwood gladeYeah it was part of the Everbloom Alliance but was actually a small roleplay non-combatant settlement with only a handful of members.
It's main significance to EBA was tactical, it is located right on the main pass between Phaeros and Keepers/Brighthaven and will make movement between the main EBA settlements very difficult if it was bought out by someone belligerent.
That's why I sold the account to the person I did. I was selective in choosing who got the account.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's why I sold the account to the person I did. I was selective in choosing who got the account.
Indeed your personal actions in game with Keepers have always been honorable and there was never any doubt about your intentions when selling it.
My comments have been more directed towards future "whatif" scenarios.
For example I personally would think someone infiltrating a settlement for several years, getting elected as leader and then booting everyone and handing the settlement over to the enemy as fair enough and clever gameplay but buying an enemy settlement for cash is not :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's why I sold the account to the person I did. I was selective in choosing who got the account.
Indeed your personal actions in game with Keepers have always been honorable and there was never any doubt about your intentions when selling it.
My comments have been more directed towards future "whatif" scenarios.
For example I personally would think someone infiltrating a settlement for several years, getting elected as leader and then booting everyone and handing the settlement over to the enemy as fair enough and clever gameplay but buying an enemy settlement for cash is not :D
We are supposed to be able to have more than one leader in a settlement soon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you really think you want accounts, why not 'buy' those accounts with no players. Of course the best game will be that one which you and other wolves own all the accounts and there are no sheep or sheep dogs. You are well on the way to owning the carcase of a game. enjoy.
Do you have any concept of what you want to play or are you Andius trying to destroy all others.
Why this meta game approach to eliminate your harvest?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My comments have been more directed towards future "whatif" scenarios.
For example I personally would think someone infiltrating a settlement for several years, getting elected as leader and then booting everyone and handing the settlement over to the enemy as fair enough and clever gameplay but buying an enemy settlement for cash is not :D
The two have the same result. I expect that come OE, the buying and selling of accounts (some with attached settlements) will become a not so extremely rare event.
If you really think you want accounts, why not 'buy' those accounts with no players. Of course the best game will be that one which you and other wolves own all the accounts and there are no sheep or sheep dogs. You are well on the way to owning the carcase of a game. enjoy.
Do you have any concept of what you want to play or are you Andius trying to destroy all others.
Why this meta game approach to eliminate your harvest?
Of the 63 days of Open Enrollment I have been content to PLAY PFO 62 days. Yesterday I considered WINNING the game instead of PLAYING the game.
Owning a settlement would grant game mechanics that are seen as fair and acceptable and the expected path to dominance, and that path seemed like it might attract more of the responsible adult PvPers that would be needed to make the idea work.
The seller has said he wouldn't have allowed that strategy to work.
So I'm back to PLAYING the game.
You people do know that while savage is a valued player in Golgotha he in no way sets any sort of policy right? That responsibility is mine and mine alone.
^^^ THIS.
Had I attracted the people needed, and been allowed to buy the account, and if GW allowed the transfer of the settlement I'd have waved bye bye to my mates and let Phyllain know the amount of tribute my new settlement was demanding from Golgotha, just as I would inform all the other settlement leaders.
You can't cage the world, it's too big for anyone.
It would be fun to try, though.
I don't see why you still can't....
And I might decide to, someday.
The game mechanics of settlement warfare would have made it more viable for a settlement than for a company, though.
But its okay. I enjoy just PLAYING the game. I enjoy it a lot.
Like I said, I'm just an Average Joe in nearly every game I play. But even an Average Joe can dream of world domination every once in a while. :-)
Pharasma has my back.
At worst. all they could do is destroy my $x,000 settlement, and not even immediately. It might take a year.
That could be entertainment money very well spent.
But I think my plan had a high chance of success, too.
Then again, a company (rather than a settlement) might be able to do world domination on the cheap. We'll find out, if I wake up feeling feisty again, someday.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems to me that it is the responsibility of aggressive settlements to plan and precipitate expansion and conquest, the duty of some settlements to protect and provide relatively "safe" areas for thier players, and for some to try and eliminate all threats to thier playstyle in game.
It is the job of GW to make all of these quasi-possible but very unlikely.
A game of conquest, RP, exploration, intricate trade and settlement development that simply is a perpetual motion machine. Virtually impossible for any faction to "win".
But we are naturally driven to try to "win". The definition of "winning" will look different to different groups.
Game on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is why he stands on people's heads, to look taller. Has to be the tallest one in the room, like a cat.I have a huge Napoleon complex. Or so my little Napoleon tells me.
::shhh:: I'm typing, yes yes I will march on Russia, I promise.
Yes, Atheory is notorious for "head stomping".