Goblin Squad Member
|
NBSI is indeed incompatible with lawful good. The king killing peasants cause they've hunted a deer in his land is no lawful good king.
NBSI... Had to look that one up, haven't played EVE in a while. That isn't or policy.
Also, it's hardly fair to compare killing an immortal character in a game where the only meaningful penalty we can dish out is death to killing a peasant in real life, where death is very permanent.
As soon as I can instantly deport you instead of killing you, I'll do it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've been away for several months so I must have missed something about what happens if you kill someone else. Don't you get flagged for murder anymore, say when you kill someone because they broke your rule that is not supported by a game rule that allows you to kill them without the reputation hit?
If the game rules do not support your wish to kill them ,it is murder , or can you kill anyone now?
I don't have a problem with declaring a border ,it generates conflict , but how do you get away with killing them if the the game systems and not just your own law, don't consider it legal.From what I remember you now threaten people with what the game considers as murder to enforce a border you created. The rules must have changed or is it a crime ? You are going to need a goon squad to run people off your land you don't have a legal claim to.
What new game rule allows you to tell someone to stop using a part of the map and then you can kill them if they don't do what you say? Sorry for being ignorant but this is very different from what I remember.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can kill anyone in the game at any time, anywhere, as long as you are willing to take the consequences of such an act. Consequences include, in increasing order of severity: nothing (open PvP window, or they were hostile to you, ie. Red), a reputation hit, automatic death and durability loss (thornguard area), or account ban (killing new players in Marchmount area). The significance of Reputation hit ranges from minimal if you are starting at full rep, to game-limiting at low rep if it means you can't train or enter settlements you want to. "Social" pressure has been surprisingly effective at stopping or limiting some killing much more then anyone probably thought it would. And all of these are with many game systems still not in yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose someone has done the math, how many times can you kill per week and it has no real punishing effect to your character? If creating a border and being able to kill to defend it is possible, I wonder how many characters are needed for the job. I mean how many characters that aren't going down to a criminal level of reputation from too much killing.
Declaring a border is good for security but depending on the loss of reputation a hostile group could use the defense as a means to send your reputation into the crapper.
@Drake Brimstone
I could care less what you've heard of since apparently this is the only sandbox you've played since you upgraded from your Comodore 64.
Of the titles currently released and still running I can think of off the top of my head.
EVE - Displays the sovereignty of a system in the top left with the other system info. Sovereignty controlled by POSes.
Darkfall Unholy Wars - Sovereignty controlled by areas of influence around holdings. Alerts you when you enter or leave someone's territory.
Mortal Online - Sovereignty controlled by outposts. Alerts you when you enter (and I believe) leave someone's territory.
Wurm Online - Sovereignty controlled by deeds. Alerts you when you enter or leave a deed.
ArcheAge - Sovereignty controlled by castles. The owners of a regions's castles can be seen on the map.
Xsyon - Sovereignty controlled by tribal totems. Alerted when entering or leaving a totem controlled area.
So if we aren't counting PFO as released, that's 100% of the sandbox MMOs currently on the market that I know of with territory control. I said "most" to account for any I've forgotten or overlooked.
It's not the feature PFO needs most at the moment but it's also premature to be punishing people for adventureing in "your territory" when "your territory" is just a line you've drawn on the forums and enforce with a "might makes right" policy if you want to call yourselves Neutral Good protectors of the weak.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We do not have a NBSI policy, I have personally talked to several people that have wandered down here, and explained the situation. We only shoot first on hostiles. Furthermore, there are several groups that have been given access to harvest or help with escalations that are not EBA.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Declaring a border is good for security but depending on the loss of reputation a hostile group could use the defense as a means to send your reputation into the crapper.
This is what Ryan meant by making "meaningful choices". If you want to enforce an imaginary border (imaginary = no mechanics legitimizing it) and threatening to use force to respond to PVE activities, then you have to be willing to expend reputation to enforce it.
Players have become wise to the "Don't go Red" defense ploy. If you don't wish to lose reputation, then don't punish PVE with PVP attacks.
If I am gathering, or fighting an escalation, am I not as "adverse to PVP" as anyone else?
I am actually adverse to any offensive motivated PVP, I will only engage in PVP in a defensive posture (Towers or defending someone or their husk).
Qiang Tian Zsu (LN)
Samanen of Irori
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, final time repeating myself, I don't know why I bother, but at least you have a better list this time.
Did EVERY ONE OF THOSE have that mechanic at the stage of development PFO is at right now? Heck, did ANY of them have it? No? Then stop comparing PFO to finished games. We have to state our policies now and deal with enforcement as best we can until the mechanics are in.
You sound like a politician, refusing to answer a question by restating your non-answers.
OH, and just because a game isn't active anymore doesn't make it any less of an example. UO and SWG (before NGE) were extremely successful games, more successful then any of the games you listed.
I do love how its mostly if not completely those who are considered Known Enemies are the ones complaining and claiming we KOS non-members. For those who aren't aware, most of these guys claiming we do that kind of thing will in fact do it themselves and not bother declaring borders anywhere, they will kill you if they feel like it anywhere in the game. Some would do it in Marchmont if they thought they could get away with it.
We declare our rules, we inform those breaking them that they need to stop, and we deal with it if they don't. Fairly simple and hardly evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the gross usurpation of the entire south east many hexes from yous settlements, including to the north of your hills where you have no settlements. Yes, you are the largest and can back that. Just don't try to convince us it is lawful or good, only greedy.
If you said anything 2 hexes from a EBA settlement, all of your mountain, and any hexes at range 3 or 4 internal to those above (2 hex range) which touching 2 or more of the previously claimed areas. OK, But there are huge amounts to southeast which represent future town sites which you calm to own. And there are huge amounts of the middle. You are claiming huge tracts you probably don''t even visit.
And to think I considered joining.
Don't be "toxic" Decius. The man is just expressing his opinion of your policies. ;)
@Drake. Those games were successful. I'm their time. There is a reason people gravitated from those titles to newer ones, and certain features not present in old MMOs are standard in modern ones. Even modern sandboxes that break the mold in most regards.
I have played older games where territorial control wasn't so cut and dry. And I responded by enforcing extremely simple rules in our territory there. Basically "Don't pick on Newbs." It cost us in tax revenue but was best for the community. Obviously you are so eager to get your hands on anything you feel you have the strength to hold you can't wait until there are actual mechanics for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't be "toxic" Decius. The man is just expressing his opinion of your policies. ;)
@Drake. Those games were successful. I'm their time. There is a reason people gravitated from those titles to newer ones, and certain features not present in old MMOs are standard in modern ones. Even modern sandboxes that break the mold in most regards.
I have played older games where territorial control wasn't so cut and dry. And I responded by enforcing extremely simple rules in our territory there. Basically "Don't pick on Newbs." It cost us in tax revenue but was best for the community. Obviously you are so eager to get your hands on anything you feel you have the strength to hold you can't wait until there are actual mechanics for it.
Come now Tharak, the only true "toxic" poster on this thread has been you. Decius has every right to tell the likes of you to throw your propaganda elsewhere from an EBA thread.
@others
Don't know where this idea that EBA was Lawful Good. EBA is if anything True Neutral aligned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So now there is a declared EBA border of words on this thread and people need your ok to speak here? It is just wrong to push people off of GW's forum by acting like it is your's. Telling people to leave is being a bully and that's fine for your in-game characters but leave it in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So now there is a declared EBA border of words on this thread and people need your ok to speak here? It is just wrong to push people off of GW's forum by acting like it is your's. Telling people to leave is being a bully and that's fine for your in-game characters but leave it in the game.
I'm going to talk about my Grandmas Homemade Pies in the next thread you start. That's ok right? Because no borders in the forums?
The forums have their own borders, they are called different boards and threads.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ DeciusBrutus
Could you please refrain from enlightening people with truth when they present opinions based on false information?
Could you please also not "ask" them politely to take their opinions based on false information elsewhere?
My goodness! I can hardly sit back while you bully people this way!
@ Others
Totally see your discomfort with the EBA policy that is attempting to claim a portion of the map for their citizens.
I also see what your objections are and what they are built upon.
*Clearly it is beyond the pale that an alliance should define territory for it's members. Resources are infinite, will always be so, and certainly not valuable. It is ridiculous for anyone to try and preserve them for their members while trying to keep their land safer for those members.
*Remarkable and inconceivable that they would have the boldness to publically announce said territory. It seems much more reasonable to barely say anything themselves and just kill every non ally or innocent that operates within short range of their holdings.
*And they further compound this activity by questioning people they see within this publically declared territory and then letting those people proceed with their business if they appear to be harmless!
*Perhaps I should also point out that the game is underway (for us EE people) right now. It is a true sign of evil intent for the EBA to demonstrate their ability to back up their publically claimed territory with force if it is needed. THEN they have the nerve to withdraw and let enemies have their towers back.
I think the gross usurpation of the entire south east many hexes from yous settlements, including to the north of your hills where you have no settlements. Yes, you are the largest and can back that. Just don't try to convince us it is lawful or good, only greedy.
If you said anything 2 hexes from a EBA settlement, all of your mountain, and any hexes at range 3 or 4 internal to those above (2 hex range) which touching 2 or more of the previously claimed areas. OK, But there are huge amounts to southeast which represent future town sites which you calm to own. And there are huge amounts of the middle. You are claiming huge tracts you probably don''t even visit.
And to think I considered joining.
This thread is for the discussion of the EBA territory and polices. Please take discussion of policies that you imagine some nominally Lawful Good group created to a different thread.
Could you please also not "ask" them politely to take their opinions based on false information elsewhere?
Shall we discuss the price of that island you want to sell us over a nice refreshing glass of Kool Aid?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EBA is if anything True Neutral aligned.Phaeros and The Seventh Veil are True Neutral.
The Everbloom Alliance is predominantly Neutral Good.
At a settlement level definitely not Lawful, there is not a single Lawful Settlement in the alliance.
EBA settlements are either TN or NG - no Lawful whatsoever.
It is Xelias that is lawful.
I think the Lawful Good bit is really entitely beside the point. What Lam is obviously trying to say is that he finds your actions inconsistent with an alliance that promotes itself as the good guys, which you definitely do.
Lam has backed you guys up in the past so you could attempt to enlighten him on how you are not evil. Or you could have Decius post a dismissive/condescending comment and act pretty much just like... me. Then circle the wagons and pretend like his obviously insulting post was polite even though anyone fluent in the English language can see that's a lie.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The entire game is based on territorial control. Resources, Escalations, and Land itself. Every nation that has ever existed has claimed land and secured it in someway. By your definition then, every nation is evil. So I guess every living sentient people is evil for wanting to protect what is theirs.
We do kill hostile players in our territory but that is mainly because at the moment that is the only mechanic the game gives us. We clearly stated what was our territory but that didn't stop some hostile groups to EBA to come and farm down there or even go around killing any player they come across, some EBA members some not.
You seem to be complaining about EBA claim to territory but that is part of the game. At the very beginning Goblinworks stated this would be a game about PvP territory control. So complaining about it now seems out of place, unless your complaint is strictly about EBA which leads me to believe you have an agenda.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lam has backed you guys up in the past so you could attempt to enlighten him on how you are not evil.
I haven't read through this thread, and I don't really intend to. I've seen enough vitriol in previous threads that I don't want to burn myself out on this one, too. However, I will address the quoted topic.
One major shortcoming of the D&D/Pathfinder system has always been alignment. It's fundamentally flawed, but it works well enough that tabletop groups of players can usually come to agreements about how it works. One challenge we face by converting this game to an MMO is dealing with the dreaded alignment debate on a much larger scale.
My personal feelings follow.
Name any single action and you could describe any number of circumstances for which that action would apply to almost any alignment.
Stealing? Most likely chaotic, but who are you stealing from? And why? Robin Hood is likely CG, but the common thief is likely CN, working for his or her own gain.
What about murder? "Chaotic Evil!" most people shout. My paladin "murdered" plenty of demons at the table. Plenty of humanoids that refused to surrender, too.
In short, to me, the Law vs Chaos axis deals with either the law of the land or your own code and how strictly you adhere to it. The Good vs Evil axis speaks more for your intentions and how selfish/altruistic you are.
Based on my above views on alignment, I'd respond as such: The EBA (being predominantly Neutral Good) finds itself in a defensible corner of the map where we can remain mostly out of the way. Those who travel to the declared territory are (largely) there because they mean to visit us. As for Law vs Chaos, the EBA wanted to lay down a border to inform its neighbors, but visitors are absolutely welcome. We care less about following the rule as written to the letter and more about welcoming those who may not know better and politely asking those who do know better to refrain.
As stated, we are predominantly NG and want to see this area of the River Kingdoms grow to be inviting to new players. We want the non-consensual PVP of the past to be a fringe element, in favor of organized PVP for strategic locations or objectives. We seek to protect those who cannot protect themselves and provide a welcoming environment for new players and new members alike. I rule this as a Good intention.
Declaring a border (and declaring it where it now lies) isn't done out of greed, it's a necessity. Every hex included is factored into our projections for required resources over time. Bulk resources, escalations in monster hexes, resources in nodes, and even strategic locations within the borders are essential to fulfilling our Good mission.
We have a glorious vision for the Everbloom Alliance. We work only to ensure that our goals can be successful. Threatening the sovereignty of that border threatens our ability to provide that bastion of safety. I believe this is still Neutral Good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The entire game is based on territorial control. Resources, Escalations, and Land itself. Every nation that has ever existed has claimed land and secured it in someway. By your definition then, every nation is evil. So I guess every living sentient people is evil for wanting to protect what is theirs.
We do kill hostile players in our territory but that is mainly because at the moment that is the only mechanic the game gives us. We clearly stated what was our territory but that didn't stop some hostile groups to EBA to come and farm down there or even go around killing any player they come across, some EBA members some not.
You seem to be complaining about EBA claim to territory but that is part of the game. At the very beginning Goblinworks stated this would be a game about PvP territory control. So complaining about it now seems out of place, unless your complaint is strictly about EBA which leads me to believe you have an agenda.
I think what the argument is, is that no one holds the moral high ground in PFO, if they are expansionist or protectionist. If your consequences ultimately end with the killing, then although it might not actually be "evil", if would be very difficult to describe it as "good".
Personally I believe this dispute and quasi war is good for the game. It is actually the only thing that has been interesting since launch of EE. It is really too bad videos of the raids have not been released, and advertised in a way that wars are advertised in real life.
Body counts sell subscriptions to a large segment of the MMO population. "If it bleeds, it leads" as the expression goes.
Look at the numbers for Crowfall and the more recent Albion Online. Neither of these have an IP like Pathfinder, nor a company like Paizo backing it. Yet, their numbers are easily twice that of PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As for Law vs Chaos, the EBA wanted to lay down a border to inform its neighbors, but visitors are absolutely welcome. We care less about following the rule as written to the letter and more about welcoming those who may not know better and politely asking those who do know better to refrain.
I think a big source of the argument here comes from a lack of consistency in the way your policies have been applied - when I was first down in the southeast fighting the Ustalavs with the AGC we got no polite request to leave. You just massed your forces and got your murder on when you were satisfied you couldn't lose.
It was only after people called foul on the forums that you started claiming that you ask people to leave, and so it's not a surprise that not everyone accepts your claims of being the good guys.
Personally I have only been politely asked to leave just once - after people started pointing out that the borders were just being used to give the EBA a reason to be murder-hobos too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
when I was first down in the southeast fighting the Ustalavs with the AGC we got no polite request to leave.
Though I don't believe I was present for the initial meeting on that occasion, I wouldn't be surprised if AGC didn't get a warning for farming a valuable escalation in a hex we claimed. We're not Lawful, and we don't feel bound to following a specific procedure when there is sufficient reason to believe it's not necessary.
When dealing with a new player or someone who simply may not know better, then sure. We'll make sure they know we've claimed the area and even offer them help with the game if they're unaffiliated. An introduction and warning is helpful in these circumstances.
A warning given to a previously-hostile company farming in our territory despite (and likely in spite of) it being claimed would fall on deaf ears. Organized activity in our territory led by prominent members of a hostile company is an affront to the alliance's sovereignty, not an accidental overstepping of boundaries.
Perhaps you were all unaware, and if so I apologize for whatever part I may have played in the response, but I find that highly unlikely. We recognize the limitations of being strictly Lawful, and we're not going to chase after hostile parties shouting their rights at them before engaging. When it comes to AGC and a resource as valuable as a T2 escalation, there's plenty of reason to believe you all knew the consequences already.
If you were relying on that warning to tell you when to run, then I remind you we're Neutral Good, not LG.
And again, if none of you genuinely had any idea we'd claimed the territory, then I apologize. In a thread as large as this one, one would think AGC's leadership would be well aware.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We recognize the limitations of being strictly Lawful, and we're not going to chase after hostile parties shouting their rights at them before engaging.
No apologies necessary, I'm definitely not arguing against your right to protect your territory. And I'm not asking for anyone to monologue on the laws and practices of your people before they do so either - a simple 'hey, you're not welcome here, get out' would have been more than enough.
Whether or not we respond and actually leave, or stick around to get stomped would have been kind of irrelevant - at that point there would be nothing for anyone to argue about. I don't see how it matters that you're Neutral instead of Lawful, the problem is that your actions cannot be described as Good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason why AGC wasn't given a non-hostile warning was because AGC was put on the Hostile List from previous actions they have taken in and around Keeper's Pass.
Edit: To change possible relationship between AGC and members of EBA, perhaps the leadership of AGC would open a diplomatic dialog with leadership of our three settlements.
your actions cannot be described as Good.
Wanting to protect innocent gatherers and new players is Good. Wanting to provide our players with the equipment and support necessary to effectively fulfill our mission is Good.
By AGC's actions of farming in that hex, you take resources from our alliance that could have been used to further that Good purpose. We act in defense of that Good. Good does not mean that we'll bake you a cake to take with your shiny new T2 drops on your way home.
As mentioned previously, farming that escalation in our territory is an affront to the EBA and intention to refuse our other agents of Good the tools they need to be effective. It is just as harmful to our cause as attacking our gatherers or killing our players and damaging their gear.
Forgive me, but it seems much of this thread's issue may be that they equate Neutral Good with "Goody Two-Shoes" priests and monks who preach Good, but shudder at the thought of getting their hands dirty.
Boy, I can't wait for my Paladin to hit this scene.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reason why AGC wasn't given a non-hostile warning was because AGC was put on the Hostile List from previous actions they have taken in and around Keeper's Pass.
The problem I have with that is when this all kicked off you guys didn't even know it was the AGC who put the tent up. Everyone was accusing Golgotha of doing it. I had someone actually tell me I was on a list of Golgothans - while the Golgothans were killing me 'cause they thought I was on your side.(That was just funny.)
No one did their homework really, and I think a lot of the arguments would have been avoided if you simply applied your policies consistently.
Edit: To change possible relationship between AGC and members of EBA, perhaps the leadership of AGC would open a diplomatic dialog with leadership of our three settlements.
Yeah, that would probably help a lot. I'll try to bring it up next time I have a chance.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The reason why AGC wasn't given a non-hostile warning was because AGC was put on the Hostile List from previous actions they have taken in and around Keeper's Pass.The problem I have with that is when this all kicked off you guys didn't even know it was the AGC who put the tent up. Everyone was accusing Golgotha of doing it. I had someone actually tell me I was on a list of Golgothans - while the Golgothans were killing me 'cause they thought I was on your side.(That was just funny.)
No one did their homework really, and I think a lot of the arguments would have been avoided if you simply applied your policies consistently.
Edit: To change possible relationship between AGC and members of EBA, perhaps the leadership of AGC would open a diplomatic dialog with leadership of our three settlements.Yeah, that would probably help a lot. I'll try to bring it up next time I have a chance.
The first step would be either publicly disavowing membership in Golgotha and the Empire of Xeilias, or bringing EoX to the table.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... or bringing EoX to the table.
I'm a wizard, not a miracle worker. If I try to make the Empire of Xeilias do anything I'll bet I'm the one who ends up needing a priest.
Not sure what to say about the first bit though, except I'm not leadership and probably don't have a lot of influence in the major political decisions. I have no authority to speak for the AGC in this matter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first step would be either publicly disavowing membership in Golgotha and the Empire of Xeilias, or bringing EoX to the table.The reason why AGC wasn't given a non-hostile warning was because AGC was put on the Hostile List from previous actions they have taken in and around Keeper's Pass.The problem I have with that is when this all kicked off you guys didn't even know it was the AGC who put the tent up. Everyone was accusing Golgotha of doing it. I had someone actually tell me I was on a list of Golgothans - while the Golgothans were killing me 'cause they thought I was on your side.(That was just funny.)
No one did their homework really, and I think a lot of the arguments would have been avoided if you simply applied your policies consistently.
Edit: To change possible relationship between AGC and members of EBA, perhaps the leadership of AGC would open a diplomatic dialog with leadership of our three settlements.Yeah, that would probably help a lot. I'll try to bring it up next time I have a chance.
Phaerites have repeatedly mentioned they aren't bound by EBA agreements with Golgotha because they make their own decisions. Why would AGC being a part of EoX (as long as they are not Golgothan) preclude you from talking to them?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Phaerites have repeatedly mentioned they aren't bound by EBA agreements with Golgotha because they make their own decisions.No.
What we said was that the agreement Phyllain made with Cheatle was never ratified by the EBA. Cheatle assures me he made this clear to Tink.
Let me rephrase what I asked Decius then. If you acknowledge that Cheatle/TEO is capable of making agreements with outside companies/settlements (in this case Golgotha/Eox) that don't necessarily apply to the whole of the EBA (in this case: Phaeros), then why is it necessary for the AGC to "disavow" membership in the EoX before they can be talked to by Phaeros? Couldn't Phaeros and AGC come to an agreement that doesn't necessarily bind EBA and EoX?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Couldn't Phaeros and AGC come to an agreement that doesn't necessarily bind EBA and EoX?
Sure we could, as long as Phaeros didn't promise anything about how other EBA members would act, and AGC didn't promise anything about how other EoX members would act.
But frankly, I'd rather fight AGC (and Golgotha) than make deals with them. I mean, I'd prefer it if the game systems were ready for it, but still, having enemies to fight is good.
I still laugh every time I think back on Guurzak yelling "SURPRIZE INSPEKTION!" That's the kind of thing that makes the game fun. Fighting over Towers can be fun. Running around killing everyone in sight isn't fun for me, but it's not really "wrong" either. Although, it is probably one of those things that, if it gets done "too much", would be really bad for the game overall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The shark and the dead horse have both been jumped loooooong ago
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The entire game is based on territorial control. Resources, Escalations, and Land itself. Every nation that has ever existed has claimed land and secured it in someway. By your definition then, every nation is evil. So I guess every living sentient people is evil for wanting to protect what is theirs.
We do kill hostile players in our territory but that is mainly because at the moment that is the only mechanic the game gives us. We clearly stated what was our territory but that didn't stop some hostile groups to EBA to come and farm down there or even go around killing any player they come across, some EBA members some not.
You seem to be complaining about EBA claim to territory but that is part of the game. At the very beginning Goblinworks stated this would be a game about PvP territory control. So complaining about it now seems out of place, unless your complaint is strictly about EBA which leads me to believe you have an agenda.
If this is all about territory control as the game intended how is that I can come into your territory and gather/fight escalations as long as I want with no consequences but if you kill me you take reputation loss?
This game is about territorial control tied to holdings and backed up by the laws you set in the territory you actually control.
This move is about drawing abitrary lines you don't have to defend and acting as if it gives you the moral high ground to bully around people who use the territory you say is yours for harmless activities like gathering and PvE.
As I said, this move is premature. If you can claim and defend all of this territory through the use of holdings then you might have a leg to stand on.
138 Holdings would cover the claim.
With perfectly min-maxed companies (getting 67 influence per characters) it will take 205 characters (iirc that holdings cost 100 influence before upgrades). That is well within the EBA's character numbers. But that only works if companies can hold multiple holdings... Can they?
The logistics of it all would be interesting to see.
Of course 1194 characters could claim the entire 800 hex map through the same math.
Is it a matter of wanting/not wanting them Edam? As long as it's a natural action not curtailed by game mechanics, it'll happen.
138 Holdings would cover the claim.
With perfectly min-maxed companies (getting 67 influence per characters) it will take 205 characters (iirc that holdings cost 100 influence before upgrades). That is well within the EBA's character numbers. But that only works if companies can hold multiple holdings... Can they?
The logistics of it all would be interesting to see.
Of course 1194 characters could claim the entire 800 hex map through the same math.
I would LOVE to see them try controlling that entire area with outposts once raiding, asset destruction, and feuds are in. If those features ever make it in without being completely neutered first.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would LOVE to see them try controlling that entire area with outposts once raiding, asset destruction, and feuds are in.
This is the whole point.
Unlike EVE which despite its propoganda as a "hardcore PvP game" is really a big girls blouse of a game with highsec totally safe, cloaking afk in any sec perfectly safe and once docked at a POS or station also perfectly safe and let us not even talk about blusec renter space in SOV which is even safer and more docile than highsec -- whereas there is absolutely nowhere safe from attack in Pathfinder, so long as you are logged in at all you can be attacked.
I have characters in EVE losec (supposedly the most dangerous space) that have maybe been shot at 3 or 4 times in several years. This is not the case in PFO.
Ironically the game sits at a point where no one is happy. PvE players are quitting unhappy with always being open to attack at any time anywhere even when crafting in a settlement and PvP players are quitting because they are not getting enough excitement.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I would LOVE to see them try controlling that entire area with outposts once raiding, asset destruction, and feuds are in. If those features ever make it in without being completely neutered first.138 Holdings would cover the claim.
With perfectly min-maxed companies (getting 67 influence per characters) it will take 205 characters (iirc that holdings cost 100 influence before upgrades). That is well within the EBA's character numbers. But that only works if companies can hold multiple holdings... Can they?
The logistics of it all would be interesting to see.
Of course 1194 characters could claim the entire 800 hex map through the same math.
I agree. It's far more likely that we will cede territory than that we will claim more. Whether we can hold on depends almost entirely on how strong the groups that want to contest us are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ironically the game sits at a point where no one is happy. PvE players are quitting unhappy with always being open to attack at any time anywhere even when crafting in a settlement and PvP players are quitting because they are not getting enough excitement.
Bull....
Being open to attack anytime anywhere is a whole lot different then actually being attacked anytime and anywhere.
The later is not happening to any extent beyond it being "rare". You can't point to the current war as being the entirety of the experience from January until now. It has been at most a several day and isolated event.
Players are leaving in droves, or will not resub come May 1, for many more reasons than just the one you cite.
The primary reason is that PFO is a subscription based alpha, and is not in the current state that justifies the $15.00 per month expense.
There is no sense of grandeur in this game, it is soulless and reptetative.
That is an extremely curious comment...... The EA is seeing war in earnest (well kind of, war in earnest would require sieges, feuds, etc.) for the first time and now one of their members mentions PVEers leaving the game because of the possibility of sudden attacks.
This pleases me. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone who is enjoying this game and wants to see it succeed should be pleased about anyone leaving the game right now. Well, almost anyone... but where there are exceptions, it's not because they're either carebears or murderhobos.