Goblin Squad Member
|
It is not Golgothas job to make PvP reluctant players enjoy PvP. It is the settlement and company leaders of those players job to engage them in such a way that they accept the realities of the game.
My job is to make sure my players are having fun.
Sigh
I wasn't trying to say that it was only Golgotha's job to convert the reluctant PvPers. I was simply suggesting that as a community, we need to find a way to do so.
P.S, if any of your members continue to think that because they took Tabomo and I when outnumbered and not really being serious, I would be more than happy to meet them on the field and kick their butts one on one. I just won't put the enjoyment of my players at risk if we are out on a roam.
I think that some of may just take you up on that.
:)|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Golgotha raises some valid points about equal competition vs, winning.
Even so, I think that they are missing Mist's general meaning. I could be wrong and hope that if I am, Mist will see this and correct me.
Let's use Golgotha as an example. Not the only one. This applies along many professed alignment ranges and settlements.
Part 1:
There are some posters, some of them Golgotha, that do remark on a lack of PVP that is not started directly by them. They seem to be hoping that other groups will get involved in PVP.
Part 2:
There are medium and small groups that might try PVP. Unfortunately, there is a negative feedback in that when attacked it is usually with overwhelming odds or at least outnumbered significantly. Often the smaller groups are pretty sure that if they initiate, there will either be overwhelming odds in that moment or retaliation later with overwhelming odds.
So, while it is normal to want to bring more than the other guy to the rumble, losing a lot does not make it something that many really enjoy or are interested in starting.
Results: Groups that can't or won't (for some reason) organize large forces are not really interested in PVP at this time. Not where they are outnumbered in nearly every case.
Why else was there a cease fire for a time between Xeillias and EBA?
Large forces aren't a factor in 90% of the PvP that occurs.
It could matter for WoT, but only if towers mattered.
When someone starts posturing on the forums by threatening our towers my standard reply is:
We have towers?
The peaceniks crowdforged WoT into non-relevance.
In fact, by making towers not matter, peaceniks have completely EMPOWERED banditry.
Because no settlement really needs towers, they are free to hunt players as much as they please and can't be punished through WoT.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kinda curious how we crowdforged WoT into non-relevance. Seemed pretty meh from the beginning. The last change wasn't gonna make it any better and just cause some meta stuff to work around it. Let's not pretend there was some glorious PvP system hiding in WoT, cause their ain't. It was ill conceived from the start.
Any sort of advancement mechanism needs to come from within a group, it can't be external like the Towers. Unless your willing to relegate the majority of the server to a 'losing state' by making them super scarce and letting whoever can field the most people simply dominate the game.
Once it comes from internal effort conflict over it becomes far more reasonable and mechanically sound as we can choose how to lay ourselves out and focus our ability to defend or attack something. The key is to make the time committed to a particular action proportional to the outcome. If it takes me and my buddies 10mins on any given day to cripple your training ability for a week or so, it's too easy and it becomes a frustrating chore. If it takes us a week by sieging our way through all your holdings, then it's good.
And WoT kinda matters if you're trying to like I dunno stay on the upper edge of training. If you aren't at the upper edge than neither the new, the old, or the prospective changes would have mattered to you anyways.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
lol
Alright. Act in an obtuse fashion if you like.
Large forces aren't a factor in 90% of the PvP that occurs.
Correct. Large forces should read "larger".
We have towers?
Correct. No one needs any towers. There are many settlements that want towers though. No one needs T2 gear or skills past rank 9. Lots seem to want them also.
In fact, by making towers not matter, peaceniks have completely EMPOWERED banditry.
Inconclusive. There is no evidence that banditry is empowered. If you mean murder and corpse looting is empowered, there is still not enough evidence. Settlements that engage in it to excess seem to attract all the wrong kind of attention. I will admit that players can murder other players and not feel too big a pinch. If they do it with some moderation and self control.
It would be interesting to see a large group try an experiment. No concern for reputation or available training for a month. That would be a good test to see before OE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EoX is currently engaged in such an experiment. Since we lost all of our towers we have decided to tank our rep and murder everyone we see in Brighthaven alliance lands.This is pretty much what I always expected from the Pax/UNC alliance anyway.
That has never been a stated or practiced goal of UNC. Also, Pax and UNC had never had an alliance in the truer sense of the word, simply a NON aggression pact which in-game has never been recognized (again in practice) by several members of Golgotha.
You will not see members of the Aragonian Council in any excursion into the South East, as part of any other settlement's interests.
Aragon will be focusing on stockpiling resources (gathering), Crafting T2 gear, and running escalations (likely with PFU) since they have been open to us joining in.
The plan that GW announced (when they first said they would remove the core 6 towers) would have made towers important... so important that the smaller settlements felt they'd have no chance and thus objected until GW changed the plan to the current irrelevance.
I'm not saying the crowdforgers wanted exactly this system, just that crowdforger objections to what would have been very meaningful PvP (which might very well have seen smaller settlements crushed) *led* to this system.
Maybe towers are still important to YOUR characters and their training plans, but they haven't affected MY training plans at all. I'd suggest that the "upper edge of training" only applies to very specialized characters. My active characters are pretty well rounded and wind up being slowed by achievement gates, not towers.
I haven't even requisitioned t2 gear over +0 because I haven't seen a need for it.
My gatherer is still using t1 gear and never dies.
My combat character uses t2+0 gear and pretty much only dies fighting over towers; towers she doesn't need unless she wants to fight in better gear which she would only need for fighting over towers. Do you see how circular it gets? The +2 I could get from the towers is only important for fighting over those very towers that grant it. If I ignore towers, the t2+0 gear works great for everything else that I choose to do (gathering, doing escalations, killing poachers) and the things I can do (like banditry) but have avoided for the last 38 days.
Maybe an extra +2 might speed things up a bit, but then you lose play time to messing with towers, as well as letting people control your behavior when they threaten your towers.
Ignoring towers probably isn't more efficient, but I don't think it is LESS efficient either once you add in all the time wasted on towers and the nonsensical behavior constraints that go along with worrying about not angering people so they won't take your precious towers.
What good is having the towers for +2 gear, if keeping those towers means obeying some opposition settlements' edicts about harvesting in "their" territory that would keep you from building ANY gear of certain types due to geographic resource monopolies?
You'll say TRADE for it, but I'll say their monopoly on certain resources means you pay a price so high it defeats the "efficiency" you were hoping to gain from +2 gear. OK, now I can kill stuff 20% faster, but I have to kill 35% more stuff to AFFORD to trade for the gear that lets me kill stuff 20% faster.
(I'm just making up those numbers in the last paragraph, but traders in most games generally push for a price so high that it *almost* doesn't make sense. Add in players who just want the best gear and don't actually do the min-max math and prices often PASS the point where it makes practical sense to players that have done the min-max math on time efficiency).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EoX is currently engaged in such an experiment. Since we lost all of our towers we have decided to tank our rep and murder everyone we see in Brighthaven alliance lands.This is pretty much what I always expected from the Pax/UNC alliance anyway.
Your lack of integrity started this. Cheatles inability to keep to his word seriously helped it along. When an outnumbered force finds themselves vastly outgunned they take to the woods.
In some ways we are basically just America.
Do you hate America?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
EoX is currently engaged in such an experiment. Since we lost all of our towers we have decided to tank our rep and murder everyone we see in Brighthaven alliance lands.This is pretty much what I always expected from the Pax/UNC alliance anyway.
I was attempting to be facetious. That would be a noble experiment but surely there are other ways to test such things.
@ Nihimon
I did not expect this from a Pax linked org. I have a feeling that Phyllain is being facetious, as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Cheatle, you kept your word until you decided not to. We told you that attacks from Phaeros were unacceptable, and that we would respond. You said that you agreed with that, and that though you would defend your allies, you would not respond with attacks on our lands.
Then you did.
Oh well.
Back to killing everything we see. We really didn't want TEO as an enemy, but we are happy having more targets I guess. Now we don't have to stay off the mountain range, like we previously agreed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I kept my word, up until you came down and started killing people in EBA territory.
To be fair, where else are the PVP focused companies supposed to go killing people?
If they kill around Marchmont, Ryan gets his panties in a bind.
If they kill PFU, the bulk of the community gets their panties in a bind for killing noobs, and driving them away before their 14 day free trials end.
The other regions of the map are barren of any players.
EBA's recruitment efforts have been so successful that you have made your region the only viable area to find PVP targets.
As Savage Grace has explained, you don't need Towers or T2 training, T2 +# Gear, or Reputation to do that.
* WoT has been a broken concept from the moment it was implemented.
* Outposts appears to be following the same model.
* The complete threading of all gear, has made the only targets for bandits, solo gatherers.
* If they ever do add caravans, I have little doubt GW will continue their trend and make them unsuitable PVP / looting targets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Excuse me?
I said that we would not defend their tower, and that we would defend the EBA territory. We were willing to let people fight each other in no mans land, or defend towers like I said, but you guys came down into EBA territory with organized PvP slaughtering everyone you came across, and attacking escalation sites. So, in response to that, we took towers too, although I realize that towers probably mean nothing to you.
We will not allow attacks in our area to go unnoticed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well then, let's be clear.
The EoX believes that our ceasefire with Phaeros ended when they attacked one of Kruez Bernsteins towers on... Tuesday night I think it was? Our talks with the Cheatle at the time made us believe that our ceasefire with the rest of the SE still stood.
The EoX believes that our ceasefire with the rest of the SE ended when they cooperated with Phaeros on Saturday night to attack the rest of our towers. Until we heard reports that Cheatle himself was a part of those attacks, we still hoped that there was a chance that it was a rogue op, and that the ceasefire held.
Edit: Cheatle, that is not what we agreed upon. I have told you, explicitly, that we would attack Phaeros on their lands. I made attempts before our ops to contact you, so that you could pull your people out of the Red Zone. Unfortunately you weren't online. You broke the ceasefire, not us.
For the record, this is an excerpt of our internal SOP prior to your tower attack:
"It should be noted that our agreement with the rest of the EBA still stands. We are operating under the assumption that Cheatle is good to his word, and that though they will assist in the defense of Phaeros, as long as we do not go into Brighthaven lands and begin attacks, we will not face aggressive reciprocation.
Make every reasonable attempt to avoid the mountains in the SE. Keep your attacks within the immediate area around Phaeros, and Phaeros controlled lands. I do not want to hear reports of obvious attempts at attacks within Keeper's Pass or Brighthaven controlled lands. "
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Tink,
You did not explicitly tell me anything like that, I made it abundantly clear that we would protect EBA territory. Perhaps, there was some miscommunication there, but I walked away understanding the above.
EDIT: After reading your edit, yea, there definitely was some miscommunication. Next time we make an agreement it will have to be in writing, as to be clear, concise, and no confusion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
EBA's recruitment efforts have been so successful that you have made your region the only viable area to find PVP targets.
* If they ever do add caravans, I have little doubt GW will continue their trend and make them unsuitable PVP / looting targets.
This might be because PFO's goal is to provide PVP opponents that can actually give a fair fight, not just helpless "targets"
@Golgotha
When I heard that EBA had taken all your towers, I thought to myself, "wow, here is Golgotha's chance to show how strong a PVP company they are, I bet they organize themselves and take back all ten towers, and I hope there are some epic clashes between groups of fighters on both sides."
Instead, you've decided that fighting people who are actually prepared to fight back is too hard, so you'll target civilians instead?
I don't care who started what, but Golgotha's response is pathetic. This is your opportunity to have large-scale PVP in rep-free tower hexes, and your response is to throw up your hands and go kill gatherers?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, this is going to quickly descend into "He said, She said". We told you that we would attack Phaeros. We told you that we hoped that your people would be kept out of the crossfire. I, personally, told you that you should expect Golgothan operations inside Phaeros lands.
You told us that you would defend your friends, and we agreed that that was perfectly reasonable. You told us that we should not expect TEO forces on any attacks against our towers.
Gaskon: We are vastly out numbered by the SE. For every soldier we can put on the field, they can put down 5. It would be stupid for us to engage the SE in symmetric warfare. We believed that we could easily hold up against Phaeros in such a fight. The introduction of TEO, by far the largest group in the game, changes that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe towers are still important to YOUR characters and their training plans, but they haven't affected MY training plans at all
You won't get far if more than a few players in your alliance play and act with that philosophy. It wrecks agreements that your leaders hammer out.
What good is having the towers for +2 gear, if keeping those towers means obeying some opposition settlements' edicts about harvesting in "their" territory that would keep you from building ANY gear of certain types due to geographic resource monopolies?
What resource does EBA have in their territory that Golgotha can't find elsewhere? Escalations? Here is a hot tip: If you quash nearby monster hex escalations every day, new random ones pop up. Sometimes they are great. Usually they are low end boring ones. That means that a group invests hours daily to have a chance at a good escalation. When an outsider comes in, not bothering to ask first, it pisses off those hard working people whose labor made it happen.
My combat character uses t2+0 gear and pretty much only dies fighting over towers; towers she doesn't need unless she wants to fight in better gear which she would only need for fighting over towers. Do you see how circular it gets? The +2 I could get from the towers is only important for fighting over those very towers that grant it. If I ignore towers, the t2+0 gear works great for everything else that I choose to do (gathering, doing escalations, killing poachers) and the things I can do (like banditry) but have avoided for the last 38 days.
What are poachers? People that come into your claimed lands and harvest without permission? Yeah, those are poachers.
Phaeros is always the pivotal player when things break down between us.
Either the EBA plays good cop bad cop using Phaeros as the bad cop, OR Phaeros is like the little brother who starts fights knowing his big brother won't let any harm come to him.
I'm still tied up with tax season greatly limiting my play time, but when I do get a moment to play, if I have to go back to killing gatherers, I totally blame Phaeros.
You won't get far if more than a few players in your alliance play and act with that philosophy. It wrecks agreements that your leaders hammer out.
Ignoring towers wrecks agreements? You've lost me.
What resource does EBA have in their territory that Golgotha can't find elsewhere? Escalations? Here is a hot tip: If you quash nearby monster hex escalations every day, new random ones pop up. Sometimes they are great. Usually they are low end boring ones. That means that a group invests hours daily to have a chance at a good escalation. When an outsider comes in, not bothering to ask first, it pisses off those hard working people whose labor made it happen.
EBA comes north of their territorial claim to kill off t2 escalations to keep us from farming them EVEN WHILE THEY HAVE T2 ESCALATIONS back in the territory they claim.
But I was referring to certain specific node resources, and I prefer not to name them or the hexes, as that is often viewed as rude or hostile by the folks who farm that stuff. We might be fighting EBA today, but no one knows about tomorrow, and data spills are PERMANENT.
(Until GW shuffles resources again, LOL).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So last week some folks from Phaeros take a KB tower ( not sure why perhaps they can shed some on that ..).
Night after that (Thursday?)they defended it so it remained with them.
The following night (Friday) it was taken back.
Saturday am excursion led to battle Phaeros near Phaeros with instructions given to not attack other settlements down there as our beef was with Phaeros only. We were told EBA/TEO was not going to be involved as long as our fight was with Phaeros only.
Saturday Night, Golgotha takes 2 towers from Phareos.
Instead of coming to defend those towers Phareos organizes an attack to take 4 towers right after they lost 2. It was at this point folks from EBA started helping as they were part of the organized response team to take 4 towers as well as some folks up north taking one near marchmont(alderwag or something got invovled who asked them to do this i wonder ..) ..
Sunday you guys decide to take all towers from us…
Sunday afternoon open season is declared on anyone that is in the SE….
just my view of the last couple days ..
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Gaskon: We are vastly out numbered by the SE. For every soldier we can put on the field, they can put down 5. It would be stupid for us to engage the SE in symmetric warfare. We believed that we could easily hold up against Phaeros in such a fight. The introduction of TEO, by far the largest group in the game, changes that.
Well. I'm hesitant to stick my foot in without knowing all the details, but as an outside observer, I bet that if Golgotha stopped killing gatherers and focused their PVP efforts on fighting over towers, you'd be able to end up in a situation where each side has 6 towers they don't have to worry about defending, and 3 towers in the middle that swap back and forth and generate enjoyable organized PVP for both sides, instead of both sides being unhappy.
I see Phaeros being unhappy because they can't protect their gatherers/noncombatants. I see Golgotha being unhappy because they don't get enough PVP on equal terms.
The simple solution is to stop attacking each others weakpoints and ensuring that nobody has a good time, and instead test your strength in equal matches that both sides can enjoy.
I'll even make an offer... if you guys can work it out so there are 3-5 towers both sides intend to contest, and at least one side puts their PVP window during late evening eastern time, I'll bring 4 or 5 dwarves down south and join the battles on whichever side is outnumbered.
Because a 15 vs 20 battle once a night sounds like a lot of fun, while 10 vs 2, or 100 vs 10 a couple times a week is stupid for both sides.
Can PvP participation metrics (like Eve's PAP links) be far behind?PAP links? What are they?
Eve coalitions give leaders the permission to create a link to participation metric software. Once the fleet has done "enough" or finished the fleet commander puts up a link in fleet chat and players click on the link to register that they were part of the fleet.
Coalitions can then see which individuals/corporations/alliances are participating the most over any chosen period of time.
CFC and HBC tended to use those measurements when parceling out the choice systems to various companies and alliances.
With Killboards, and PAP links you can create a kind of meritocracy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Gaskon, I'm going to release a few rough numbers for point of illustration. They aren't actual figures, but they are, by and large, fair assessments of each of the major powers.
Golgotha can field ~20 people on a good night. That means that if we spend a few days prior making sure that every knows exactly what and when an event will happen, we can get those 20 people to show up for a good few hours. After the event, they will trickle out and we will go back to our normal operations. At a moments notice, we can probably muster up ~10 people.
Phaeros seems to be in roughly the same situation. I imagine that we are actually extremely close when it comes to relative power. A fight between Phaeros and Golgotha would be interesting. They would take some fights, we would take others. It all depends on who is available at which day. When Golgotha fields our best and brightest, we tend to take the field. Phaeros has better retention rates, and so they have more high XP characters to make up for it. Their average character is probably stronger than ours, but I personally think that our top people outmatch theirs. They probably don't agree.
Brighthaven could roll every single settlement in the game. If Brighthaven put their forces on the field, you either retreat or you lose. There is no fighting Brighthaven right now; they are our version of BoB. This is especially true if they bring their allies.
So, it isn't a case of a 20v20 fight happening at a tower. That is certainly a possibility.
It is a case of a 20v20 fight happening at one tower, and then 5v2 fights happening at every other tower that we hold. We have to make a choice; do we hold this tower for one more day? Do we try and have some fun in an even fight?
Or do we take to the woods, and make use of our only advantage? We are willing to live for a time without towers. We can be a thorn in the paw of the lion. We might get a few recruits out of it.
And so that is what we are doing, for now. Because Brighthaven makes any fight unwinnable, and your 4-5 dwarves would do nothing to change that. If Brighthaven decides that we don't get to play in their sandbox, then we don't play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Savage
I was working on a point by point rebuttal and then I got to your trade comment, and I realized we aren't playing the same game. I think that's the root of our differing views, what I see and what I'm doing are radically different from what you see and what you are doing.
Just on your trade comment: I literally hang out in a town filled with crafters who will trade with anyone and has access to almost everything (some of which I help with via my DT) but some of the final items from higher rank crafting and has a staunch policy at keeping markup around 10%, far from price gouging. They aren't exactly quiet about their business and they're allied with me, a Lawful Evil settlement, gonna say they probably aren't discriminating.
We might be on the same server with the same people, but we aren't playing the same game and I didn't realize it until now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Man you are so naive. Don't you realize that Brighthaven and Xeilias set up some kind of agreement to not fight *before* because it was determined that Brighthaven has such overwhelming numbers they can't be fought off?
I'm not privy to the details of these agreements, and it sounds like they weren't written down.
Both sides have diplomats so I'm sure they don't need my advice, but I'd suggest that both sides should focus more on their fundamental desires and less on assigning towers.
If what Phaeros really wants is for its gatherers to not get killed, and what Golgotha really wants is opportunities for relatively even numbered PVP matches, then there is opportunity for a lasting agreement, and some arrangement about towers might help both sides get what they want.
However, if what Golgotha really wants is to kill gatherers, then they are basically at an impasse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tink
Would you be willing to make an agreement like "Golgotha doesn't kill gatherers in exchange for Brighthaven doesn't take all our towers"?
Is that what you tried before?
Because from my Northern perspective, it seems like the breakdown point for all these agreements is that Golgotha won't stop killing gatherers.
Would a functional war of towers be a fair exchange for a moratorium on killing outside of tower hex PVP windows?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was in the Teamspeak channel when Tink and Cheatle spoke. The point was made, and reiterated, that we would be taking the fight to Phaeros's towers in response to their assault. The point was made, and reiterated, that we should expect Brighthaven to assist Phaeros in defending their towers. The point was made, and reiterated, that we should expect Brighthaven not to retaliate in response to attacks on Phaeros assets, but that we should avoid attacking any Brighthaven assets.
There was little room for misinterpretation or miscommunication in the conversation I heard. Both Tink and Cheatle were very clearly on the same page when Cheatle left our TS.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tink
Would you be willing to make an agreement like "Golgotha doesn't kill gatherers in exchange for Brighthaven doesn't take all our towers"?
Is that what you tried before?
Because from my Northern perspective, it seems like the breakdown point for all these agreements is that Golgotha won't stop killing gatherers.
Would a functional war of towers be a fair exchange for a moratorium on killing outside of tower hex PVP windows?
Where did you get the idea that this is from killing gatherers? becuase we have not been able to go down there for pvp operations since the agreement like 3-4 weeks ago.
This started last week when Phaeros decided to take a tower from KB. as to their reasons for taking one of KB towers .. i have yet to hear one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tink
Would you be willing to make an agreement like "Golgotha doesn't kill gatherers in exchange for Brighthaven doesn't take all our towers"?
Is that what you tried before?
Because from my Northern perspective, it seems like the breakdown point for all these agreements is that Golgotha won't stop killing gatherers.
Would a functional war of towers be a fair exchange for a moratorium on killing outside of tower hex PVP windows?
Where did you get the idea that this is from killing gatherers? becuase we have not been able to go down there for pvp operations since the agreement like 3-4 weeks ago.
This started last week when Phaeros decided to take a tower from KB. as to their reasons for taking one of KB towers .. i have yet to hear one.
The reason was very simple. A Company from Golgotha (can't remember their name at the moment but they use to be part of Aragon) put a base camp in our territory and was attempting to farm our Spire Escalation. They were driven off a couple of days in a row. The leadership decided in response to take this said Company's Tower near Emerald Spire. We had no real intention to keep it, though we did put up a token defense. From there Golgotha members started to attack everyone they came across in the SE which led to the current state.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where did you get the idea that this is from killing gatherers? becuase we have not been able to go down there for pvp operations since the agreement like 3-4 weeks ago.
Outside observation with limited information?
If Golgotha hasn't been targeting "mobile resource nodes" lately, then they have a serious public relations deficiency.
It doesn't help that Golgotha's response to losing towers is generally to start killing non-combatants, instead of actually... fighting to get towers back.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You won't get far if more than a few players in your alliance play and act with that philosophy. It wrecks agreements that your leaders hammer out.
Ignoring towers wrecks agreements? You've lost me.
I guess that I have lost you. A Me, Myself, and I attitude suggests that you only care about towers for yourself. I doubt that all of Golgotha is happy with less towers.
Other problems with it are that it leads to rogue elements doing things on their own that ruin agreements between states.
@Savage
I was working on a point by point rebuttal and then I got to your trade comment, and I realized we aren't playing the same game. I think that's the root of our differing views, what I see and what I'm doing are radically different from what you see and what you are doing.
Just on your trade comment: I literally hang out in a town filled with crafters who will trade with anyone and has access to almost everything (some of which I help with via my DT) but some of the final items from higher rank crafting and has a staunch policy at keeping markup around 10%, far from price gouging. They aren't exactly quiet about their business and they're allied with me, a Lawful Evil settlement, gonna say they probably aren't discriminating.
We might be on the same server with the same people, but we aren't playing the same game and I didn't realize it until now.
To be fair, I was talking in generalities about trading in gaming as a whole, and *speculating* about what a resource monopoly would mean if one actually obeyed opposing settlements and didn't poach. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
I haven't had to do trading because my settlement is communist and apparently someone ;-) poaches enough to keep us geared.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We took back the tower that T7V had taken in response to AGC plopping a base camp in a hex. We also took 2 Phaeros towers on Saturday.
We also went into Phaeros lands and killed everything we could. Because that is what T7V invited when they attacked us. Do you really expect us to let their industrial machine roll on as is? No. That would be stupid.
There are no civilians in this game. Like it or not, everyone is a target.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We took back the tower that T7V had taken in response to AGC plopping a base camp in a hex. We also took 2 Phaeros towers on Saturday.
We also went into Phaeros lands and killed everything we could. Because that is what T7V invited when they attacked us. Do you really expect us to let their industrial machine roll on as is? No. That would be stupid.
There are no civilians in this game. Like it or not, everyone is a target.
That was your response and that is fine. Doesn't bother me one bit. However as you just admitted it wasn't EBA that broke the agreement but your AGC.
Edit: I'll add this little bit. We have every right to protect our hard earned Escalations (resources) if others think us taking their Tower was a inappropriate response.