PvP and the existing community


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So if Golgotha and Stoneroot have an NAP, and Golgotha agrees not to to interfere between Stoneroot and Callambea, but later decides something is different and Golgotha helps Callambea take a tower, that's okay, not a violation of the NAP, and any attempt to take the tower back would be an act of war. But if Brighthaven and Golgotha have an NAP, and Brighthaven decides something has changed and helps Phaeros take some towers from Golgotha, that's a violation of the NAP and punishable by random murder.

Have I got this right?

Goblin Squad Member

First up, we didn't have an agreement with T7V, or the EBA. You told us that, because treating with EBA is a massive clusterf+%@. It turns out we only actually had an agreement with TEO. Who knew!

And, though I was not around for the signing of the first agreement, I'm fairly sure that base camps and smallholdings weren't a part of it. From what I understand, the agreement was "Don't take our towers, we won't take yours."

Your people had been in our lands as much as we had been in yours. Don't try and flip this as some kind of Golgothan aggression.

Edit: Ha, hard earned. You got lucky with the RNG. You didn't earn those escalations, any more than Golgotha earned having s$@# T1 escalations for the last 3 months.


Gaskon wrote:


If Golgotha hasn't been targeting "mobile resource nodes" lately, then they have a serious public relations deficiency.

Golgotha just killed mobile resource nodes ELSEWHERE, during the ceasefire.

*I* have 38 days clean of banditry, but the current strategic warfare is pretty damn similar to "banditry" should it still be going on when I carve out time to play.

The biggest difference is the act of destroying the resources you don't want to be bothered to carry. Bandits don't tend to do that, but then they get accused of husk baiting, so they just can't win.

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Tink wrote:
There are no civilians in this game. Like it or not, everyone is a target.

Ah. Impasse it is then. Well, good luck to your diplomats :)

Also, this attitude is the primary reason why Golgotha tends to feel outnumbered and overwhelmed. Its hard to remain neutral towards a group that explicitly defines your members as "targets".

Goblin Squad Member

@Savage

As long as your still equipped then I'm less offended :-)

Goblin Squad Member

Savage Grace wrote:
Bringslite wrote:


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).

Great answer. I have a few cutting edge crafters and I haven't come across any materials that are exclusive to EBA lands, yet. What are they? If I can find them, have you considered trading for them?

If EBA comes north (out of their lands) and hassles you in Escalation hexes, how could there have been a cease fire? They have done it in the past? OK. Have Golgothans done the same? Have Golgothans gone south (in the past) and killed characters?

No cease fire can last if any party reverts to doing things that started conflict. No cease fire can last if any party does new things that cause friction.

Using past incidents as justification really doesn't help a cease fire either.

From reading further posts, it looks like there are a great deal of things that I don't know about the situation. If I started this explosion, I regret ever posting in this thread.

Goblin Squad Member

Black Silver of The Veiled, T7V wrote:
Gol Tink wrote:

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.

It was about the only response possible (so far) in this game, if you value your mechanical reputation. There is communication... but that is hard. Both sides speak different languages.


naw Bringslite, you didn't explode it. Recent events just made my thread more umm relevant.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gol Tink wrote:

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. "

I assume that if you don't have the authority to speak on behalf of EoX Phyllain will step in and say so.

The detente was over when AGC was observed to have established a base camp for the purpose of farming t2 escalations in EBA territory. It could have been resumed after their tower was taken in retaliation and then retaken. However, there was further escalation afterwards. When EoX forced resumed attacking random targets around Phaeros, there was no way to offer a measured retaliation. So we organized for a total retaliation, even coordinating with other groups to make the response as overwhelming as possible.

If EoX continues with their policy OR the actuality of hit and run attacks anywhere outside of their own borders, Phaeros will not entertain any softening of their stance towards EoX. Any EoX member state that wishes to seek a separate peace should consider disavowing their imperial alliance.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The original agreement, which TSV alternates between changing the terms of and denying it applied to them, was that EoX would stop engaging in PvP in EBA land for a reciprocation of action from the EBA, or apparently just teo in nihimons mind. Base camps and escalations where never banned, in fact cheatle and I agreed that any of our members found in the others land was fair game. If TSV had killed the trespassers there would have been no issues. Durring the truce we continued to kill any EBA members we found up in our mountain. Of which there where quite a few.

TSV took a tower form AGC, we responded by taking towers from them and engaging characters around phaeros. TEO took all of our towers, we responded by removing the restriction on banditry in the area around teo. In fact I even sent PMs to teh leaders of keepers pass and Brigthhaven warning them that we would be killing people around phaeros and to warn their members.

This entire incident has proven that negotiation with the EBA is impossible. Any one city that is a member can just scrap any agreement the over all oganization makes. Unless we where expected to not take the fight TSV after they attacked us.

Goblin Squad Member

You hit us first. You admit to hitting us first. It wasn't a detente, it wasn't temporary. You took a tower, and then defended it over multiple days until you couldn't hold it anymore.

We will continue to attack you at home until you admit fault and peace talks can resume.

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Phyllain wrote:

The original agreement, which TSV alternates between changing the terms of and denying it applied to them, was that EoX would stop engaging in PvP in EBA land for a reciprocation of action from the EBA, or apparently just teo in nihimons mind. Base camps and escalations where never banned, in fact cheatle and I agreed that any of our members found in the others land was fair game. If TSV had killed the trespassers there would have been no issues. Durring the truce we continued to kill any EBA members we found up in our mountain. Of which there where quite a few.

TSV took a tower form AGC, we responded by taking towers from them and engaging characters around phaeros. TEO took all of our towers, we responded by removing the restriction on banditry in the area around teo. In fact I even sent PMs to teh leaders of keepers pass and Brigthhaven warning them that we would be killing people around phaeros and to warn their members.

This entire incident has proven that negotiation with the EBA is impossible. Any one city that is a member can just scrap any agreement the over all oganization makes. Unless we where expected to not take the fight TSV after they attacked us.

I don't remember TEO being there when we took all your Towers. It was primarily Phaeros and Keeper's Pass with a few others, but no TEO in sight.

Goblin Squad Member

You are aware that 5 of our towers are literally in the hands of TEO right now, yeah?

Goblin Squad Member

I find it interesting that AGC setting up a basecamp in the south near a T2 escalation, was considered such a heinous act of aggression, yet I personally witnessed (maybe a week or so ago? maybe two weeks? definitely after the "agreement") BHA people farming a T2 escalation north of KB and using a base camp to bank their spoils.

Edit: if im not mistaken, it was specifically Phaeros people, the same people who were so outraged at AGC daring to put a base camp near their escalation

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sigh.. this is just going back and forth. As usually Golgotha is spinning stuff to make them look as the offended party. Oh well. Here is your cake.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Abort, abort! Rhetorical fail! I forgot that TEO actually was there! Run away!"

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Tink wrote:
"Abort, abort! Rhetorical fail! I forgot that TEO actually was there! Run away!"

To say that TEO was "there" is a gross understatement as well. They made up the majority of the invading force.

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Phyllain wrote:


TSV took a tower form AGC, we responded by taking towers from them and engaging characters around phaeros.

In my opinion, the bolded part is what makes Golgotha the aggressor.

Someone takes a tower, you take two towers. Fine.

Someone takes a tower, you go to their settlement and kill non-combatants. Not fine.

Goblin Squad Member

Going to say this just as my opinion.. as I am not in a leadership role on any level and at this point I should probably just let it go and let the folks that are respond .. but your logic seems super flawed.
Here s is a brief history of the last 4 weeks …

About 4 weeks ago or so we had an agreement with the EBA to no longer do pvp with them.

They come out with a map claiming 20% of the map with a neat red line and say don’t come here without permission.. etc ..

For the following weeks we clear escalations not in the little red line area, even get a couple T2 ones to spawn .. EBA decides no one should have them but them and comes to the hexes 3 south of KB and 5 NE of KB and kills them outright ( and put their little holdings down so they can bank the stuff they are getting while they are there…)
So our response to those actions , if you aren’t going to kill your own T2 escalations we will kill them ourselves ( but were told do not get involved in pvp while there..)

……
Your response to someone farming your escalations( with your vastly superior numbers …) is to take a tower .. instead of running us off?

You guys do pretty much the same thing when come outside your area and kill off the other T2 escalations and bring your little holdings along with you to hold your loot till you kill it off..

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Tink wrote:
You are aware that 5 of our towers are literally in the hands of TEO right now, yeah?

5 of TEOs towers are in the possession of TEO. And 5 of Phaeros' towers are in our possession. Oddly enough, the rest of our towers are as well.

When you can hold towers, you can have them.


Gaskon wrote:
Gol Phyllain wrote:


TSV took a tower form AGC, we responded by taking towers from them and engaging characters around phaeros.

In my opinion, the bolded part is what makes Golgotha the aggressor.

Someone takes a tower, you take two towers. Fine.

Someone takes a tower, you go to their settlement and kill non-combatants. Not fine.

Killing non combatants is a hugely viable tactic. It not only cuts your resources but also if kept up long enough causes those non combatants to seek other settlements that won't make them an instant target. This then weakens your settlement as they often take a few combatant friends with them.

In addition it tends to demoralize the people of the settlement members and cause moaning and griping on comms. Morale being another eminently viable target

Goblin Squad Member

Right... that wasn't the point that I was responding to. I was responding to the claim that TEO wasn't involved in taking those towers. Which they clearly were. Nice try, though.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

TEO took five, HFL took two, HRC took one, ROS took four I think? I'll have to check my strategic notes.

I used sharpie instead of wet-erase, so now I have a permanent record.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Killing non combatants is a hugely viable tactic.

Sure. I didn't say it wasn't viable. I said it was aggressive, and that engaging in it makes previously neutral parties tend to dislike you.

And apparently, it ends up leading to broken agreements, the largest military power in the game attacking you, and the loss of all your towers. So maybe it's actually not viable. And maybe that's a good thing.

Goblin Squad Member

Gaskon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Killing non combatants is a hugely viable tactic.

Sure. I didn't say it wasn't viable. I said it was aggressive, and that engaging in it makes previously neutral parties tend to dislike you.

And apparently, it ends up leading to broken agreements, the largest military power in the game attacking you, and the loss of all your towers. So maybe it's actually not viable. And maybe that's a good thing.

I think you are missing the part where our attacking of "non combatants" was in RESPONSE to them breaking the agreement and also taking our towers, not the other way around.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just can't stay out...

Poachers are one thing. A base camp or small holding is a notch up. It is there, in your face, and it can't be removed in any way shape or form against the holder's will.

Anyone that places such a structure in anyone else's claimed territory, should be aware that it is offensive. Unless they are very, very challenged individuals.

I don't believe that AGC are anything short of pretty smart. I do believe that they do not respect EBA territory. I do believe that they have a grasp of politics in this game. I do believe that they like trouble.

Just last week AGC moved to Kreuz Bernstein. I received a PM or two stating that Ozem's could do what it wants with Aragon's towers. A day or two later they attacked that tower. They did take it away. There was no complaining. There was no forum barf. It seemed like a move totally in character for AGC.

If you twist agreements beyond what both parties expect from them and/or consider as the intent, that is called using loop holes. Great play for lawful evil. Any agreement with them should start with an accurate paragraph or two describing it's "intent". Then it should be looked over by evil minded people that are on your side.

Goblin Squad Member

Gaskon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Killing non combatants is a hugely viable tactic.

Sure. I didn't say it wasn't viable. I said it was aggressive, and that engaging in it makes previously neutral parties tend to dislike you.

And apparently, it ends up leading to broken agreements, the largest military power in the game attacking you, and the loss of all your towers. So maybe it's actually not viable. And maybe that's a good thing.

Really need to go back and read the things i wrote for timeline.

Phaeros is saying placing a holding and farming an escalation (which they did 2 times in the last few weeks) is grounds for taking towers away.

When we respond after a conversation about how we are going to respond with TEO they follow that up with taking all of our towers..

It is at this point where we are now told to live in the SE and kill anything that moves.

Not sure what a third party needs to see other than it is okay for them to come out of their territory and place holdings where they wish and farm what they wish, but the moment you try to do the same thing as they are doing they are going to take every tower they can from you to punish you for it.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite the south has been doing the same thing for weeks. How are we at fault?

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Tabomo wrote:
I think you are missing the part where our attacking of "non combatants" was in RESPONSE to them breaking the agreement and also taking our towers, not the other way around.

I'm not missing it. I am suggesting that it was a disproportionate response and a mishandling of the situation.

Someone breaks an agreement and takes a tower? Take two towers back, and then send your diplomats to find out why they broke the agreement. Negotiate from a position of strength.

Don't escalate the situation by attacking non-combatants, provoking the largest military power in the game into joining the conflict on your opponent's side.

If you don't want to start WWI, invade Serbia, but not Belgium.


Gaskon wrote:

Don't escalate the situation by attacking non-combatants, provoking the largest military power in the game into joining the conflict on your opponent's side.

If you don't want to start WWI, invade Serbia, but not Belgium.

Size of military doesn't really matter from what I gather once this war of towers thing is over as you won't be able to bring all your fighters without the servers falling over or the clients choking at that point it doesn't matter if you have an army of 10000 or 1000 as long as you can field enough to flood the settlement hex

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Phyllain wrote:
Bringslite the south has been doing the same thing for weeks. How are we at fault?

I'm not Bringslite, but I seem to be in pretty close agreement with him.

I don't care who puts holdings where.

I don't really care who takes what towers, except that I want to see more PVP in tower hexes between evenly matched sides.

I do care when non-combatants are targeted and attacked by roving bands of militants.

IMO, going near someone's settlement and killing non-combatants is a bad response to either losing a tower or violating an agreement.

Goblin Squad Member

I find it curious why any of you felt the other side would expect the other to honor all of these back room deals?

Back room deals are by their very nature, destined to be broken, because they are entered into through subterfuge from the very beginning.

Goblin Squad Member

They weren't back room. They just weren't talked about through external channels. We weren't exactly super secretive about a ceasefire.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Tuffon

Out of curiosity cause I seriously don't know: is them farming the northern escalation in question in any way, shape, or form a violation of any territory claims or agreements? The status of any escalations in their own claimed territory is kinda irrelevant to the conversation in my Lawful Evil opinion.

@Bluddwolf

I would just like to state that I have managed to keep to all 273 backroom deals I have made despite my nagging inclination to stab omni from time to time. The struggle is real.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gol Phyllain wrote:
Bringslite the south has been doing the same thing for weeks. How are we at fault?

I did not include Golgotha in what I wrote. Honestly, I really don't know much about what goes on down there.

Trying to grasp what you are saying. Are you saying that EBA or Phaeros has been putting down base camps or small holdings in Golgothan territory?

What is Xeillias' publically claimed territory? We should start with that.

Are you saying that they have been messaging you that they don't care what you do with "X's" towers and then coming in to take them?

Not trying to be dense or argumentative. There is information that I do not have. There is also (as usual) spin enough to cloud all the issues.

Goblin Squad Member

Duffy wrote:

@Tuffon

Out of curiosity cause I seriously don't know: is them farming the northern escalation in question in any way, shape, or form a violation of any territory claims or agreements? The status of any escalations in their own claimed territory is kinda irrelevant to the conversation in my Lawful Evil opinion.

No, it didn't breach any agreement. Just like AGC placing a base camp didn't breach any agreement.

Except T7V used it as their excuse to break a tower ceasefire. Which they never actually agreed to. Except sometimes they did agree to it. But only when it is helpful for their public image.


Gaskon wrote:

I'm not Bringslite, but I seem to be in pretty close agreement with him.

I don't care who puts holdings where.

I don't really care who takes what towers, except that I want to see more PVP in tower hexes between evenly matched sides.

I do care when non-combatants are targeted and attacked by roving bands of militants.

IMO, going near someone's settlement and killing non-combatants is a bad response to either losing a tower or violating an agreement.

Get used to it this is how war is waged

1) harass the support till they leave
2) target the peripheral companies and make their lives a living hell till they leave
3) Once the enemy are exposed alone and demoralized rip out their throat and stamp them into the dust

Goblin Squad Member

Tuffon wrote:

When we respond after a conversation about how we are going to respond with TEO they follow that up with taking all of our towers..

It is at this point where we are now told to live in the SE and kill anything that moves.

See, this is my point. The correct response to "we lost all our towers" is not "go kill anything that moves".

Imaginary situation A:
Lets imagine that last night, Forgeholm got a note from Golgotha's diplomats saying TEO took all our towers. They are big bullies. If you help us get our towers back from TEO, we'll work out a deal regarding the towers around Aragon and Kindleburn.

What really happened B:
Phyllain kills one of our newbies wearing T1 gear and trying to gather near Marchmont, then goes in general chat and claims that this is retaliation for the EBA taking their towers.

If "A" happened, Golgotha would have the chance to sway northern opinion in their favor, make some trade deals, and possibly even have some dwarven fighters to call on for aid.

Since "B" happened instead, you have me bickering at you on the forums :P

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gol Tink wrote:
Duffy wrote:

@Tuffon

Out of curiosity cause I seriously don't know: is them farming the northern escalation in question in any way, shape, or form a violation of any territory claims or agreements? The status of any escalations in their own claimed territory is kinda irrelevant to the conversation in my Lawful Evil opinion.

No, it didn't breach any agreement. Just like AGC placing a base camp didn't breach any agreement.

Except T7V used it as their excuse to break a tower ceasefire. Which they never actually agreed to. Except sometimes they did agree to it. But only when it is helpful for their public image.

Here is some spin. There probably wasn't a specific line in any agreement about basecamps. There wasn't as far as I know any agreement about territorial boundaries at all.

There was a clear statement about territory, though. Very clear. That all comes down to: Do what you want, but expect reaction.

Goblin Squad Member

Chiming in here a few days too late (sorry - easter vacation with no functional internet). In Doc Fox's typical bullet points:

1) I support the informed crowdforging. Since pvp is a big part of the game design, we should understand how it works.

2) I support teaching new players pvp.

3) While I have no interest in initiating pvp at this stage of the game, I have an interest in surviving. And later on I will have an interest in defending outposts and settlements.

4) I still won't come to your classes, because timezones suck.

Savage Grace wrote:


My self described claims for my characters have run from mediocre PvPer to I may be one of the worst PvPers in the land.

I'd fight you for that title if I thought I could win.

Goblin Squad Member

Duffy wrote:

@Bluddwolf

I would just like to state that I have managed to keep to all 273 backroom deals I have made despite my nagging inclination to stab omni from time to time. The struggle is real.

Awww, I feel loved. You should check your tea next Caucus meeting. LOL. :P

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

@Tink

According to this:

TEO Cheatle wrote:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The EBA has established our borders, shown on the following map, for resource, escalation, and holding claims. We consider anyone harvesting resources, attacking escalations, or establishing holdings to be hostile, unless given prior permission from EBA leadership. Any non-hostile individuals are free to travel our land, trade, buy/sell at auction houses, as well as bank.

Territory Map Border

...farming an escalation in claimed EBA territory without permission is clearly a violation of their stated 'laws'. You don't have to like them or follow them, but some form of response to something they clearly stated they weren't gonna allow in a clearly stated area seems like expected behavior.

That all said there is probably a debate to be had about proportional responses, but I'm leaning towards lack of game mechanics making that kinda tough.

I have no personal stake in this, just trying to establish a timeline and some cause/effect so I can figure how I should deal with all these random entities when it's my turn. I'm really trying to stick my meta politics to a firm interpretation of Lawful Evil, as hand tying as it can be sometimes.

Goblin Squad Member

Why can't there be an easy emote for a bandit to at least try? Why does a bandit also have to be a murderer?

This one, easy fix could help greatly.

Goblin Squad Member

I see a lot of confusion regarding order of events and who did what and when and whether agreements were broken.

Towers were only taken by TEO after Golgotha leadership was found and witnessed to be attacking players in Phaeros' core six hexes. This was not about EoX reclaiming lost towers or even reprising against Phaeros towers. This was an organized PvP excursion targeted in the heart of EBA territory during an attempt to try to begin cooling aggression again.

---

The exact miscommunication pertaining to which members were covered under cease-fire is an admitted mistake. The placement of a Base Camp that originally started this back and forth escalation was not a violation of any cease-fire terms that had been declared. Rather, it was a violation of a blanket statement that any group or organization engaging in such behavior in EBA territory would be viewed as a hostile act against the EBA. EoX never agreed to not place base camps in EBA territory. As such, EoX broke an EBA law but did not actually go back on their own word or break a law of their own.

Goblin Squad Member

There was zero attempt to cool aggression Life, until today no one had contacted me. Was there some attempt with a member of EoX that was not me?

Goblin Squad Member

I can confirm that no attempt was made by the SE to contact us regarding cooling of aggressions. I believe we had spoken to Cheatle multiple times since Phaeros first took one of our towers, and his response was basically, "We aren't their masters".

From our perspective, we had no reason to believe that this was a one off strike from Phaeros. They both took, and then defended that tower over multiple days, with a reasonable force. They made no attempt at contacting us during that period.

We were/are under attack, and we responded to that attack.

Goblin Squad Member

Sorry for not clarifying. The attempts were internal, so you certainly had no way of knowing.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Cheatle wrote:
Next time we make an agreement it will have to be in writing, as to be clear, concise, and no confusion.

During the last war with Golgotha, Cheatle started talking to them about a cease fire. As soon as we heard that was happening, Phaeros unilaterally cooled things off and stopped attacking Golgotha, but we made it explicitly clear to Cheatle that we would not agree to any specific terms because we knew Golgotha would twist them and use them to their own advantage.

If Golgotha believed the announced Everbloom Alliance position on our Territory didn't apply to them, then that's on Golgotha. Taking "hostile actions" during a cease fire is generally considered a breaking of the cease fire.

Goblin Squad Member

You really need to make up your mind man. Did we have a ceasefire or didn't we?

Goblin Squad Member

Tuffon wrote:

Phaeros is saying placing a holding and farming an escalation (which they did 2 times in the last few weeks) is grounds for taking towers away.

...

Not sure what a third party needs to see other than it is okay for them to come out of their territory and place holdings where they wish and farm what they wish, but the moment you try to do the same thing as they are doing they are going to take every tower they can from you to punish you for it.

Phaeros doesn't farm Escalations outside of EBA Territory unless we're invited. You must be thinking of someone else.

101 to 150 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / PvP and the existing community All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.