Goblin Squad Member
|
No, people that we have agreements with will know the agreements are over when the conditions of the agreement are meet.
False. Stoneroot Glade had no idea that you considered Callambea active until you began helping them take towers. We saw no difference between any of the towers they took or lost up until the day you stopped denying that you were helping them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bludd has literally nothing to do with anything relevant happening in this game. Why do you keep bringing him up? There is maybe one golgothan still playing who played alpha, hit, it wans't me. Everyone involved with the choices to ally with bludd the first and second time is no longer with us.
He can not help himself, is all I can think of as an explanation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So .02 from PFU.
1. Thanks for the content creation, my popcorn pile is disappearing quickly.
2. Not going to weigh in on the numbers or politics of the battle but we really should do a bard type story about the whole thing.
3. PFU is really fortunate to be no where near the battle and plan on continuing to be neutral. That means that all are welcome in our classes (and we expect everyone to abide by the PFU rules as appropriate). We will be running some escalations soon (gotta get rid of OGG again) and maybe it can provide a chance for everyone to play together and blow off some steam.
4. PFU has been very fortunate to deal with all players in the server and can attest they have all held true to the PFU rules (including not attacking new players). This holds true for Aeonian League, EBA, EoX (Golgotha), UNC, etc.
Keep creating content and if you want a place to debate the politics, I will gladly host a PFU event. :)
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
GCEs?Lol. Four GCEs in two sentences.Remind me how taking a tower does not harm non-combatants?
That is being compared to placing a small holding, to harvest a Monster Hex, which is not only PVE but it is harvesting a completely renewable resource.
Gross concept error. When you are not quite not even wrong.
First, that non-combatants exist. That harvesting resources isn't PvP. That escalations are 'completely renewable'. And that smallholdings are appropriate tools for harvesting escalations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GCEs?Lol. Four GCEs in two sentences.Remind me how taking a tower does not harm non-combatants?
That is being compared to placing a small holding, to harvest a Monster Hex, which is not only PVE but it is harvesting a completely renewable resource.
Gross concept error. When you are not quite not even wrong.
First, that non-combatants exist. That harvesting resources isn't PvP. That escalations are 'completely renewable'. And that smallholdings are appropriate tools for harvesting escalations.
1. Explain that to Gaskon and Nihimon, they believe non combatants or PvP adverse players exist.
2. Debatable, most dedicated gatherers do not feel it is PvP. If it is PvP than all gatherers are legitimate targets and there should be no such reference to them being "non combatants or civilians.
3. I never said an escalation is completely renewable, obviously if it is brought to 0% it is gone (for a time).
4. If a small holding makes harvesting a hex more efficient, it is appropriate. Ryan Dancey did not raise the issue of its appropriateness when one was used during PFU's escalation run two Sundays ago.
You really don't have any idea of what you are talking about. Common sense is often the most uncommon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I missed the last few days (birth of a new baby).
I must admit it seems everyone us getting tangled in the details.
Granted I call Phaeros and TSV home, but as many can attest, I am not against calling out my own when I think they are wrong. To me it seems to boil down to this:
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....
This is the EBA's stated policy. And...I think this is pretty much an admission of the EBA's ability to enforce it.
Did Golgotha act in a manner defined by the EBA as hostile in EBA territory (making this an EBA issue) or in a manner defined by a settlement of the EBA as hostile in their territory (making this a settlement issue)?
Was action by EBA members claimed to be in direct response to that violation?
Why is this being framed as a matter concerning a member of the EBA versus the whole?
Why is Golgotha surprised when the EBA reacts to acts of hostility?
Finally, what is the relevance of acts of hostility in EBA territory to any member of the EBA farming escalations in any unclaimed territory anywhere on the map?
.......
That said/asked, I must congratulate everyone on the eventful weekend; sounds like much content was created and fun had.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's unfortunate my earlier communication did not reach you successfully.
I'm sorry cal but your memory and self belief is astounding.
You say you where unaware Callambea was active yet long before we started retaking towers you yourself decided to stamp over my "hay callambea is alive and recruiting" recruitment thread!
https://goblinworks.com/forum/topic/2069/
This was posted 7th March and your reply was the 20th.
Perhaps you should look at this whole Phaeros/Brighthaven/Golgotha thing as follows:
Phaeros = Callambea
Brighthaven = Golgotha
Golgotha = Stoneroot
The only difference is where phaeros went all out war on Golgotha Callambea have simply retaken what was rightfully theirs in the first place and left you in peace. As I mentioned to Jokken via email, I thank you for understanding our new position and hope our agreement to not take towers from you and for you to not take towers further east of guardheim will stand.
.
.
.
Oh wait... are you starting a war with Phaeros too? seems the Button Makers have taken one of Phaeros's towers. Looks like you have chosen a side - hope you are prepared for the consequences. Decius has made it perfectly clear where he stands on people who take their s**t.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And I think that's why you're getting all the groups who also very clearly wanted to be murder hobos (looking at you AGC) to join you.
You totally misunderstand - we don't (all) want to be murder hobos, we just enjoy bringing the inner murder-hobo out in all that want to experience it. Poking at hornets' nests can be so entertaining.
And I know I'm late, but I don't think anyone responded to this question:
What resource does EBA have in their territory that Golgotha can't find elsewhere?
- from what I can tell you guys have kept the best source of Buckthorn Berries all to yourselves. And please don't play surprised, I'm sure that was no oversight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In terms of the meta-alliances:
EBA is probably a bit too Lawful for an organisation where every settlement on the law/chaos axis is Neutral. (Escalation from holding incursions to tower taking on the basis of declared interests is justifiable but seems rather a Lawful reaction for example)
XOS is probably not quite lawful enough. Deciding what Laws you regard as legitimate to obey is more Neutral than Lawful.
In terms of game dynamics:
The ability to take all the towers of a major settlement so easily in one PvP window is clearly a significant flaw in WoT design. There really should be some scale of increasing difficulty as towers get taken on the day. Even with overwhelming odds it should be difficult to achieve a total wipe of 6 or 8 towers in one PvP session.
In terms of original topic, PvP adverse players can often be convinced to take part in the limited organised tower window PvP sessions "for the good of the settlement" and as a result become a little less sensitised to PvP. Unmitigated player killing, harassing the same player over and over and shrine camping is merely going to harden attitudes against PvP and make it far less likely they will willing be involved in PvP in the future.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's unfortunate my earlier communication did not reach you successfully.I'm sorry cal but your memory and self belief is astounding.
You say you where unaware Callambea was active yet long before we started retaking towers you yourself decided to stamp over my "hay callambea is alive and recruiting" recruitment thread!
I said no such thing. Ever. Callambea has always been active from my point of view, since even Tyncale by himself generated more activity than almost any other two people combined. I said we were unaware that Golgotha considered them active.
I don't think anyone has ever heard me complain about anything Callambea ever did.
There are very few places our leadership was allowing us to engage. Facing opposition from a group I thought we weren't allowed to fight was uncomfortable.
(edit: I probably shouldn't be so absolute about it. It's possible I've called Callambea inactive at some point, in a general sense, but I doubt it.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In terms of game dynamics:The ability to take all the towers of a major settlement so easily in one PvP window is clearly a significant flaw in WoT design. There really should be some scale of increasing difficulty as towers get taken on the day. Even with overwhelming odds it should be difficult to achieve a total wipe of 6 or 8 towers in one PvP session.
In terms of original topic, PvP adverse players can often be convinced to take part in the limited organised tower window PvP sessions "for the good of the settlement" and as a result become a little less sensitised to PvP. Unmitigated player killing, harassing the same player over and over and shrine camping is merely going to harden attitudes against PvP and make it far less likely they will willing be involved in PvP in the future.
I think here is where the true problem is. The whole WoT design is flawed and the game mechanics are not balanced. It doesn't help if a tower is closer as it only means an attacker needs to walk further.
Targetting makes it difficult to prevent the lemming tactic which means even unskilled / badly equipped fighters are not easy to take out. It degenerate to a pure numbers game.If you have 50% more people as the enemy then the win is nearly certainly yours. Only in the event of +/-20% in numbers does 'meaningful' PvP happen.
But only during an arena style game will you ever get +/- 20%.
So this is part 1 of the problem. Balanced numbers will only occur during an Arena Style battle. There is nothing in the design that forces similar numbers - for example by capping the number to a single group of 6 (or insert any other meaningful number).
The ease with which it seemed possible to take all towers from Golgotha and Bernstein can't be good game balance. We talk the 2nd and 8th biggest settlement in population numbers. This should only be possible in a prolongated war over weeks in my view to swing the power that drastically.
Here the sandbox fails.
That leads to the second part. If a group like Golgotha feels unable to defend their towers then they will take the sand and look for an alternative 'to win' and what we see is rather ugly and not good for the game.
This will drive away players who feel victimized.
Here the sandbox fails a second time.
I hope GW is watching this thread. This game is still in development - so don't expect perfect balance - but this currently leads to losers on both sides - and even as bystander I can't see anything positive for me.
Actually it just destroyed game content as I was told the bounty on Decius was claimed - but I don't dare in the current climate to write a 'Theodum story' that Decius is no longer hunted and got his fate because it could be misinterpreted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Thod,
There are far more flaws than just those two.
1. Buy-to-Play + Subscription Based Alpha is a fatal flaw that prevents most onlookers to commit to trying the game. Even with the 14 day trial, there is not enough to keep them because of the next flaw.
2. MVP does not include very essential systems, primarily the fully implemented threading system.
3. Barely existent risk vs reward dynamic of PvP.
4. Too much grinding for achievements, attribute gating, role level gating, etc.
5. Social structure is not built on or focused on where it truly resides in most player's minds, at the company (guild) level.
6. Not enough freedom in the sandbox. Just too many controls or attempts to control, that are just not well thought out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with all of those but 4. Quite simply, there isn't any grinding if you are playing the game in a balanced manner. You know who I am, I'm all about that murder. But it took me very, very little time to hit my T2 achievement gates.
Attribute gates are doing what they are supposed to at least for Fighters. I looked outside of my Spear attacks and picked up a secondary weapon for STR. The Role gates are perfectly designed and implemented so far.
The other stuff, yeah, I agree in general. Not gonna lie though, Golgotha has been feeling really kinda free right now. I'm surprised that Aragon didn't try the no-tower free banditry thing early. It definitely isn't very profitable, but if PvP is what you are looking for, this is the way to do it right now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm surprised that Aragon didn't try the no-tower free banditry thing early. It definitely isn't very profitable, but if PvP is what you are looking for, this is the way to do it right now.
We have no towers now, for about a week, and we are working on getting our crafting up to T2 at the moment. But, you are correct, the lack of towers is liberating in that you really don't need above level 9 to do most things PFO offers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Forgeholm and Golgotha had a pair of enjoyable PVP skirmishes last night.
Golgotha was able to achieve their objectives of retaking two towers that bordered their mountains, and Forgeholm had good practice mustering our forces and learned some things we need to do to improve our PVP tactics.
It was a civil process on both sides, no non-combatants were attacked, no shrine camping, and people that wanted to disengage were allowed to flee without harassment. I don't think anyone lost rep (although the Golgotha guys were already at -7500 I think), and it was PFO at its best.
Forgeholm plans to keep fighting you when our ambitions collide, but the Golgotha guys earned a lot of my respect back for engaging us in the War of Towers, instead of continuing to target gatherers and non-combatants.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Golgotha does not have a policy of aggressive, extended attacks against non-combatants of those settlements we are not at war with. Barring the occasional roam into the lands of other entities, we have no business taking the fight to your home hexes. For those settlements that deal with us in an above-board, reasonable manner, we will extend the same courtesy.
The situation in the SE is an exception, not the rule. Unless Forgeholm does something to particularly provoke us, chances are you will only fight a dedicated, organised group within our own lands, or at a tower. Again, barring the occasional roam.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh wait... are you starting a war with Phaeros too? seems the Button Makers have taken one of Phaeros's towers.Apparently I should know who the Button Makers are?
Unlike so many in this thread I am willing to admit my mistakes. I incorrectly assumed Alderwag was a part of the northern coalition with Stoneroot and Talonguard. This probably comes to an older post I cant quite find right now.
Button Makers are a part of Alderwag and very recently took some Forgeholm under their wing. They seem to have no boundary limitations with their tower selection taking any they see fair game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah! Since it's Alderwag, I'd consider the possibility (not guarantee) of Forgeholm involvement. A number of their members have relocated to Alderwag recently and may have joined it, and I think they are more "active" than most of the original residents were.
(edit: or not. Shaibes may be a master manipulator who was biding his time and is now ready to spring his nefarious plot on the world.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hey Q, using the words "northern coalition " , when talking about agreements in the north is a bad idea, since THE Northern Coalition is the name for the NAP with EoX, Aragon and Freevale.
True. Since the groups in the central area beat us to the name, the actual alliances up here are "The Highroad Covenant" (Talonguard, Stoneroot Glade, and Tavernhold) and "The Free Highlanders" (Almost everyone else up in the north except Callambea. (With Tavernhold straddling both alliances.)
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Golgotha does not have a policy of aggressive, extended attacks against non-combatants of those settlements we are not at war with. Barring the occasional roam into the lands of other entities, we have no business taking the fight to your home hexes. For those settlements that deal with us in an above-board, reasonable manner, we will extend the same courtesy.
The situation in the SE is an exception, not the rule. Unless Forgeholm does something to particularly provoke us, chances are you will only fight a dedicated, organised group within our own lands, or at a tower. Again, barring the occasional roam.
Thanks for letting us know of your policy change. If your members and leadership abide by a policy of not griefing in the territory of foreign powers I expect that there will be no need to have to retake the towers that you care so little about.
Going off of the political map, it is called the "High Road Covenant".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rynnik, you will very quickly discover that Decius is easily ignored. He is a political troll, nothing else.
Decius, looking forward to finding and killing you a few more times tonight.
Also, I cannot wait until you people get some real griefers in the game. The naivety is astounding.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If your members and leadership abide by a policy of not griefing in the territory of foreign powersGolgotha doesn't grief ANYWHERE.
Please watch the language you choose to employ.
I was very precise. If I have enough evidence to make a more specific accusation, I won't make it on the forums. I truly hope the credible reports I have are abberations that will not repeat.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think he is talking about the three guys who ran at us over and over again on the road we where interdicting. They prob accused us of spawn camping them or something.
Like I said, when I make a specific allegation of griefing it will not be judged in the court of public opinion.
Your other behavior has already been judged, and the community expressed it's opinion. I don't think their opinion is likely to change. You can stop posturing about how evil and bandit you are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rynnik, you will very quickly discover that Decius is easily ignored. He is a political troll, nothing else.
Decius, looking forward to finding and killing you a few more times tonight.
Also, I cannot wait until you people get some real griefers in the game. The naivety is astounding.
Come on now, you know Decius is not a troll. He may not agree with you but he's not a troll.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well then he should actually provide some evidence to back up his inflammatory statements, like suggesting that we might be griefers. Something, I will add, that he has been trying to push onto Golgotha since before the Alpha.
When a settlement does very little but accuse my people of being cheaters (Nihimon) and griefers (Decius), it is rather difficult to take them seriously.
Part of the agreement was that when call became active the agreement was over. They became active the agreement ended. No reason to inform you. I figured you knew they where active when they tried to take their towers back and you guys killed them. (as you should have)Every other group in this game that has had any sort fo deal with Golgotha has seen it honored.You can continue to say it, and I will continue to deny it. You exited your agreement with Stoneroot without informing us that you considered Callambea active and considered the agreement ended.Complete Bull. We exchanged towers with Callambea several times, during which you said you considered them inactive and didn't care. So your response is that we're supposed to know that the difference between this tower exchange and all the previous ones is that you are present.
So to recap, people who have an agreement with you will know when that agreement is over by the fact that you are attacking them.
Lol...it is no ones place to inform you that certain conditions are met if they gain an advantage by not doing so. In a game of sov intel is king. Do you not have spies in Golgotha? If not then you are failing badly. You should know there every move before they make it
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your members and leadership abide by a policy of not griefing in the territory of foreign powers
This coming from the camp (Nihimon specifically) who was inquiring what the community would think if he (and party) "blue blocked" a character at a shrine and repreatedly killed him, until his armor and gear was destroyed, would be considered griefing?
I'm certain that if any of the 3rd party members had stated the opposite of the obvious, Nihimon would be employing that tactic. I'm equally sure that if anyone from Golgotha or UNC (particularly me) had even asked the same question, we would have been branded as Griefers, regardless of never having done it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lol...it is no ones place to inform you that certain conditions are met if they gain an advantage by not doing so.
Steelwing, the actual disagreement was ended, and I think amicably, but your assertion is incorrect. How an agreement is ended is just as important as why, if you are working to establish a reputation for being reliable.
Lol...it is no ones place to inform you that certain conditions are met if they gain an advantage by not doing so.Steelwing, the actual disagreement was ended, and I think amicably, but your assertion is incorrect. How an agreement is ended is just as important as why, if you are working to establish a reputation for being reliable.
So you would rather trust people to tell you the truth? People who should not have the best interests of your group at heart. Trust is a valued asset it is true however if you take anything anyone says from another alliance on blind faith and do not have the ability to verify their words then you are setting your group up to fail and fail hard.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Well then he should actually provide some evidence to back up his inflammatory statements, like suggesting that we might be griefers. Something, I will add, that he has been trying to push onto Golgotha since before the Alpha.
When a settlement does very little but accuse my people of being cheaters (Nihimon) and griefers (Decius), it is rather difficult to take them seriously.
"Very little"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you would rather trust people to tell you the truth? People who should not have the best interests of your group at heart. Trust is a valued asset it is true however if you take anything anyone says from another alliance on blind faith and do not have the ability to verify their words then you are setting your group up to fail and fail hard.
"anything anyone says from another alliance" is not equal to the word of someone who is attempting to establish that their word is reliable. I won't stand by and let someone make claims that I don't believe are true, especially if those claims affect where other people place their trust.
The time might well come when Phyllain misleads me deliberately. It's possible it already has, but it looks like that time is not yet. It is my choice to accept him at his word today, based on a fairly small sampling of intent. I would not be at all surprised to be betrayed repeatedly in the future. And I will draw it to other people's attention when I experience it. Accidents happen, mistakes get made, and actual betrayals happen, too.
Your concern for my trust is touching.
So you would rather trust people to tell you the truth? People who should not have the best interests of your group at heart. Trust is a valued asset it is true however if you take anything anyone says from another alliance on blind faith and do not have the ability to verify their words then you are setting your group up to fail and fail hard.Lol...it is no ones place to inform you that certain conditions are met if they gain an advantage by not doing so.Steelwing, the actual disagreement was ended, and I think amicably, but your assertion is incorrect. How an agreement is ended is just as important as why, if you are working to establish a reputation for being reliable.
If you want to learn how to play the meta...go over to the brave newbies subreddit and admire how despite the fact Pandemic legion has just smashed hero out of catch Elise Randolph has half of the members eating out of his hand and believing that the legion really has the best interests of HERO at heart it is really quite amusing and a good lesson on how to be the bad guy while appearing to be the good guy
Aren't they going through a coup right now?
Indeed they voted out Lychton and replaced him with Malanek. Currently Elise is making the members think Lychton was the good guy by posting those friendly "I was just trying to help posts"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Words are wind, the only true measure of a person is what they actually do when they come into power. You can trust someone until you can't, fairly straightforward.
People can scheme all they want, if they are halfway decent at it no one can tell the difference anyways, so why worry about it much? Basic intel security is ridiculously easy with only a minor amount of effort. Even then your always subject to a random betrayal if you ever delegate anything.