Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Golgotha ... meh

Flynn Pontis
Dreamslinger

This is relevant to the discussion.

Lol +1respect
Elmin Sterro
Midnight
Elmin Sterro
Rynnik
Elmin Sterro
Dreaden
For the good of the server population and newbie retention, I suggest EBA stop recruiting players that have no interest in PvP. You can't protect them and they will get get killed. The SE is the most dangerous place in the game, newbies be warned.

It sounds like you guys might be interpreting crowdforging differently than the rest of us. The crowd should be doing the forging, rather than the crowd being forged. If a non-combatant player wants to play with a specific group of people, they should be able to do that without being told to leave or endure harassment.
No, actually that doesn't make any sense at all.

If someone joins a specific group of people who then attacks a self proclaimed 'PvP organization' they should NOT get an opt out from the resulting PvP as part of that group. That would completely strip the game of any sort of meaning or consequence.

Politics matter. If you decide to be led by political failures that should impact your day-to-day play.

I'm not disputing your reasoning for why you attack non-combatants, I fully understand that is an element of warfare. What I disagree with is the continual insistence that players should leave a group to avoid PvP. If your response to a complaint like Harads was simply "Sorry buddy, we're at war."*, it would not bother me. Instead you are saying "Hey, if you don't want to be killed, then go play with a different group of people."*, which intentionally or not sounds a lot like an attempt to bully players out of our companies, which I find to be in extremely poor taste.

*-Not actual quotes, in case that's not obvious.

Your response, unintended probably, shows very little regard for over a dozen fine settlements who have done an AMAZING job at creating areas where they are free from war. Those settlements DESERVE more recruits of the uninterested-in-PvP variety, and they put in the hard work, and showed the diplomatic and personal and collective restraint that got them into their peaceful situations.

In most cases this week we even left the events sites at their old tower sites alone (though some we felt we had to do once others started feeding on them on the third day). Before I logged out Monday night (the 4th day of the event), various people from other settlements were excited to tell us about event sites they found still existing on the map, and each time a look at the old tower maps had us telling them, sorry, we won't be doing that one, for now.

Those settlements have done the hard work it takes for us to treat them with that kind of regard. They are the settlements that deserve the non-PvP-interested players that EBA's "sheepdogs" pretend to be looking out for. Those settlements are largely (though not perfectly) models of the economic and military strength, restraint, and diplomacy it takes to forge peace.

Also, someone using PvP to pressure any of the players you've tricked into the forever war (as compared to those who are happy with the forever war) might not be sending a "go somewhere else" message. In a game like this, it can also be a "you need regime change" message, or a "you need policy changes" message, or even a "it's time to discuss how much tribute you'll pay us" message. I'm not saying those are our messages (I don't speak for any settlement), just that sandbox players transmit a variety of messages, through PvP, all the time.

LoL. I fully support the growth and expansion of the smaller settlements, they are vital to the success of the game.

I fail to see how EBA settlements/companies having non-combatants is an affront to those settlements recruitment efforts. MMOs are a social game as much as they are an mechanical/political/economic one, players should be able to play with the group of people with whom they desire to play.

Doc
players should be able to play with the group of people with whom they desire to play.

I'm pretty sure they can. They just can't do that and not have to deal with any consequences stemming from something their friends got mixed up in.

I think people are just saying if that reality is not doable, then there are other places to live in game where those consequences are not an issue.
Smitty
To original poster , I don’t believe I know your in-game character (perhaps we have met and I just don’t recall). I do know your name based on the paizo boards and the maps you made(cool work, have used them numerous times. That goes for many of the things you guys in SE have made for the game, super props on split fires xp sheets and the goblinary site etc..).

You guys do tons of stuff for new players and veterans alike.

A few points in this thread have come up that you guys need to discuss internally and I hope you guys do. Think most of the EoX folks are all on the same page (snarky comments aside) we all understand we are at war with you guys and are probably dumbfounded that some folks in the SE do not understand what that means.

First off - think we have been through this one a few times in one way or another. There is no such thing as a non combatant for folks involved in a war if you join a settlement or alliance. You are contributing in some way shape or form.

Everyone goes on and on about influence, and gathering resources and crafting times, crafting influence, and clearing escalations being a chore. All of those things contribute to a settlement or alliance.

So in threads like this where I read non combatant I don’t get what that means at all.. I guess to some folks it means someone that doesn’t want to be a target of PvP. But unless he/she is a bartender or exotic RP dancer in your tavern, he/she is a combatant and contributor to your war effort and if we are at war they are a target.

If people are upset about this perhaps the leader types need to sit down and better define if this is an going feud, skirmish, or war. Our marching orders currently are we are at war with you guys and will remain that way for the indefinite future.
.
Grim’s spam recruitment messages say - we like to PvP!. Pretty straight forward that you will be fighting other players and they will be fighting you.

The ones I read from Phaeros say – you love nature (no mention of ongoing hostilities, ). Do you at least let people know that if they put on your settlement tag they become targets? If not they will find out sooner or later and you guys are doing a huge disservice to the game and those players if that conversation is not happening.
.
Losing players that get involved in our conflict because they weren’t expecting it is terrible for the game and you guys need to clean that up if it is indeed a problem.
Bringslite
[quote="Rynnik

Bringslite
Being ganked in your new settlement at the bank or crafting stations isn't fun for an alarmingly large % of people. Many are ok with PVP (or at least trying it). Not all are ok with craftstation ganking, whether it happens to them or having to do that to others. I think they realize that reciprocating won't make it stop. It will just make the game devolve from innocents-vs.-wolves-vs.-guard dogs to wolves-vs.-guard dogs and finally to just wolves-vs.-wolves. <– That is the end result in most literally "wide open" PVP sandboxes.
"Are you differentiating between a state of in-game (and at this point semi-mechanical) war or not?

Because to me there are very different expectations there. As Dancey says,"All is fair in war. And war is hell."

All that I am advocating, for now, is:

1. that during feuds the Thornguards should defend settlements just as they will during actual mechanical war.

2. It isn't FUN being ganked at your bank, a crafting station, standing in town chatting- teaching new players, or when logging in at your settlement (that is probably the most rare incident that is not fun).

3. I don't know how many companies or settlements do that stuff, but I do wish that the two largest power blocks in the game would consider what they do and how it translates, in general.

I am weary of "we only do it because they do it" and "we only do it because… War!"
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Dreaden
Players can certainly play with whomever they choose, they just need to be aware of what the consequences those affliations are. EBA being the most populous alliance has a ton of players who probably think the hostilities they face in the south are common place the map over. It's our duty as upstanding PFO players to let them know that this is not true and there are generally peaceful areas available to play in.
Doc
@Bringslite

All that I am advocating, for now, is:

1. that during feuds the Thornguards should defend settlements just as they will during actual mechanical war.

2. It isn't FUN being ganked at your bank, a crafting station, standing in town chatting- teaching new players, or when logging in at your settlement (that is probably the most rare incident that is not fun).

Please submit a formal feature request to Goblin Works, because from what I can tell Goblin Works does not agree with you. I would sincerely love and desire to read the resulting discussion from that.
Elmin Sterro
Rynnik
Elmin Sterro
Rynnik
Elmin Sterro
Rynnik
Elmin Sterro
Dreaden
For the good of the server population and newbie retention, I suggest EBA stop recruiting players that have no interest in PvP. You can't protect them and they will get get killed. The SE is the most dangerous place in the game, newbies be warned.

It sounds like you guys might be interpreting crowdforging differently than the rest of us. The crowd should be doing the forging, rather than the crowd being forged. If a non-combatant player wants to play with a specific group of people, they should be able to do that without being told to leave or endure harassment.
No, actually that doesn't make any sense at all.

If someone joins a specific group of people who then attacks a self proclaimed 'PvP organization' they should NOT get an opt out from the resulting PvP as part of that group. That would completely strip the game of any sort of meaning or consequence.

Politics matter. If you decide to be led by political failures that should impact your day-to-day play.

I'm not disputing your reasoning for why you attack non-combatants, I fully understand that is an element of warfare. What I disagree with is the continual insistence that players should leave a group to avoid PvP. If your response to a complaint like Harads was simply "Sorry buddy, we're at war."*, it would not bother me. Instead you are saying "Hey, if you don't want to be killed, then go play with a different group of people."*, which intentionally or not sounds a lot like an attempt to bully players out of our companies, which I find to be in extremely poor taste.

*-Not actual quotes, in case that's not obvious.
I've done that whole 'Sorry buddy, we're at war.' thing a lot in the past, but I felt like it was best to stop bothering.

Why?

Because of repeated statements from your leadership that they won't ever trust an agreement with us and have no intention of seeking a diplomatic resolution - someone will burn before they sit at a table with us evil landrush cheaters and that seems to be the stance they want.

If this is the case it actually seems pretty nasty TO ME to do the ol' "suck it up buttercup" of sorry we are at war. We jokingly call this the forever war for good reason as that seems to be exactly what Nihimon and Decius want. As far as that leaves me I actually think it is much nicer for me to say, 'mate, you really should go find a new home if this conflict isn't fun for you, because it is fun for me and from what I can tell it isn't ending any time soon'.

I don't see how the cause for war is at all relevant to what I said, but noted.

It might be nicer to say that. However, in the context of this kind of problem where someone has an intense reaction to in game hostility, a follow up of several people insisting that he join a new settlement looks and may feel like coercion.
I suspect that mindset could just as easily be extrapolated to where NOTHING I say would be interpreted as anything but threats and coercion despite any phrasing or intent on my end.

That doesn't change it from being really logical advice regardless of the feelings it may invoke.

We'll I'd certainly be hard pressed to argue that interpretations aren't subjective, so sure. In this case, I think it would be a pretty short extrapolation. I can't know or prove your intent, I can only make best judgements based on the information I've got. Your advice might be logical, but I think it is inappropriate for this thread.
Rynnik
Elmin Sterro
Rynnik
Elmin Sterro
Rynnik
Elmin Sterro
Rynnik
Elmin Sterro
Dreaden
For the good of the server population and newbie retention, I suggest EBA stop recruiting players that have no interest in PvP. You can't protect them and they will get get killed. The SE is the most dangerous place in the game, newbies be warned.

It sounds like you guys might be interpreting crowdforging differently than the rest of us. The crowd should be doing the forging, rather than the crowd being forged. If a non-combatant player wants to play with a specific group of people, they should be able to do that without being told to leave or endure harassment.
No, actually that doesn't make any sense at all.

If someone joins a specific group of people who then attacks a self proclaimed 'PvP organization' they should NOT get an opt out from the resulting PvP as part of that group. That would completely strip the game of any sort of meaning or consequence.

Politics matter. If you decide to be led by political failures that should impact your day-to-day play.

I'm not disputing your reasoning for why you attack non-combatants, I fully understand that is an element of warfare. What I disagree with is the continual insistence that players should leave a group to avoid PvP. If your response to a complaint like Harads was simply "Sorry buddy, we're at war."*, it would not bother me. Instead you are saying "Hey, if you don't want to be killed, then go play with a different group of people."*, which intentionally or not sounds a lot like an attempt to bully players out of our companies, which I find to be in extremely poor taste.

*-Not actual quotes, in case that's not obvious.
I've done that whole 'Sorry buddy, we're at war.' thing a lot in the past, but I felt like it was best to stop bothering.

Why?

Because of repeated statements from your leadership that they won't ever trust an agreement with us and have no intention of seeking a diplomatic resolution - someone will burn before they sit at a table with us evil landrush cheaters and that seems to be the stance they want.

If this is the case it actually seems pretty nasty TO ME to do the ol' "suck it up buttercup" of sorry we are at war. We jokingly call this the forever war for good reason as that seems to be exactly what Nihimon and Decius want. As far as that leaves me I actually think it is much nicer for me to say, 'mate, you really should go find a new home if this conflict isn't fun for you, because it is fun for me and from what I can tell it isn't ending any time soon'.

I don't see how the cause for war is at all relevant to what I said, but noted.

It might be nicer to say that. However, in the context of this kind of problem where someone has an intense reaction to in game hostility, a follow up of several people insisting that he join a new settlement looks and may feel like coercion.
I suspect that mindset could just as easily be extrapolated to where NOTHING I say would be interpreted as anything but threats and coercion despite any phrasing or intent on my end.

That doesn't change it from being really logical advice regardless of the feelings it may invoke.

We'll I'd certainly be hard pressed to argue that interpretations aren't subjective, so sure. In this case, I think it would be a pretty short extrapolation. I can't know or prove your intent, I can only make best judgements based on the information I've got. Your advice might be logical, but I think it is inappropriate for this thread.
I respectfully disagree.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Bringslite
Doc
@Bringslite

All that I am advocating, for now, is:

1. that during feuds the Thornguards should defend settlements just as they will during actual mechanical war.

2. It isn't FUN being ganked at your bank, a crafting station, standing in town chatting- teaching new players, or when logging in at your settlement (that is probably the most rare incident that is not fun).

Please submit a formal feature request to Goblin Works, because from what I can tell Goblin Works does not agree with you. I would sincerely love and desire to read the resulting discussion from that.

I think that they know how I feel about it. It would be neat for them to drop in and tell all of us why it is more important to be able to gank players in settlements very easily, than to retain more of the people that pay and play now, or are just trying the game. It could be that they just aren't interested in that segment of MMO players which do not like that "atmosphere". It is more likely that they are reading and (if important enough) talking about it internally.

Not sure whether they agree with me or not. I would like to know why they don't, IF they don't. Yet it is, in the end, their game.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post