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.

Open letter to GW

Stilachio Thrax
Doc
Forgeholm did pretty well and we are all in, but the smallest probably got screwed as usual and will pitch in their chips and walk away without a word, moving on to the next thing that looks fun.

Like whom?

Emerald Lodge? - We protected their towers for them.

The North? - They asked us to leave and we immediately complied and left them their towers.

EoX basically took a bunch of extra towers around already empty settlements, and was competing with EBA over those.

I don't think he was implying EoX was screwing over small settlements. I think he was making a more general statement that smaller settlements got the short end of the stick with towers, holdings and just about everything else. Whether it was EoX, EBA, HRC, TFH or any other larger settlement, it doesn't really matter- a bigger fish was competing for the same things the smaller settlement wanted, and no surprise, the bigger fish won.
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Tink says Stab
For there to be winners, there must be losers. Again, this is an issue of competitive versus non-competitive. Competitive players are more likely to see being the losers as a challenge to rise to. Non-competitive players are more likely to see being the losers as a reason to leave the game.
Tink quivers in sheer euphoria as the dank memes course through his fedora
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Jakaal
I think I would be willing to deal with the issues with play styles if it wasn't such a chore trying to deal with social or supply aspects of the game. I still have to log into a 3rd party application to have any idea who in my company or settlement is on. I still have to have someone else help me get items between my characters. Yes there are company and settlement banks, but if your leaders have blocked off withdraw access that isn't useful and might as well not exist.
I'm surprised that someone who's been around as long as you doesn't have access to a settlement vault. I don't think anyone in Talonguard is denied access to ours, only the secure vault. Is there a particular reason your team is restricting both? Do you not even have access to a company vault?
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Jakaal
oh I can see into it and deposit but withdraw? NOPE.
It likely has to do with the fact I've only logged in maybe 3 times in the last two months? I'm just not willing to jump through hoops to play a game I only marginally have interest in at this point. That is aside to the fact that I don't think that involving a company or settlement bank should be necessary. I get the issue with a mail type service, but I don't see why we cannot have the ability to deposit an item in another characters bank blind.
Doc
I get the issue with a mail type service, but I don't see why we cannot have the ability to deposit an item in another characters bank blind.

A system like the Mule thing at the bank that allowed you to buy a certificate of deposit to have something stored to somebody else at the same town and bank you are in at the moment would be hella nice.
Jakaal
Hell even the ability to take your characters out in the wild or something and drop things on the ground in an open lootable container and swap characters is better than what we have.
Decius
Doc
Having Golgatha race around the map taking any Nhur escalation they felt like, and polishing them off one after another in 30 minutes or so, with a hug bunch of ardent PVPers left just about everyone (except EBA I imagine) feeling helpless. A fun server wide event turned into the bully making what they wanted of the game, again.

That's pretty bizarre, because EBA was doing the same thing, taking towers far out from their home territory. I'm not saying that's bad, in general I think many felt (and were validated in this belief by Ryan Dancey) that competition was expected with the event.

So, why the bias towards EoX being a bully when EBA was doing the exact same thing?

The problem here isn't bullies vs. table top players.

It's a problem of active/competitive/organized groups vs. casual/loosely-organized/low-population groups.

We started by working escalations in our territory, finished those, and then went towards unclaimed territory before trying to contact groups that were close to unfinished escalations.

My understanding of the EoX priorities is that they did almost the same; they started attacking escalations in EBA territiry, then took the escalations in unclaimed territory, then took down escalations in third-party territory, and then contacted other groups for permission.

I didn't start until eight hours after y'all did, so I'm probably missing a few details.

And there's an axis that you didn't mention: respect. Having respect for players on every side is permitted in the EoX, but it is part of the core values of The Sevebth Veil. That has an impact on every communication.
Decius
Tink says Stab
For there to be winners, there must be losers. Again, this is an issue of competitive versus non-competitive. Competitive players are more likely to see being the losers as a challenge to rise to. Non-competitive players are more likely to see being the losers as a reason to leave the game.
Review "non zero-sum games". They are much more complicated than "everybody wins or loses together".
Brighthaven Leader
EBA didn't push the boundaries of what they could take, because it was never our intention. I want to point this out, because a lot of people lump EBA and EoX into the same category as large power bloc, but we have a fundamental different outlook, one shared (I think) by quite a few settlements: The towers that each individual settlement had, prior to the event was theirs, in their territory, and held under their rules.

EBA took a tower from Forgeholm, by accident, and several from EL in the back and forth fighting with Golgotha.
EoX took all of Aragon's, some from AL, at least one from forgeholm, and HRC, and some in the battle around the spire.

The difference here, is the intention and outlook, our (EBA) intention was to mostly stay in our territory (or where no one has territory) and take the escalations, because we took towers based on territory claims. EoX intention (publicly) is that no one owned them and they were going to take what they could.

We are trying to pay back forgeholm for our perceived mistake, is EoX doing the same for HRC, Forgeholm, Aragon, or AL?

Although, to be fair, we have both pledged to help EL in some way, since we basically used their land as a giant battlefield.

There are similarities, because of size, but there are fundamental differences in the way we look at things and approach them as well.
Brighthaven is a Neutral Good settlement focused on defending its citizens and its allies from negative fringe based PvP (Player Killing and Griefing) while striving to become a large and shining beacon for Good. Whether you wish to benefit from this protection or you love PvP and wish to assist in providing this protection, Brighthaven aims to be the home and support center for you!
Phyllain
Good thing pretty much that entire post is a lie. We didn't take any wrath hexes from Forgeholm or AL. We took hexes from EL after we killed you out of them to prevent you from taking them. Six of my players went into one HRC hex and started to do it, they asked us polity to leave and we did. We did all of "Aragons" towers because we have held them for most of the end of the war of towers and I consider them ours.

Once again EBA pretty much straight up lying about what we have done with zero proof. Just like you saying that doc catching you and me killing you once was 14 people killing you half a dozen times. I liked that to.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post