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.

Whither Forever War?

Beinion
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Beinion
So putting a small holding in EBA teritory
There's a large, and potentially flawed, assumption, there.
Plz don't quote me out of context if you are going to quote me quote it all …
What assumption do you think I made ?
Beinion
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Beinion
Unfortunately there is no way for EoX to attack different people with out breaking an agreement and then having the entire server against EoX
You are making that up. There is no such agreement involving the HRC.
You have no agreement with EoX that they will not attack your players to take your holdings ?
So then if there was a limit to how often they could fued pharos and they say they will lose players because of lack of pvp is a lie cause they could get it elsewhere but choose not to
Tigari
tribuzio
Tigari
Sigh. Decius you are the worse at twisting words to meet what you want them to mean… Why do you still keep trying?

I'll say this bluntly..and I don't mean to be nice about it.. You are Toxic, you are damaging to this community.. Your utter hate for Pax, and now Golgotha has you trying to twist words, and lie to those who follow you, so they too follow your hate. If Phaeros was smart, they'd remove you from leadership, and ask the citizens of phaeros to actually read the facts, and not just listen to your minds twisted little lies. Is this why Benion thinks WE just started murderhobo'ing the south again? Is he another victim of your lies, deceit and hate?

Tigari, in your post you essentially stated that a vassal of EoX attacked a member of EBA, Eox felt that it don't mattered to them as it wasn't a part of Eox, but when it was attacked it suddenly mattered as it was a part of Eox.

So what were they? Part of EoX or not? And if they were not how is that you gave them ownership of a tower that affected an EoX settlement?
It is a game of (un)plausible deniability.
If the loss of the tower of this vassal group mattered for EoX it was a part of EoX.
If they were no part of EoX their losses should haven't mattered to you.

Saying that they were no part of Eox when they broke an agreement but that they are part of EoX when they are attacked is simply playing for a casus belli.

Tigari
AGC was not appart of the treaty. They were not appart of the empire. If Phaeros would have attacked AGC, and even if they slaughtered them over and over, the empire would have not gotten involved. It would have been up to AGC to do they're own politics. If Phaeros leadership would of tried to talk to EoX leadership before attacking they easly would of known this, but instead they took it upon themselves to just attack AGC towers, which effected the empire, bringing us in.

EDIT: also, any goods AGC would of gotten from the hex would of stayed with AGC unless they sold it to us. Like I've said many times, they were not apart of the empire, we treated them as their own entity. They just were in charge of towers (Their rent). So the towers were the empires, but were under the care of AGC.

Here you are doing it again. "They are part of our empire when it suit us, not part when it suit us."
By the same logic, the guys that attacked the tower weren't' part of Pharos, they were a revenge mob.

You're misunderstanding me, AGC was NOT part of the empire. Phaeros did not attack AGC to retailiate though, they attacked a tower with an AGC name on it, but the tower belonged to EoX..so PHaeros attacked EoX by attacking the tower. I've said it multiple times..if phaeros would of just attacked agc..camped them at their smallholding, it would of been tough luck for AGC..

I never said AGC was apart of the empire..i said they were babysitting one of our towers. theres a big difference.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Beinion
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Beinion
So putting a small holding in EBA teritory
There's a large, and potentially flawed, assumption, there.
Plz don't quote me out of context if you are going to quote me quote it all …
What assumption do you think I made ?
No out of context needed. I quoted what I was referring to. That declaring a border made it EBA territory. Even in the real world such declarations are rarely sufficient unto themselves.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Beinion
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Beinion
Unfortunately there is no way for EoX to attack different people with out breaking an agreement and then having the entire server against EoX
You are making that up. There is no such agreement involving the HRC.
You have no agreement with EoX that they will not attack your players to take your holdings ?
So then if there was a limit to how often they could fued pharos and they say they will lose players because of lack of pvp is a lie cause they could get it elsewhere but choose not to
Correct, we have no such agreement. Saying they can't get it elsewhere doesn't mean it's because of an agreement. It could simply be that they didn't want to, or that they thought it would be stupid to open a new front.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Bringslite
Tigari
"You're misunderstanding me, AGC was NOT part of the empire. Phaeros did not attack AGC to retailiate though, they attacked a tower with an AGC name on it, but the tower belonged to EoX..so PHaeros attacked EoX by attacking the tower. I've said it multiple times..if phaeros would of just attacked agc..camped them at their smallholding, it would of been tough luck for AGC..

I never said AGC was apart of the empire..i said they were babysitting one of our towers. theres a big difference."


^^^That is really confusing. Not because it is impossible. Because it is complex AND possible. A question that comes to mind: What ways are there to get at an individual or company that is attached to a settlement? Having played for awhile now, I think that in a similar situation I would have contacted EoX. Back in the day, it would seem perfectly reasonable (to me) to retaliate by attacking that company's towers.

Another Question: Why does EoX think that such a response would not be normal from a group, who at that time, had been shown that level of response worked before?

Caldeathe,
No out of context needed. I quoted what I was referring to. That declaring a border made it EBA territory. Even in the real world such declarations are rarely sufficient unto themselves.


I agree that does not make territory safe. You set your claims and declare. Someone violates those claims (claimant POV), it goes from there.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Beinion
Tigari
tribuzio
Tigari
Sigh. Decius you are the worse at twisting words to meet what you want them to mean… Why do you still keep trying?

I'll say this bluntly..and I don't mean to be nice about it.. You are Toxic, you are damaging to this community.. Your utter hate for Pax, and now Golgotha has you trying to twist words, and lie to those who follow you, so they too follow your hate. If Phaeros was smart, they'd remove you from leadership, and ask the citizens of phaeros to actually read the facts, and not just listen to your minds twisted little lies. Is this why Benion thinks WE just started murderhobo'ing the south again? Is he another victim of your lies, deceit and hate?

Tigari, in your post you essentially stated that a vassal of EoX attacked a member of EBA, Eox felt that it don't mattered to them as it wasn't a part of Eox, but when it was attacked it suddenly mattered as it was a part of Eox.

So what were they? Part of EoX or not? And if they were not how is that you gave them ownership of a tower that affected an EoX settlement?
It is a game of (un)plausible deniability.
If the loss of the tower of this vassal group mattered for EoX it was a part of EoX.
If they were no part of EoX their losses should haven't mattered to you.

Saying that they were no part of Eox when they broke an agreement but that they are part of EoX when they are attacked is simply playing for a casus belli.

Tigari
AGC was not appart of the treaty. They were not appart of the empire. If Phaeros would have attacked AGC, and even if they slaughtered them over and over, the empire would have not gotten involved. It would have been up to AGC to do they're own politics. If Phaeros leadership would of tried to talk to EoX leadership before attacking they easly would of known this, but instead they took it upon themselves to just attack AGC towers, which effected the empire, bringing us in.

EDIT: also, any goods AGC would of gotten from the hex would of stayed with AGC unless they sold it to us. Like I've said many times, they were not apart of the empire, we treated them as their own entity. They just were in charge of towers (Their rent). So the towers were the empires, but were under the care of AGC.

Here you are doing it again. "They are part of our empire when it suit us, not part when it suit us."
By the same logic, the guys that attacked the tower weren't' part of Pharos, they were a revenge mob.

You're misunderstanding me, AGC was NOT part of the empire. Phaeros did not attack AGC to retailiate though, they attacked a tower with an AGC name on it, but the tower belonged to EoX..so PHaeros attacked EoX by attacking the tower. I've said it multiple times..if phaeros would of just attacked agc..camped them at their smallholding, it would of been tough luck for AGC..

I never said AGC was apart of the empire..i said they were babysitting one of our towers. theres a big difference.
YOU HAVE WHAT YOU HOLD and agc held it so it was there tower if we said all of phreos towers were the property of another settlment would you not attack them ?
Beinion
Bringslite
Tigari
"You're misunderstanding me, AGC was NOT part of the empire. Phaeros did not attack AGC to retailiate though, they attacked a tower with an AGC name on it, but the tower belonged to EoX..so PHaeros attacked EoX by attacking the tower. I've said it multiple times..if phaeros would of just attacked agc..camped them at their smallholding, it would of been tough luck for AGC..

I never said AGC was apart of the empire..i said they were babysitting one of our towers. theres a big difference."


^^^That is really confusing. Not because it is impossible. Because it is complex AND possible. A question that comes to mind: What ways are there to get at an individual or company that is attached to a settlement? Having played for awhile now, I think that in a similar situation I would have contacted EoX. Back in the day, it would seem perfectly reasonable (to me) to retaliate by attacking that company's towers.

Another Question: Why does EoX think that such a response would not be normal from a group, who at that time, had been shown that level of response worked before?

Caldeathe,
No out of context needed. I quoted what I was referring to. That declaring a border made it EBA territory. Even in the real world such declarations are rarely sufficient unto themselves.


I agree that does not make territory safe. You set your claims and declare. Someone violates those claims (claimant POV), it goes from there.

Ok got yea. But still a teritory claim is only such because someone is willing to defend it. yes you can challenge that claim but we stated that such a challange would be considered hostile and thus breaking the treaty if they were part of EoX and if they were not part of EoX us taking there towers was not breaking the treaty but when EoX did then come down and attack they broke the treaty because it was not just phreos ppl they killed the first day was spent in the pass killing mostly kp gatherers
Tigari
Beinion
Tigari
tribuzio
Tigari
Sigh. Decius you are the worse at twisting words to meet what you want them to mean… Why do you still keep trying?

I'll say this bluntly..and I don't mean to be nice about it.. You are Toxic, you are damaging to this community.. Your utter hate for Pax, and now Golgotha has you trying to twist words, and lie to those who follow you, so they too follow your hate. If Phaeros was smart, they'd remove you from leadership, and ask the citizens of phaeros to actually read the facts, and not just listen to your minds twisted little lies. Is this why Benion thinks WE just started murderhobo'ing the south again? Is he another victim of your lies, deceit and hate?

Tigari, in your post you essentially stated that a vassal of EoX attacked a member of EBA, Eox felt that it don't mattered to them as it wasn't a part of Eox, but when it was attacked it suddenly mattered as it was a part of Eox.

So what were they? Part of EoX or not? And if they were not how is that you gave them ownership of a tower that affected an EoX settlement?
It is a game of (un)plausible deniability.
If the loss of the tower of this vassal group mattered for EoX it was a part of EoX.
If they were no part of EoX their losses should haven't mattered to you.

Saying that they were no part of Eox when they broke an agreement but that they are part of EoX when they are attacked is simply playing for a casus belli.

Tigari
AGC was not appart of the treaty. They were not appart of the empire. If Phaeros would have attacked AGC, and even if they slaughtered them over and over, the empire would have not gotten involved. It would have been up to AGC to do they're own politics. If Phaeros leadership would of tried to talk to EoX leadership before attacking they easly would of known this, but instead they took it upon themselves to just attack AGC towers, which effected the empire, bringing us in.

EDIT: also, any goods AGC would of gotten from the hex would of stayed with AGC unless they sold it to us. Like I've said many times, they were not apart of the empire, we treated them as their own entity. They just were in charge of towers (Their rent). So the towers were the empires, but were under the care of AGC.

Here you are doing it again. "They are part of our empire when it suit us, not part when it suit us."
By the same logic, the guys that attacked the tower weren't' part of Pharos, they were a revenge mob.

You're misunderstanding me, AGC was NOT part of the empire. Phaeros did not attack AGC to retailiate though, they attacked a tower with an AGC name on it, but the tower belonged to EoX..so PHaeros attacked EoX by attacking the tower. I've said it multiple times..if phaeros would of just attacked agc..camped them at their smallholding, it would of been tough luck for AGC..

I never said AGC was apart of the empire..i said they were babysitting one of our towers. theres a big difference.
YOU HAVE WHAT YOU HOLD and agc held it so it was there tower if we said all of phaeros towers were the property of another settlment would you not attack them ?

Does phaeros towers effect other settlements? AGC towers effected KB, a settlement in EoX. like I said MANY times, if Phaeros would of attacked in a way that only effected AGC, the empire would not of gotten involved. IDK how many more ways I can say it..but after this im done saying it. I gave you the reason EoX started attacking again after someone mention trying out a truce and someone else saying it failed.
AlexanderDamocles
Honestly? How the war started is irrelevant. Organizations now have a very short list of options: keep fighting, or come to the table and work out a new agreement. Arguing about who started the war doesn't actually end it. So, either accept that the war will continue indefinitely, or do something to end it. But complaining about it won't do anything.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post