Re: Morality and Outposts
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:13 am
*dances*sekh135 wrote:Thank goodness, someone finally understands the point.
*dances*sekh135 wrote:Thank goodness, someone finally understands the point.
One thing to remember is that HOPE was formed back when we thought Neutrality would mean more than gimping your teleport access. We've been having discussions about what we want HOPE to be at this point but it's still unclear with the new game developments.petej wrote:Its no suprise that a Tryker/Karavan Guild should challenge for control only that a member of the HOPE Alliance would , read their charter here:-
http://www.ballisticmystix.com/posts/list/124.page
If an unfriendly Matis/Karavan guild did that, you'd probably be right. But if a Fyros/Karavan, or a Zorai/Karavan, guild took an outpost in their respective lands, I expect that most of the Kami guilds wouldn't be that bothered. Some might even defend the Karavan OP if their more fanatical co-religionists attacked it.footkips wrote:If a Karavan guild occupied an OP in the Burning Desert or the Witherings, I would expect a swift and strong kami challenge.
The Karavan can "want and need" the lakelands 'til the Bodocs come home, but they belong to Trykers, NOT the Karavan or the Kami. It's up to Trykers who gets the OPs, not the Matis or the Karavan.footkips wrote:The Karavan want and need the lakelands and hopefully will find a way to restore balance.
Yes, and that is exactly how the world of Atys was designed. Read the lore, review dev interviews, and look at the Q&A answers... all pointing toward a complex political environment where races as well as factions may align or be opposed... and outside of all of that, the relentless threat of the kitin and the spreading of the Goo.petej wrote:
Two Factions , Four Races , Many Guilds and Other Threats its not always gonna be clear cut...
One of the peaceniks that gets it You should also take into account that MANY of the prominant members of the guilds when that charter was signed are gone or going. It appears to me as an outsider to this type of an alliance that on their way out some old friends are hoping that others will stay and honor a stance that they could not.aylwyne wrote:One thing to remember is that HOPE was formed back when we thought Neutrality would mean more than gimping your teleport access. We've been having discussions about what we want HOPE to be at this point but it's still unclear with the new game developments.
But putting all of that aside, I see no reason why anyone needs more reason than "i want to play with the new stuff" to attack an outpost.
lathan wrote:There was also the second point in my post, namely that the way in which it was gone about was not as good as it could have been. Attacking the guild holding an outpost for not sharing, then saying that if you take it over, you won't share either, seems a tad hypocritical.