Ryzom

Lathan you have misread much of what I have written.

lathan wrote: Secondly there was a hypocrisy running throughout the original post that I found hard to ignore. Riveit stated his demand that the guild currrently occupying the outpost share their xp crystals that they were mining, and any mats which they got as well with the whole of Tryker. Then he stated that if they were to take over the outpost, they would share these things only with VVV who would back them in the attack, as sharing them with everyone would be a logistical nightmare?

Incorrect. I stated this:

“Veni Vidi Vici has joined Aedan Artisans in sponsoring this attack. We hope to gift significant and continuing amounts of crystals to other Tryker and Karavaneer guilds and individuals without outposts. Please join us in taking control of this very important Lakeland outpost for the greater benefit of Trykers and Karavaneers. We are a small guild and will ensure that much of the crystals are spread outside of our guild to reward our allies and allow them to train more quickly.”

The logistical nightmare was in another post referring to my earlier plan of creating an company which would conquer an outpost and deliver crystals to shareholders. Shares would have been awarded by fighting for the outpost (graded by combat level). This Tryker company plan was the one nixed as unworkable.

The plan that we were using going into the attack, was joint and equal ownership between AA, VVV and Wanderlust. However, Wanderlust did not deliver a final answer to me in time. If AA held an outpost alone I had urged delegating 90% of crystals to distribution to Trykers and Karavaneers without an outpost. If we had two or three co-owning guilds, 90% would clearly be too high, and would likely be lowered to 50% or less. We had not worked out the exact details. I would have asked Out of Cavern to join us also but you make your anti-PvP attitude very clear. But anyway, who else has called for sharing crystals with the outpostless? Where is my hypocrisy? I had every intention of giving away those crystals and if Aedan Artisans and allies failed to do so to my satisfaction, I would have quit and joined another guild to attack the outpost and tear it down. I do have honor, despite my many recent detractors.

Why would I come up with such a plan? Because the lucky Tryker guilds that got outposts were giving nothing to the unlucky ones as far as I could tell. I have asked several owners, but not all, to donate crystals to the outpostless. They told me “all the proceeds go to my guildies first, and then if we have extra we give to close allies. The best pledge I could get was donations would be made sometime in the distant future. Did they plan to give up those outposts in the future? No. They assert a permanent ownership right. Some even asserted that all the lucky outposts owners across Atys are to be defended and no attack on any of them is valid. Hence, they have created a permanent aristocracy for themselves. One or more guilds are even using false “rp” attack declarations to make their outposts unattackable. From now on they will roleplay the aristocrat while you roleplay a begging peasant or a “rabid dog” Tryker who dares to challenge his rightful masters. You call me a hypocrite? I see a far greater hypocrisy in such incredible arrogance and selfishness.

lathan wrote: I think in general one of the things that got a lot of people upset was the tone of the original post which made it sound like AA believed that everyone should help them remove BoH from this outpost because they were behaving selfishly with it. I don't believe it was Riveit's intention to come off sounding the way that he did, I think it was just a mis-judged piece of RP that had some OOC connotations people didn't like.

Yes, my statement was poorly worded. BotH was behaving no more selfishly than any other outpost owner and much less than some, for example the reportedly one homin who owns an outpost in Zorai. It was actually the defense of this one-homin outpost by BotH that tipped the balance for me to declare an attack on BotH. The hypocrisy that I perceived of claiming to be above the fray while simultaneously defending this injustice irritated me. In retrospect, I was too hasty - perhaps they didn’t know the situation or my facts were not correct.

My plan would stretch outpost ownership from half a dozen homins to perhaps thirty or forty homins and guarantee crystals to many more. I object to the permanent ownership mentality. Unless the devs create enough outposts for all of us, I consider it be immoral. The PvP attackers exchanging outposts have a better moral case than these sudden lucky new aristocrats.

lathan wrote:My personal comment on morality was mainly based on two points.

Firstly, AA is a signatory to the HOPE charter, and as such has a moral obligation to behave as set down in that charter, while they are still a representative of the alliance. An attack such as was planned could not be perpetrated by a guild following this charter, and so to go through with it would be, imo, a failure to fulfill a moral obligation to some of the other members of HOPE.

You may not have been following events closely Lathan. Aedan Artisans joined the Karavan side months ago and has essentially trampled on the HOPE charter since. Since then, the rest of the HOPE members would have been well within their rights to boot AA from HOPE. Pero correctly foresaw that the neutral HOPE stance would be unable to deal with EP2 and EP3. He was correct in this (that’s one reason that I call him a Prophet ), the devs have forced HOPE members, even you, to choose a factional side. In addition, non-members of HOPE are using our Charter which was written to deal with ganking in PR, to exclude us from ever owning an outpost, to the disgust of some members of HOPE. If you held the values of HOPE seriously and diligently, you should have called for AA’s expulsion long ago. You also have chosen the Karavan and are nowtechnically in violation of the Charter also. As you may know, I have been asked to write a new Charter. If I do write one in my present mood, it will require a new name and may take a distinctly militant tone.

danolt wrote:Lathaniel,

The attack was canceled, an apology for the way it was handled was given. What more do you want?

Pero

*edited*

In my mind there are 3 types of combat:
PvP: 1 vs 1 combat
Guild vs Guild: Unrelated to faction or nationality, its a simple group combat between two guilds. Tends to be limited to 1, sometimes 2 groups per side
FvF: Multiple groups of one faction attacking another group of the opposing faction.

Outposts involve GvG and FvF. Say a kami guild has a past beef with another kami guild (after all it was never said that outposts had to be a faction related thing). Does attacking them have to relate to faction? not really. One guild can simply attack another due to past offenses or simply to get what they have. However, with the ability of any guild to now get involved in the attack/defense, it opens the door to outposts quickly becoming a FvF event or creating a rift in a faction as it polarizes around the two guilds. If a guild does wish to attack the outpost of a same faction guild, then I think they must take the steps to make sure that it doesn't quickly escalate outside of the two guilds.

.................

Looking at the times of the posting, it's quite possible Morgaine posted before your post was up Riveit .

I had hoped that the pile of mektoub's manure that that thread became could be forgotten and that we could salvage two top-quality players with different play-styles for the community...

Of necessity all that follows is Out of Character:

Riveit: you should never have felt that you had to apologise for the actions of other players. I like your humour, I like your nuance, I like your roleplay: I think it was in no way flawed here.

Kenshiro: you should never have been put into the position where your intentions could be misunderstood and personally attacked on these boards. I like your integrity and I value your honesty.

The only thing of interest in that thread was the demonstration of the complexity of Tryker politics.

But beware: we cannot play at civil war unless behind our computers we all feel emotionally safe and know without doubt we can trust each other.

Two players apologised to each other in the original thread. I think more apologies are needed.

As it stands there can be no fun in fighting over that outpost. Everytime these things occur we lose a little innocence and with that loss of innocence goes fun, respect and friendship.

So to paraphrase:

Anyway kids, have fun, play nicely, be good. And remember - it's broke, stop hitting it

Nail
Illuminati

Ok, let me just clear up a few things before we get any further.

Pero: In answer to your question of what I want from this, well, my posts were simply in answer to your post at the beginning of the thread, and those that have followed since.

Riveit: It wasn't my intention to accuse you of hypocrisy, or to paint a picture of you as a bad person, or anything like that, so if it came across so, then I'm sorry. I was merely stating that I thought the original thread was badly worded and many people mistook the intention and the reasons for it.

Part of what shocked me was that I had previously thought that going karavan-aligned meant the same to those who had played neutral for so long as it did to me. To me it meant absolutely nothing changed except I had to use different tp's sometimes, and I needed another 3 kara fame to get pr tp's. I hadn't realised that AA had taken a complete role-reversal and come to be what they currently are, and that was a mistake on my part.

nialld wrote:Riveit: you should never have felt that you had to apologise for the actions of other players. I like your humour, I like your nuance, I like your roleplay: I think it was in no way flawed here.

Thanks Nail. We've had some great times and you are a good friend.

nialld wrote:As it stands there can be no fun in fighting over that outpost. Everytime these things occur we lose a little innocence and with that loss of innocence goes fun, respect and friendship.

Yep, not much fun in outpost fighting for me.

I have been called a liar and worst. I have heard some lies told about and to me. I accept that I brought it on myself by foolishly mixing IC propaganda with some OOC game mechanics and putting it here on the general forum. I will consider all earlier accusations to be IC counter-progapanda. However, if false and defamatory accusations continue in these OOC threads, I will be reporting them as against the forum COC.

Once again, posts have crossed in transit on this thread.

I would like to say that I consider Kenshiro's accusations to be the result of miscommunications. He took my requests for sharing resources with those homins without outposts lightly. Likely, he did not understand my veiled threats of attack.

Lathaniel, thanks for your intentions not to defame me. The major issue I have is your contention:

"Attacking the guild holding an outpost for not sharing, then saying that if you take it over, you won't share either ..."

I don't know where you came by this idea. It is false and you have been told that it is false several times here and in the HOPE forum.

hmmm... Time for a Hawk's view on things

Well Riveit made a blunder whit his first post about the war on general. But respect him for being man enough to say so and apologies. No grudge held and hopes none is held against me.

Regarding Pero's first post.
Does BoH think that just because we came first to Whirling it is ours for all time? NO. But we don't want to lead a war of aggresion against other players. Therefore gaing an outpost from npc acomplishes the task of granting BoH a home they can retake. Whitout being the first aggresor. Besides those npc didn't just move out of there when we showed up.

Pero: "is any race/country/religion combination inherently more moral then another? Answer = No"
Agree on this. But allso make me question why you think a Tryker/kara is morally obliged to attack a tryker/kami.

So why can't you attack BoH outpost?
Sure you can, but it failed because things weren't keept nice and simple. It failed because you mixed up what is for the good of jena and what is good for the tryker people. Not neccesarily the same thing.
Is it really okay for trykers to fight trykers over who holds outpost? No.
Is it really okay for Karavan to fight Kami over who holds outpost? Yes.
Mixing those two and you end up whit perhaps.
Allso there is a line between stating what you belive might happen and what you belive the Enemy will do.
Its dangerous to declare what another guild will do. That will make any response you do on that action to be questionabel. For is it really the other guilds nature to do so? and might it really be the biggest insult possibel to say they would do so?

Also remeber, a Guild who once have hold an Outpost for a time, can morally claim they are the owner and wage war to get it back. They did invest money and time in getting and holding it for a time. Or doesn't that count for anything?

On other matters.
The notification of war on forum. Why not. To claim it puts one sider better than the other is alittle... Besides some might just come to see the fireworks.

Watryk
Proud member Band of the Hawks.

Bump to what Nail said.

Putting aside the overly black and white viewpoint of the faction banter and slurs on peoples character, intended or not was quite fun in some ways.

Take a step back and look again it was like our own "Cuban Missile Crisis" brinkmanship, political intrigue, frantic negotiations and maybe abit of posturing.

Hope neither Riveit nor Kenshiro are lost to Atys because of this, cmon guys play your characters dont let your characters play you.