+- heRO-Server Forum (https://www.pandoraonline.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Game Related (https://www.pandoraonline.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Suggestions/Questions (https://www.pandoraonline.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Thread: New castles for woe (/showthread.php?tid=3952)
RE: New castles for woe - Krumb - 04-04-2008
That alliance had been crumbling for some time, so this is no surprise. While I hate to see that wonderful economy go to waste, this was a fantastic tactical move Behemoth, and even if you had been our worst enemy, I would still applaud that decision. We all have our own forums to talk about this in, so lets go there rather than continue this... talk in public.
RE: New castles for woe - teOx - 04-04-2008
im going to state this calmly
. i just hope my points wont be ignored like machi's always are in his crime and punishment thread. (people respond only to what they want right? =\)Why is LW mad? Im shocked to see people suprised at our reaction. Behemoth's "tactical" move was very underhanded. Here are hard facts: we allied them, they broke the LoA castle so we defended with them for many weeks. We paid half (or what we thought was half. dont even try to say we paid less than half izael. did you guys make us pay less than half just so you can say that lol? more underhandedness, thats damn shady) of the eco price. We helped them with gears, we invited them into our forums to further trust and communications. Personally i started to see behemoth as friendly faces, always doing my alchemist business with hibiki and helping everyone marionette to make pots. I thought of them as friends, but apparently to the behemoth leaders LW was just a force to keep close to you until you can find the opportunity to screw them over.
So basically we took the castle together, raised the castle together, defended the castle together (even though LW spent far more resources) and shared the castle drops together. This was OUR castle, the only reason LW went elsewhere was for guild dungeon access. Suddenly Behemoth makes a decision like its their own castle. Amara, is this why you wanted to break the alliance? because you already had this whole plot set up?
To GMs: you have to understand while this was behemoth's castle by possession, it was in reality a castle belonging to an alliance. Dont get technical with me and say that the flag says behemoth's name on it, that is bullshit to LW and all of the members who paid millions to defend and raise the economy. the ONLY reason it is behemoth's castle is because it was a behemoth player that took it in the beginning. If it had been an LW player, we still would have split gears and eco down the middle. It is an ALLIANCE castle. It is perfectly understandable that GMs ask the owner of the castle for permission to change castles, but after learning the true story and that it wasnt only their castle I think morally GMs should reverse the decision. There is a perfectly harmless castle at geffen with 0 eco that would be a far more reasonable choice for a castle switch. At the risk of stepping out of line, i think allowing this change would be a shady, underhanded move on the GM team's part. Its a decision that throws away the hard work of more than 20 LW players. Ill say one more time for emphasis, it was not behemoth's castle. If you want to do this based on a technicality, that is only more proof of underhandedness.
to everyone else: Dont act suprised by our reaction. we were shafted and behemoth's move was shady. Youd be pissed too after spending all that time and money on a castle only to find out your "ally" was planning to throw it away without telling you. thanks for your time.
RE: New castles for woe - Fayth - 04-04-2008
I see why you're angry, but I really can't blame Behemoth if they wanted to be shady. There's a reason you can remove alliances and get new ones; they're not supposed to last forever. While I can't say it was fully ethical the way they did it, it was legal, and fair. Just whoop them next WoE and vent it all out on them then. No need to anger spam here.
RE: New castles for woe - teOx - 04-04-2008
I disagree Fayth. I agree with you that it was unethical, but i disagree in that it should not be legal. I explained why above. Just like on iRO or any other server, an alliance is an alliance. Castle wasnt behemoth's.
change of scenery is bullshit too. want a new castle? i volunteer geffen. it wont hurt anyone and belongs to LW.
RE: New castles for woe - Rykugen - 04-04-2008
Fayth Wrote:No need to anger spam here.
tell that to the lw members who invested multi-millions
RE: New castles for woe - ZackFireblade - 04-04-2008
I would like to take this opportunity to kindly ask the members of LW to stop ranting and slandering before they get this thread moved to the whining section
RE: New castles for woe - teOx - 04-04-2008
Behemoth screws LW over then tells us to stop ranting?
et tu hibiki?
if you arent going to contribute to the discussion or respond to any posts please stay out of it and dont basically tell us to shut up.
RE: New castles for woe - GM-Ayu - 04-04-2008
Can Legendary Warrior and Behemoth members talk about the breaking of their alliance outside of this thread in your own guild forums? If you want to work out details/compensations or other kinds of discussions, surely the two guilds probably want to do it privately.
"This is a joint castle": No, it's Behemoths.
Can you go to guild dungeons as a LW member using your "alliance castles"? No, only Behemoth members can go to guild dungeons using the Prontera switch. You can be "allied" and form alliance/parties/best friends or whatever. You can even marry Amara in real life for all the game cares. But the switch will never let someone who is not a Behemoth member into the guild dungeon using Prontera Castle. Likewise, castle reset is also something completely unique to the decision of the Castle owning guild leader. Prontera, to the views of both the game and the GMs, belong to Behemoth.
Rather do they "deserve" or "do anything" or "invest enough" is another matter that's for discussion between LW and Behemoth, but none of that matters for who is the castle owner.
The way I see it is that *all* of this drama is related to the breaking of in-game player alliances and how things are not working out for both sides. I don't see another other members of the community, and even a few LW members who posted in this thread, disagrees with me that as of today, Behemoth is still the legitimate owner of Prontera castle and thus have the right to decide if they want to reset their castle and hand it over to the GMs or not.
RE:??New castles for woe - teOx - 04-04-2008
teOx Wrote:Ill say one more time for emphasis, it was not behemoth's castle. If you want to do this based on a technicality, that is only more proof of underhandedness.
yeah yeah technically it was behemoths. shady ayu... shady...thanks for proving my point.
you win youre the GM. do whatever move you want regardless of ethics. I guess it doesnt matter if you screw LW over right?
RE: New castles for woe - Fayth - 04-04-2008
you aren't exactly contributing to the discussion for saying that...
But like I said about alliances, if they were meant to be permanant, you wouldn't be able to remove and make new ones. That's all I was saying.
Seems like the arrangement was fair to me anyway, if you got half back. Also, why not have just asked them to help defend too. If you did, and they refused, then you should've figured it out beforehand.
All I'm saying is at this point, you're not offering a reason as to whether or not we should change guild castles, like the thread is supposed to be about. Your guildies said it too; if you wanna rant, stick to your guild forums.
I personally thought it wasn't cool, but it was smart. That's all. Don't rant on me.