World of Warcraft®

Server lore in all it's glory.. But we cannot alter Blizzards official lore, no matter how much we pay to play.

That also said, last night siege of Hammerfall I heard was fun, that we came to rescue the horde in distress was for us perfectly fine and fun and opens for more communications now that we saved the horde's asses (again).

As for the Hammerfall siege itself.. I was told that the agreement during it was 75-80k hp and ability restrictions to no AoEs and no CCs and with an ability each 15 seconds or so.
Anyone who went above that was a griefer and hence threated as such. That was the agreement that I was told anyhow.

That Shonn's crew broke the agreement is something for the alliance organisers to handle. We keept our men at a leash, those that we could control.

We will not take part in any rp pvp without restrictions, because we have tons of lowbies that we don't want to get oneshooted by a bladestorming warrior in full Cataclysmic gladiator gear.

This was posted in the other thread and is now redirected to this one.
The underlined part stands, no matter what, if anyone wishes to partake in rp pvp with the hand.

27/03/2012 15:10Posted by Kärgöth

what is this horde you speak of?

I can count out a few that I was told was in Hammerfall during the siege we saved them from.
Dawnherald came to get our aid, QV was in Hammerfall at the time, likewise was the two Frostwolf guilds and from what I was told.EDIT: As below me stated, if there is agreement on a set of rules they should be followed or the unit breaking the rules will be excluded. As far as HoA is concerned, there are currently two guilds we are going to stay away from and not engage with. I will not mention them here to avoid naming and shaming. I did so enough in my post already.
If you want skirmish with us, contact me ingame. Or contact one of my officers: Ardmoro and Jorrick.

Further EDIT: HoA rp pvp rules will be posted in the HoA recruitment thread and can be found there. If the rules applies to you, you are welcome to contact us. If they don't, we will not negotiate or change our rules. Why? Cause we want to have fun and not be oneshoted.

It should be common sense that everyone involved in one skirmish plays by the same rules, right? Whatever those rules are, surely everyone can agree that that is the only reasonable thing to do.

Also, I don't want to be rude to anyone, here, but let's all try to be reasonable. If one guild wants restrictions and the other doesn't, and they can't agree, then there are LOTS of guilds in this campaign. Just pass each other by, spare everyone some drama and find people who agree to your terms. If half of one skirmish plays by "everything goes" rules and the other plays by limitations, it's going to ruin it for everyone. This big an event requires that everyone engages in ye olde give and take.

Yea I think it's a little unfair that one guild has an all out policy that they think other guilds should have to accept it...that said there's some major difference between being Restricted, Unrestricted and curteous....courteousy is for instance using abillities rarely and refraining from high impact skills as well as dropping out some items to lower stats even if no ones asked you to...it only becomes a restriction if it's a requirement of the RPvP enviroment that you do something...rather than you doing it yourself, of your own volition just to be well mannered and fair to your opponents.

The most non-restricting thing you can expect me to do is to have my mog, but remove some offpieces that adds stamina, while not affecting the look at all.

27/03/2012 15:16Posted by Nymi

If half of one skirmish plays by "everything goes" rules and the other plays by limitations, it's going to ruin it for everyone.

That's why pre-planning is recommended. If it becomes a chaotic bruhaha where people are using mixed rules, ganking happens, and it's generally uncomfortable, I recommend that people just put PvP off and let things cool down.

I'm going to point out, again.
Even though my actions yesterday were all out. It was because it was inside a Horde base camp, and it was getting silly with 70 Alliance overrunning 20 Horde players.

I'll either play by the rules or not participate at all away from the horde bases. The same goes for all of my members, so don't think we're going all out on someone just because we feel like it.

Going to add my two cents here, as I helped Twinkel' plan the Battle of the Barrens, so am fairly familiar with RP-PvP.

It works in both ways, if X guild wants huge restrictions, not all guilds have to put up with it. Although, if Y and Z guilds want no restrictions, they don't have to RP-PvP with X guild. However, if X guild decide to join the fray, and moan about the rules, they are in the wrong. Have some logic, people. Perhaps it would be wise to set up a Steam channel of sorts, on skype or whatnot, even if temporary. Communication is vital, else it'll all go to ruin. Otherwise, I'll speak to Waywatcher about setting up a channel for officers of guilds and other key people, as we did with the Barrens.

As to the settlements. Lore wise, I believe this war would be on a large proportion, no? As such, I'd imagine there would realistically be thousands of units around. Hundreds in each settlements as key factors for Defensive and Offensive strategies. Laying waste to such, would be pure idiocy. Even if we go by the correct numbers, we'd have to take guards into consideration, aswell as defensive advantages. Then we have our manners. When some people don't want to lose their base at the start of the campaign, you simply cannot go and lay waste to it. Tazkram was in full right to pop all out, as he was roleplaying, and you were in fact most likely disturbing that. We have the huge expanse of the highlands for a reason, you don't have to use the towns where people roleplay, and don't forget about the poor OOC-ers who are leveling there. I see the hypocrisy when we had the issue of certain guilds assaulting the Crossroads.

Too Lazy, didn't read: Communicate, people. Don't forget your manners with other people.
Peace out, and enjoy the campaign.

Grelind just made it onto my "Coolest dwarves of all time"-list because he's completely and utterly right. Plus, I like his beard.

Looking forward to skirmishin'!

27/03/2012 16:04Posted by Grelind

When some people don't want to lose their base at the start of the campaign, you simply cannot go and lay waste to it.

Exactly so. Be sure that any direct attacking attempts against enemy settlements (outside the official Missions) will be considered failures, and that there is a considerable number of (NPC) casualties to the attacking side. The strongholds cannot be stormed down like that. Now matter how phearsome you & the gang are, and no matter how badly you outnumber the player characters in the fight.

That said, there is many Missions that allow storming a settlement. In that case, it's totally justified to attack the settlement fully and the units camped there are welcome to defend their ground, of course.

*Drives in on a Steam tank whoopin' as he goes* THIS IS GOWNA BE OSSUM! Best of luck chaps and may the best faction win. Also I agree somewhat with Grelind.

Personally, I thought yesterday played quite well into the start-up of the campaign, especially as so many Horde reinforcements have arrived afterwards. Due to the huge group gathered and the fact Hammerfall is little more than a palisade it provided quite the 'spark' for the campaign.

In essence, a large gathering of Alliance forces, although driven back eventually, did considerable damage and accomplished a costly victory (depending on what point your group pulled out) which could be the outrage that explains the sudden surge of reinforcements to Hammerfall in order to secure it and strike back as a result.

But that's just my 'glass half-full' opinion.

Personally, I thought yesterday played quite well into the start-up of the campaign, especially as so many Horde reinforcements have arrived afterwards. Due to the huge group gathered and the fact Hammerfall is little more than a palisade it provided quite the 'spark' for the campaign.

In essence, a large gathering of Alliance forces, although driven back eventually, did considerable damage and accomplished a costly victory (depending on what point your group pulled out) which could be the outrage that explains the sudden surge of reinforcements to Hammerfall in order to secure it and strike back as a result.

But that's just my 'glass half-full' opinion

The campaign has missions and such for a reason, with a lot of planning gone into it too. It still may seem like a fun and exciting build up thing to do, but it isn't polite, respectful, or justified. There was a huge lack of communication here, the attackers should have checked with the Horde to see if they were up for it, first.

27/03/2012 16:38Posted by Tratius

*Drives in on a Steam tank whoopin' as he goes* THIS IS GOWNA BE OSSUM! Best of luck chaps and may the best faction win. Also I agree somewhat with Grelind.

I agree!- Wait. THAT'S MY STEAM TANK.

NOT ANYMORE PUNKO! Trat owns a factory, that be his use. >:)

Personally, I thought yesterday played quite well into the start-up of the campaign, especially as so many Horde reinforcements have arrived afterwards. Due to the huge group gathered and the fact Hammerfall is little more than a palisade it provided quite the 'spark' for the campaign.

In essence, a large gathering of Alliance forces, although driven back eventually, did considerable damage and accomplished a costly victory (depending on what point your group pulled out) which could be the outrage that explains the sudden surge of reinforcements to Hammerfall in order to secure it and strike back as a result.

But that's just my 'glass half-full' opinion

The campaign has missions and such for a reason, with a lot of planning gone into it too. It still may seem like a fun and exciting build up thing to do, but it isn't polite, respectful, or justified. There was a huge lack of communication here, the attackers should have checked with the Horde to see if they were up for it, first.

I'm not sure what the mandated schedule for last night's proceedings were, but RP-PvP rarely goes exactly as planned and most likely heightened excitement levels got the best of people, although the actual attack seemed tactically sound, and the Horde got a nice group of Hammerfell Grunts to even out the numbers. However, it happened. Personally, I wouldn't call it impolite, disrespectful or unjustified; I think it was just an event that didn't go exactly as planned.

The very least we can do is try and turn it into a positive and adapt an IC reason!

Grelind will be preaching his hatred of all things mechanical and revolutionized. Sad thing is, he has to board a boat for a few days. Sadder thing? It will crash, only furthering his hatred.

As to Akru, all the way up at the top of the post:

27/03/2012 15:12Posted by Akru

If they don't, we will not negotiate or change our rules.

Bit of give and take, as Nymi put it. You want your rules obeyed? You'll have to negotiate. I will completely agree though, Auto-attacking is horrendously boring, and as a Shaman spellcaster, it gets worse.

27/03/2012 15:12Posted by Akru

As far as HoA is concerned, there are currently two guilds we are going to stay away from and not engage with.

I can only see this as a somewhat childish approach, I don't know the circumstance, but I understand it was a lack of communication and you claimed them "dead". Please, don't do this in the campaign for the love of the elements. It's taking OOC to IC. Which should never be done.

As for the Hammerfall siege itself.. I was told that the agreement during it was 75-80k hp and ability restrictions to no AoEs and no CCs and with an ability each 15 seconds or so.
Anyone who went above that was a griefer and hence threated as such. That was the agreement that I was told anyhow.

That happens to be your rules, however whoever told you was evidently not in charge. This was a simple random skirmish, no rules were agreed on so nobody was in the wrong.

27/03/2012 15:12Posted by Akru

That Shonn's crew broke the agreement is something for the alliance organisers to handle.

Waywatcher is not organising the RP-PvP, he's got enough on his plate right now. Also, how can you break something that is not officially in motion?

27/03/2012 15:12Posted by Akru

We will not take part in any rp pvp without restrictions, because we have tons of lowbies that we don't want to get oneshooted by a bladestorming warrior in full Cataclysmic gladiator gear.

Levelling is always good but I agree with this. However you have a choice in this game, and the campaign too. You in no way have to participate, so if you don't like it? Don't.

Larissia. I understand completely, although some of the Horde did not want this, it's polite to check with them. Tazkram certainly seems rather peeved, so there's a prime example of impoliteness. Sometimes you have to change things to allow the courtesy of others.

Grelind. I appricitate your replies to my each element of the post..

But please, you seem to have falen victim the usual "I dont know what happened but I will comment anyway and you will like it!" attitude.
We can discuss this ingame if you want a proper reply to each of the elements you replied to. I will not derail the thread further.

In fact, the only element that applies to said 'condition' I have fallen victim to would be that of the blanking. The rest can apply to anybody, and it does indeed relate to the thread. So, it is not derailing as Waywatcher promoted discussion.

Like said, the other quotes people should look at, and take note of, I think.

Well, Grelind was actually on topic.