|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Settlement's Thrown Under the Bus By TEO's Suggested Map:
Edit: Link re-addressed to Sentinel's site to protect privacy of original host.
This is an agreement primarily to protect their own towers from the Northern Coalition.
Golgotha has suggested "The Slums" is still up for grabs. Basically All of the settlements west of the NC.
Will TEO push back against this crass sacrifice of smaller settlements which violates all of their founding values, or allow others to be sacrificed to save their own membership from PvP?
Will the new TEO prove conclusively they are only interested in their own success and power and that motto I wrote for the about the "protection of the weak and promotion of justice" no longer applies at all?
The TEO I lead was willing to make sacrifices for the good of others. The Sentinels still are. What happened to that TEO?
Initiate - All members of the Sentinels begin and remain at this rank for a minimum of two weeks. This is a trial membership period in which the Sentinels are determining if you have the right mentality and attitude for the group.
Sentinel - After passing your two week trial and meeting our requirements to join, one may reach the rank of Sentinel. Sentinel is considered our primary rank. It offers full membership and a voice in any non-strategic issues that are brought to a vote.
Captain - This our officer rank. It is offered to actively participating Sentinel members who have been with us for no less than two months and displayed competency, dedication, and leadership. Captains are given some measure of authority, especially in specific areas they prove to be strong in such as recruitment, military leadership, or diplomacy. Captains may often be consulted on decisions related to their areas of expertise. For instance, a captain with a strong PvP related background may be consulted on PvP related issues, where a captain strong in diplomacy but not PvP would have no say in such issues unless they also pertained to diplomacy.
High Captain - High captains are the group who hold the largest authority. All major non-time-sensitive issues are brought before them to be put to a vote. At such a time, they may also decide, by a majority vote, which captains are to be brought in on the issue and whether or not the issue is eligible to be voted upon by sentinels. After this decision is made, those members may also cast votes. The vote of a captain counts for three members and the vote of a high captain for five.
There are two specific issues that cannot be passed by less than a two thirds majority vote. The promotion/demotion of a High Captain, and the promotion/demotion of a Captain Commander.
Captain Commander - The Captain Commander may make immediate decisions on any issue if they feel they are time sensitive. The one exception to this rule is the promotion/demotion of a High Captain. Thus the Captain Commander is always kept in check by the will of the High Captains. They may also delegate their authority to any High Captain so that they may act as Captain Commander in their absence.
Allied- Support as you would support a member of The Sentinels. Never attack unless part of a mutually agreed upon conflict or in defense of yourself and other allies.
Friendly- This denotes a positive relationship stemming from similar values or favorable past experiences. Members of friendly groups are never to be attacked regardless of flags or reputation unless you have been provided with a strong reason to do so such as defense of self, Aragon, an ally, or another friendly.
Neutral- Neutral targets are to be assumed non-hostile unless their reputation or flags suggest otherwise. In those cases, it is up to the discretion of the Sentinel how to respond.
Wary- This denotes a negative relationship stemming from opposing values or unfavorable past experiences. It is always acceptable to kill members of wary groups in situations that you will not lose reputation for doing so.
Hostile- This denotes extremely negative relationships stemming from values which we highly oppose, very negative past experiences, or open warfare. These players should be killed or harmed in any situation you can do so without losing reputation. Often, we will declare a feud against such groups.
Role - Feud and Skirmish Warfare Experts
The Sentinels are a group built from the ground up to be as effective as possible at feuds. Our objective is to find causes we feel are worth devoting ourselves to or foes who we feel need to be dealt with, and then inflict as much pain as possible on the opposing side until they either meet our terms of surrender or are battered to the point we no longer view them as a major concern.
Who Should Join The Sentinels?
In short, we are looking for those who want to become dedicated PvPers. This group has the highest standards to join out of every group in PFO. They include training, minimum skill requirements, at least two weeks and 10 hours interaction with members of the group, a voice interview and 25 verified kills through one of our specified methods. We provide all the training and support you will need to pass all our requirements even starting as a complete newb with no PvP experience, but only you can supply the effort, dedication, and persistence we require of all our members.
Members who come in expecting to do anything other than serious PvP are a liability to us. If you're the kind of person who is upset when they regularly and frequently face overwhelming odds, then you aren't cut out to be a Sentinel. If you're the kind of person who gets a rush from constant danger, who dies, and then notes what they did wrong and then uses that knowledge to win next time, we're calling on you to join us. If you're the kind of person to whom surrender is not an option, then you're exactly who we are looking for.
This is an intentionally small and tight-knit group of exceptional players. We know how to make ourselves an unstoppable force in this game. If you have what it takes to be one of us, then we'd love to show you how to become one as well.
What Kinds of Content Do The Sentinels Offer?
First and foremost, feuds. We will constantly be looking for and engaging in feuds that will offer our members as much content as possible while advancing positive causes. We will also be engaging in outpost raids and factional warfare to keep our skills sharp. Our support for PvE and crafting functions will be far more limited unless we find ways to use it to harm our enemies. You are allowed and even encouraged to seek out other companies with whom to engage in this content as anyone may join up to three companies.
Allowed Races and Classes
While we don't specifically prohibit any race or class, there are minimum movement speed and stealth requirements to join, so you'll want to play a race that can move at the desired speed.
In short dwarves, gnomes, and halflings may not be good choices while humans, elves, half-elves, and half-orcs should all be fine. You should also expect that whatever class you play, you'll probably end up in light armor or robes and have to train stealth.
The Sentinels are a group looking to protect the residents and lands of the Echo Woods. While we have no uniforms we generally we wear garb that helps us blend in to our surroundings and all Sentinels share the ability to move swiftly through and fade into the forest.
How Do I Join?
Apply here to start the initiation process.
The founder(s) of the company lay forth a vision and system of government. If you believe in that vision and find that form of government acceptable you join. If you don't, you don't. You aren't born into a company with your farm your family has had for 6 generations rooted on it's soil.
You make as choice to be there. You should not join an organization with core values and governments you don't want and expect it to change for you. That's disrespectful to the people who built it. A lot of people doing this doesn't make it any less disrespectful.
Harad Navar wrote:
If a single member is voicing an unspoken opinion held by a percentage of the company as a whole, and that opinion is contrary to that of Leadership, what then? What is Leadership's responsibility to self assess when they are no longer represent the majority opinion of the company?
It depends on the nature of the group and the nature of the issue. If the group is designed to serve the interests of their members then they should amend their policy to what the membership desires. However sometimes there are policies that come above the will of the membership. If you join a company with a stated purpose they hold as their core ideology, and then attempt to change that purpose, then you never should have joined the group in the first place.
For instance say I and 5000 other members joined UNC made minimal to no contributions and then said. "We believe that greater UNC should give up their Not Blue Rob It policy" That would be absurd because UNC was founded as a company of bandits. If we do not hold to their core principles we should form our own company (or sub-company) that does.
I'd also note that even as a member of a sub company that we are partially responsible for UNC's actions. The Sentinel's affiliation with Aragon is a statement we do not believe all instances of non-consensual PvP are bad for the game, and if anyone feels the need to war-dec us over that feel free. We help defend their settlement and recommend them to players wishing to be bandits so it's fully justified if you believe those are war-dec worthy issues.
Second off if we joined UNC and made decisions they knew to be bad strategy they would be right to tell the greater whole to shove it. For instance if we said attacking anyone if they have less members than we did was dishonorable and we wanted UNC to never do it their core contributors and found membership would have every right to tell to deal with it or leave.
So, if you disagree with anything that happens in your company you should leave it? You can't disagree with something, but stay to try to fix it or because the greater goal of the company is more important than a single issue. Nope, it's wholehearted support on every single issue or you should leave. How simplistic.
We're assuming here that you already addressed the concern and that it wasn't resolved. If you stay that demonstrates apathy. That may not justify your personally leaving the settlement if you don't fell very strongly about that issue but if someone else feels so strongly about said issue they will go to war over it then it justifies them holding you at least partially responsible. Especially if you continue to contribute to your group in any way.
I think we both know the process of leaving a country is far more painful than leaving any gaming organization. Especially if there are people with guns at the border saying you can't go.
Though I do believe some responsibility does lie with the citizenship of any country to rise up if their government commits atrocities. I'm just a bit more sympathetic to those who are too afraid to.
I know this is a concern that came up earlier today so I'll give my thoughts on it. I believe that on some level every member of a company is responsible for the actions of every other member within their company.
Let me elaborate. Membership in a company is voluntary. You can leave at any time. Should leadership make decisions you do not agree with, the option to walk is always there, so in belonging to a company you show either support or apathy for the decisions made by your leadership.
Given that company members (in general) can be assumed to contribute to their company in some fashion even apathy enables your leadership to make the decisions they make. In other words, all players within a company can be assumed to back the objectives of their leadership and company as a whole.
But it goes a step further than that. Leadership has the ability to punish or remove their membership if they feel they have stepped out of line.
To illustrate my point we'll give a pretty extreme example not directed at any person or group on these forums. Lets say a member of your company advocated the genocide of a certain racial group and loudly vocalized that opinion to all who would hear. Would you not expect leadership to remove them from your group, and if they did not, would you remain with that group?
The same logic can be applied to any other decision made by the company. Sure, most are much less serious and easier to overlook but if someone outside your group feels you've overlooked something serious enough to be worth war deccing you over, then you can anticipate they would, and should, wage war against your group as a whole.
I'm saddened that you feel so bitter but take it as a lesson learned (for more important things then just a game - which is what PFO is). Don't give up control over anything that you feel so invested in that you can't accept going a way you don't want.
In retrospect I realized you are right. At the time I believed that what I was doing by giving control of TEO to Lifedragn was putting TEO as a whole under a more diplomatic less aggressive leader which I was fine with as I thought I was retaining power over the military and strategic decisions.
I assumed that if any matters of strategy (such as me labeling the SE as indefensible) came up that Lifedragn would defer to my greater experience in the matter because I had two years of investment and proven loyalty.
In the end "Oh yeah but this guy who joined last week and claims to have lead this huge group in Darkfall that he won't name or say how long it lasted and he say's we'll be fine." Was too great of an insult to bear. At the time I halfway suspected Cheatle was a spy who had come to spread misinformation in order to run our group into the ground.
I still suspect that when the advice he gave runs TEO into the ground he'll just quietly disappear into another group and bear no responsibility for what he's done. TEO will be just another nameless group he embellishes his involvement in and adds to his resume next time he joins a group in a new sandbox that won't last any longer than the last one did or TEO will if they put their trust in him.
Eh the first two are very true but I don't think I'll ever fully follow the 3rd. It's just not who I am.
Regardless I'm glad to live in a place like Aragon where I am free to pursue my own goals and ambitions without having too much oversight and restriction from the settlement as whole.
We're quite content with Aragon as home right now, and so long as Aragon is our home we will work to further it's interests, and do nothing to harm it.
To those who would question this I'd like to point out, if we were still loyal to TEO would I say half the things I say about it? Even if I were faking it some of what I say has the potential to do real damage.
Despite that, the worst move that Andius made, regarding the decision making, was to leave the conversation after his points had been made and not join in on the many, many hours of discussion that occurred with not only our ally at the time, but friendly groups we were trying to earn the favor of as well.
My relationship with Amora was new enough at the time that any time spent with you was being robbed from her. Especially since I was going to class for a huge part of the day during those discussions.
I tried to include Amora in the meetings as she wants to play PFO herself but she quickly tired of the way the people in the meetings talked in circles without making any real progress and the way you ignored my experience, so she had no interest in listening in on the latter meetings.
I tend to agree with her. The fact the discussions took hours in itself excluded everyone who had a life from giving meaningful input that wouldn't be drowned out by the sheer volume of prattling from those without. Unfortunately in this case one of the people with a life is your founder, the person who built your group, and your most experienced Open World PvPer. The ones with the least life were some guy who joined the week before and... Forencith...
Ultimately I'm now in a great relationship, and feel I made the best decision regarding my time usage.
On a side note, to clear something up, the reason people got silenced when I talked is Solemor set all admins up as a priority speaker on the Teamspeak to assist with order during formally structured meetings. I was unsure of how to disable it.
Er, so, you didn't create your new project, because TEO wasn't grateful ?
No. I created my new project but changed it from one that focused solely on building our strength to the North to one that would have the option of a feud with TEO and TSV. I also switched up the policies a bit as well to leave it so that TEO/TSV have no option of meaningful retaliation if I do pursue that course of action. In short, there is nothing The Sentinels really have, or ever will acquire, that I care if we lose. Even the membership is intentionally selected to be the players like myself that will welcome hundreds of people trying to kill them. And if they aren't that type then I don't want them, thus our "surrender is treason" policy. This is echoed in Aragon as a whole with a stance that they don't really care if they keep their settlement or not.
It frees me up to focus wholly on seeking my objectives whether they be protecting newbs or slaughtering TEO/TSV's recruits. It's the same tactic I used in Freelancer.
Really the ball is in your court on which objectives I decide to pursue. I generally lose interest in vengeance pretty fast if my anger isn't being constantly stoked but you've been doing a great job of ensuring that happens.
Why TEO was Founded
TEO was founded in April of 2014 under the name of Great Legionnaires.
It was not a collaborative effort but my sole creation. I was it's only original member and defined it's purpose and made it's first alliance (To The Seventh Veil) before the 2nd member was ever brought on board.
Great Legionnaires was not a new concept. It had existed in other games before, under the same name, most notably a five year run in Freelancer and during the last year of the original Darkfall.
The concept was always the same. It existed as a group that took a primary purpose of helping others and put that before all other issues. Even the good of it's own members. It was a grouped formed for those who wanted to make it their tireless task to put their time, passion, wealth, and necks on the line to stick up for those weaker than themselves.
By the time I reached Pathfinder Online I was already well versed in the culture of these games. Our Freelancer server had no restriction on who you could attack or why, and Darkfall was probably about the most brutal game on the market. Infact I heard about Pathfinder Online while playing Mortal Online. A title extremely similar to Darkfall.
The usual mode of operation for a veteran group in titles like Mortal and Darkfall was to go off and claim some territory out where they wouldn't get bothered and focus entirely on building their own operations and making their own group strong. Most groups would offer help if you signed on to their group and came to live in their cities.
If you did not sign on to a group and come to live with them you would receive extremely little in the way of veteran help. New groups who attempted to go their own way were generally beset upon by griefer factions who would wage war upon them until they disbanded. Non-griefer veteran groups were generally too absorbed in their own self interests to spend much time in the newb areas or help these newb clans. It was actually from the ruins of such a group the Great Legionnaires was formed in Darkfall.
Like in Darkfall Great Legionnaires was formed with the express intent of being everything your typical veteran faction was not. For one the aim was to be highly involved in the starter areas, making the plights of the groups and players there "our business", and offering them a helping hand in both learning the skills they need to succeed as well as fighting any griefer factions that came against them.
If you read through the materials of the Great Legionnaires you will see this intent was expressed quite clearly. It is flat out stated:
First and foremost the Great Legionnaires are a military force. We aim to be be the vanguard of the forces against good, riding out to meet it [evil] on whatever field it takes.
My History With TEO
March 28, 2012: Great Legionnaires was formed. At that point it was a one man operation.
~March 28, 2012: An alliance with TSV was formed. While we intended to help TSV establish an academy for newer players in a safe location it was made clear GL itself wanted to close proximity to the starter zones go give easiest access to those it intended to serve.
March 28, 2012: December 18th 2012: Great Legionnaires swells in membership to become what I believed at the time to be the 3rd largest group behind Pax Aeturnum and The Seventh Viel. We took our first two council members Valinar and Jak Blitz, and ran a series of meetings to help iron out some of the structure. While there are some contributions from different members noteably Valinar hosting the site, Solemor Farmen really streamlining our meeting structure, and Keovar editing our official documents it quickly became apparent that the majority of the burden would rest solely on my shoulders. A huge burden given I was working heavy overtime for most of this time period. For the most part meetings did not happen unless I lead them, I had to write nearly every document we ever released, and even to this day if you look at any major structure within TEO their foundations were forumulated by me.
December 2012: It became increasingly apparent Great Legionnaires was to play a major role in Pathfinder Online, and on a larger scale than any group previously bearing the Great Legionnaire's name. As such I proposed a name change, recognizing that this group had far outgrown the simple name I came up with in middle school while playing Age of Empires, and later applied to my group in Dungeon Siege in the 7th grade. Recognizing that our group was attracting a large number of less combat focused players we changed our document a bit to reflect our more well rounded group. However, our primary purpose of being a group that makes sacrifices to enhance the experience of others did not change. And when we released our new recruitment thread we made that plain. "Role: Player Nation with a Guardian/Peacekeeper focus." We still intended to have a large military, we still intended to make ourselves accessible to those who needed our help, and our Guardian/Peacekeeper mission was still our primary focus. Not the profit our membership.
January 2013: The kickstarter hits and the original landrush goes live. At this point I was regularly working four 24 hour shifts a week but I still found time to put a ton of effort into our recruitment drive. My life at this time basically consisted of working, and going home to get on Teamspeak to talk strategy with Solemor, address the concerns of TEO members, and meet with leadership of various groups we hoped to work with.
Spring 2013: I continued to work 96 hours a week (As I would through the entire year of 2013.) while focusing almost all of my attention on TEO during my time off work, and frequenting the forums while at work. Various officers and leadership in allied groups were even given my cell phone number so we could communicate via text while I worked. However after a break-up with my girlfriend at the time I decided TEO was ruling my life to an unhealthy degree. Solemor had given me the advice the groups on the scale of TEO needed to be lead by someone who would treat it as a full-time job, and I wasn't prepared to let it dominate my time like that any longer. I informed Jak Blitz I would be leaving, created a position that would grant him my authority, and then spent the next few months focusing on my personal life.
Late Summer 2013 - Spring 2014: Hearing Jak Blitz had a close family member struggling with a terminal illness I decided to return to TEO. When I arrived back I found that activity had fallen off to the point that the group was for all practical purposes dead. Infact while probing for information on an undercover alias I had several people tell me TEO was dead. Hearing this I began a campaign to revive TEO's activity. New meetings were held. New activity promotion initiatives were pushed. I began seeking like minded communities from other games to affiliate ourselves with and I was looking to find someone to fill in the role of Grand Master for me. As before, pretty much everything that was to get done ended up getting done by me with the exception of Ixolander approving recruitment applications. Eventually my efforts seemed to pay off with a huge resurgence in activity, a merger into CotP community, and a new Grand Master.
Why I Left TEO
When I made Lifedragn Grand Master is was pretty much an act of desperation to accomplish the objective of keeping TEO alive while giving me time to have a personal life outside TEO and my 96 hour work schedule. Lifedragn's contributions to TEO had been pretty light. He had DMed a play by post campaign and not much else. He also had no leadership experience in any previous title. However he had respect among the membership and the community, and he seemed willing to take the job if given support. While his lack of experience was concerning he gave me the impression through our conversations that he would seek my council and leave me in charge of the military/strategic decisions.
It was a very pleasing arrangement to me as the military/strategic decisions were the ones I primarily wanted to be in charge of, and reducing my role to just them would leave me time to work, take part in TEO, and have a personal life.
In order to give Lifedragn some credibility / name recognition among the community I started allowing him to take credit for ideas that were actually mine, and mostly developed by me. Primarily I created the idea for Brighthaven, did most of the work on the OP, but allowed him to make the announcement, and created the new TEO recruitment thread which he only made light edits to before posting.
Not long after it came time to choose our settlement location. We were initially looking at the location currently occupied by Pax Aeturnum. It seemed like we had decided on that as our spot but then there was another meeting in which most people seemed to have turned their eyes to the south-east mountains. I was in favor of that until Avari proposed the idea of K. K immediately intrigued me as a location that was both centrally located between the 3 starter settlements because of the implications that would have on our recruitment, our trade potential, and our ability to fulfill TEO's primary objective.
As I looked back at the south east I realized it was actually, frankly, a piss poor location for our groups. Highly isolated from both potential recruits and the players we aimed to serve, the south-east was not only an insanely weak play for the largest alliance in the game, but an ultimately undefendable one given the inevitable build up of chaotic groups around Thornkeep and evil groups around Fort Inevitable that will take place, and the sure placement of the major good-aligned settlements toward Riverwatch to the North as can already be seen starting to happen with both Talongaurd and Ozem's Vigil.
However at this point we had a lot of active members who had contributed little to nothing to the group thus far, first and foremost among them Cheatle who had been with us less than a week at the time, coming in and freaking out that taking K would be seen as too aggressive of a move and turn the server against us. (BTW. Notice how everyone has turned on Talonguard? Neither have I.) And insisting the the South East was not only defensible but an extremely safe location.
While I spelled out the extreme travel time between K and our primary recruiting grounds, how it isolated us from the rest of the community, and that it flat out would doom our groups. A great many of our members seemed convinced that it was perfectly safe, and that TEO's new role was to isolate itself and have people come out to live with us if they sought our protection. Thoughtless remarks like that we could pull most of our recruits from the forums, or that the Green Cloaks or Seraphic Commission would regularly make the hour+ trek from the SE to Riverwatch were quoted to me as if they were reasonable arguments. The whole situation absolutely enraged me.
1. I felt it was incredibly disrespectful for people who sat back and let me do all the work for 2 years to come in and feel they had a right to equal say in such a major decision. TEO was never promoted as a democracy, and it was not intended to be a group where a week old member could come walking in and start acting like the owned the place.
2. Their act turned our primary role from protecting others, to protecting ourselves. If that's what they wanted they should have never joined TEO in the first place. TEO was formed as a direct counter to the self-interested mentalities strongly exerted by it's current membership who now beg for mechanics to protect themselves rather than looking to protect others. TEO's primary purpose was never set forth as negotiable or something that was subject to change. Members who dissented with our primary purpose should have joined The Seventh Veil or made their own group rather than turning the group I spend so much effort building as a group focused on other's before itself, and planting it's military between all who need our aid and those seeking to oppress them into a group of self interested isolationists who make no more meaningful effort to promote our core values of "Community betterment, protection of the weak, and promotion of justice" than any other non-caring veteran group clinging to the edges of the map.
Their decision not only left me with no interest in staying to help TEO promote their self-interested objectives but the thought of working alongside Cheatle and the others who voted in favor of destroying everything I spent so long building after they did next to squat themselves utterly disgusted me.
While unable to contain my outrage and disgust with the complete 180 of purpose within TEO by people who did nothing to put it where it is today, and without even a basic understanding of these games and the strategies needed to succeed in them, I had decided to leave it at words and go build a new group to accomplish TEO's original objective. To even offer them a place to go after their inevitable failure in the SE.
That was until all the continued assertions that I was a quitter for walking out on a TEO I no longer found recognizable, people who did nothing to put TEO where it is today claiming credit for the fruits of my labors, and in general the complete lack of any gratefulness/recognition for the immense amount of work I did to put that group where it is. TEO didn't build itself up to where it is today. I did that.
That is why I bear the resentment to them I do today.
Pharasma was wounded in a battle with Urgathoa over control of the boneyard. Though she pushed the forces back, her lifeblood mixed with the storms raging across the river lands, and those drenched in the Fate Storms wrath have been marked by the experience.
I like the premise of unintentionally spilled blood.
That is a very good way to have it happen "accidentally". I think adding something about the blood being attracted to those with a spark of greatness in them or inspiring a spark of greatness in those it touches could help explain why our characters are so much more rich and powerful than the average commoner.
T7V Avari wrote:
Well, well, well. A thread that is actually dear to my heart. I am pretty keen on revolving a good amount of RP around this. Why do we have the Mark and why did the marked descend on the river Kingdoms? I think it's something best left open ended, as an eternal meta plot the characters aim to solve but maybe never will. All of the reasons given here are valid beliefs.
That's a really interesting way of doing it I would hope if done that way though they had NPC's mention it, and maybe even slip some clues into the world about the nature of the mark.
I mean there is a lot of room for "Oooooh a mystery!" with that, and I think that could really appeal to people but I could also see it coming off more as "The developers were too lazy to come up with a good story."
The main reason I disfavor all NPC's being marked by Pharasma is that means when we go out and kill 500 goblins there should still be 500 goblins and we're supposed to be able to reduce escalations.
I think some named Pharasma marked NPC bosses that keep re-emerging could be fun, but I'd rather it not be every goblin and wolf.
My understanding was that the effect was more for an area of the world rather than to specific individuals, which I think would cover why it would apply to people of varying alignments and faiths.
I understood there was an area restriction but does that apply to every creature in the area including NPCs?
There are a few possible answers I think might be worth looking at.
A response to a threat. There could be some group or even creature that poses such a great threat that the other god's petitioned Pharasma to create a solution. Our character's could either be chosen by Pharasma to fight the threat, or we could say that the mark was somehow accidentally placed on some individuals it wasn't intended to through some form of mistake.
I tend to favor the latter since some of our characters will have no interest in fighting the threat.
Two cool things to think about with the "threat" story though.
1. We know our characters will not have to worry about "save or die" spells and probably will have either immunity or reduced effect from any kind of mind control ability. Those kind of abilities are powerful enough to merit a response from the god's if any large group of creature's or followers of some group had easy access to them. Making near immortals that can resist "save or die" and mind control effects may be merited to deal with the threat.
2. We know there will be a huge catastrophe that wipes out all the proto-settlements. This threat could be the culprit.
We are in a parallel reality. And we're probably already dead. For some reason we've been thrown into an afterlife that is a mimicry of the real world.
One big upside to this idea is it allows us to re-write some of Golarions history through our actions without heavily effecting the reality the P&P takes place on. So players can travel to the Western River Kingdoms without having the fact they didn't find Aragon or Calambea break the lore.
Through some level of communication with the normal plane and perhaps some special events where we can "break free" the developers could still let our actions change the main storyline of the Pathfinder setting sometimes.
A Brief Background
The Mark of Pharasma is the source of our character's Immortality. Pharasma also known as the "Lady of Graves" is the true-neutral god of death, fate, prophecy, and rebirth.
Our characters have somehow been marked by Pharasma causing us to return to life after we die.
I'm sure I'm not alone in saying this raises more questions than it answers though. Why would a true-neutral who has the job of shepherding the deceased to the afterlife grant a group of individuals of all alignments and faiths a mark of immortality. Especially when some of them will be necromancers and Pharasma abhors the undead?
Giving possible answers to some of these questions that haven't already received developer answers as a community may be a fun exercise.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Verbs like "attack" and "hate on" imply that the criticism isn't being handled politely and intelligently.
It generally isn't.
Andius, no, I still don't think that introducing werewolves and vampires and hunters as player characters is a good idea.
And I frankly don't care. I think we both know the reason you keep coming back to that thread is because you care less about the idea and more about fighting with me. I would hope that if the group you belong to really cares about a positive community they'd ask you to stop trolling.
While I'm not really in support of a pregnancy mechanic I would rather see the few supporters and those willing to give constructive critisizm work on building the basis for the best pregnancy mechanic possible than watch a bunch of people attack it.
Who know's maybe by the time they have crowdforged it enough to post it as a suggestion, it might be something I can actually back. If it's still a crap idea I trust I can hate on it, and GoblinWorks can see it's lack of merit, once it's posed as an actual suggestion.
The issue is that most every thread about an idea gets filled with more posts saying "This would take too much work to implement." "I don't like this idea." "This doesn't belong in this game." Etc.
A. The developers have a much better concept of what will and won't be too much work than the players. They also have a better idea what does and does not belong in the Pathfinder format.
If your comment on an idea is not in some way constructive/informative then it's better to leave it out. Half of the point of this is to force people who just can't resist hating on an idea to think about why they really hate it and what elements of it they would like to see tweaked/changed/dropped before they reply.
It's intentionally meant to exclude people who have entirely closed their mind to the idea and encourage constructive critisizm.
How to Make a Crowdforging Thread
1. Title your thread like this:
Crowdforging Thread: Idea Name
2. Post this at the top of your thread.
Crowdforger Headline wrote:
Examples of Good Posts
Suggested Addition to An Idea wrote:
I would really like to see this weapon have some kind of a bleed attack.
Suggested Tweak to An Idea wrote:
I like the idea of making it add a damage over time effect, but don't you think poison fits a bit better than bleed?
Suggested Change to An Idea wrote:
If we add a bleed or poison effect we should probably make it count as an exotic weapon rather than martial.
Suggestion to Drop Part of The Idea wrote:
That would be pretty overpowered if this weapon can do both blunt and slashing damage. Perhaps we should drop it's ability to do blunt damage?
Comment Highlighting A Part of The Idea Other's May Not Have Thought of Yet wrote:
I don't think that's overpowered at all. Have you noticed how slow the attack speed of this weapon is?
Examples of a Bad Posts
I Don't Like This Idea wrote:
These weapons suck. I don't want them in this game.
Just find another topic to post in if you feel the need to bash the original idea. Don't bump an idea you obviously don't agree with. There is a grey symbol next to it in the topic list that will allow you to hide it from your view.
As previously stated suggesting changes, tweaks, or that they drop parts of the idea is fine. This purely applies to if you disagree with the entire premise of the idea and don't want to see it implemented in any form.
I Do Like this Idea wrote:
I love these weapons! They should implement it!
While positive reinforcement is nice you can say all this by just favorite the idea you like. As previously stated though, feel free to highlight parts of the idea you like if you feel bringing those aspects of the idea to people's attention is productive.
Company recruitment wrote:
Our company would love to recruit players wielding this weapons! Join us here.
Commentary on a Company wrote:
Your company sucks! Nobody would join you!
Crowdforging threads are threads where the original poster posts an idea intended to be run through the community for constructive feedback in order to help them improve that idea. These threads use non-official rules we ask the members of the community to respect in order to eliminate non-constructive posts and allow us to focus solely on the idea's being proposed.
What to Post in a Crowdforging Thread
1. Suggested additions to the idea.
What Not to Post in a Crowdforging Thread
1. That you like/do not like the idea.
Looks choppy enough that it makes me feel a bit better about missing out. CBDunkerson looked a bit more like CBDrunkerson the way he was running into walls.
Was glad to see the main abilities are mapped to 12 buttons though.
*Looks at the 12 buttons on the side of his razor naga*
Yes that will work nicely.
We won't be able to tell until we get in game but I'm guessing Pax. Pax has a strong balance of numbers, experience, and mentality.
While TEO may have more players and UNC may have a higher percentage of experienced PvPers I think it's the balance of those two factors that will put Pax on top in terms of the power to take and hold territory.
It had the power to control the military might of the European nations. If those nations had any point decided they all wanted to ignore the Vatican it would have lost most it's power and if they decided turn on it, it would have been in a world of hurt.
The idea of a smaller group controlling multiple larger military powers through getting them to sign on board to their ideals is 100% viable in PFO by the way.
The reason military strength is not the determining factor of who rules the world right now is because the groups with all the military strength controlling the world say so.
There is still a lot of violence in some regions of the world but having certain groups with the power to blow the earth up nine times over if they so choose makes everyone seem to get along better.
Back when matters where decided with bows and swords things were a bit more bloody.
The way I've heard that phrase is:
"Dude wouldn't it be cool if...?" = Everyone does that thing.
In terms of customizing wildshape appearances and animal companions I would would hope everyone would.
I don't see the downside to that happening. I imagine people's wildshape/companion appearances will end up as varied as those of their characters and I think that's a good thing.
One thing I always hate is when I create a druid or ranger or whatever and take my wolf form, or bring out my pet wolf, or summon my raven or whatever have you and I hate the way it looks. Not only do I hate the way it looks but it has the same appearance as everyone else running around with the same pet/wildshape ability.
I like to spend a considerable amount of time in animal form. If I've got some kind of animal I have it out pretty much constantly. These are major parts of your character that you are constantly using and constantly seeing.
It doesn't make sense to spend a great amount of time allowing players to customize their armor and regular appearance and then have them running around in the same wildshape form as every other druid or using the same pet as every other druid.
So from the bottom of my heart, please let us customize our wildshape forms and companions.
*If we have to tame our companions just having a nice visual variety to the tamable NPCs works.*
The Sentinel's policy on whether of not we'll target Alpha towers depends 100% on our relation with the group who owns the towers and how much we're getting paid.
Our general opinion is if a group can't hold it's own alpha towers it doesn't deserve them. Why should we coddle our opponents when the post OE groups will not? We're just wasting the advantage of those towers on groups who clearly can't survive anyway.
I think gear will only be important if they can find that happy place with resources. I find it hard to believe that large companies and alliances won't have some kind of stock pile, making replacing equipment just an inconvenience and not so much a severe consequence.
And then when they go into battle against another large company or alliance they will both be depleting their reserves fielding the large armies they need to fight eachother. The alliance that performs better will deplete theirs more slowly. If the war drags out they'll start targeting the people who are gathering the resources to replenish that gear.
Resource loss from battles is great. It turns war from a purely military conflict to an economic conflict as well. PvE/Crafting oriented players should be celebrating that fact because it provides a meaningful place for you.
Want to make PvP really meaningful? Simple--no respawn. If your character dies, you roll up a new one. Level 1. Then we'll see who wants to live by the sword and who decides to give diplomacy and civility a second thought. Consequence-free PvP is boring.
We can name it "Zerg of Disposable Characters Online" given that one maxed vet is supposed to be worth about four newbs.
If their opinion is that experience in previous Open World PvP MMO's doesn't matter it's quite simply wrong because it's less an opinion and more denial of a fact.
It's a fact for me, you, and everyone.
What to Expect as a Player
While people can attack you anywhere for any reason consequences have been set up so that if they do so outside certain conditions it's really going to hurt their character's power, eventually rendering the game nearly unplayable for them.
What to Expect as a Settlement
You should be worried about having robust leaders. You need people with experience in large MMO guilds to be a part of your leadership structure. If you don't have any, recruit them.
You're going to get your asses kicked. Your stuff is going to get torn down. People are going to say mean things about you. Even some of your characters may become unplayable.
We want a game people care enough about winning to engage in robust espionage and sabotage. That's a sign we're succeeding, not failing.
Settlement warfare is going to be nasty vicious business, not for the feint of heart. If you want to be successful at it you need to have an extremely competitive attitude and be ready to fight your territory. There will be 33 settlements at the start and over 6000 players. Competition will be hot.
There are feud and war mechanics. If people pay the cost to feud or war dec you they can kill you as much as they want without consequence. They can come and burn down your settlements, and points of interest, and outposts. Don't claim territory unless you are ready to fight, and fight hard for it.
So What Does This Mean?
Yes you can play this game without being a hardened killer or even someone who desires much PvP.
If you join this game, join a settlement with low expectations and few enemies you can go out gathering, adventuring, etc. and not expect to get killed nearly as often as you would in comparable titles.
If you claim territory you can expect to need to see to it's defense, and you can expect that to be a difficult task. You can expect to need experienced/competitive minded players to succeed in that task.
If you want PvP you can focus on the territorial control aspect of the game. It's going to offer a lot of content and opportunity for great fights.
This game offers a lot of content to both ranges of the spectrum. Make sure you've chosen the role catered to where you want to be on that spectrum.
Not sure because I never played it.
Darkfall and Mortal were overly grindy with clunky combat systems that don't favor Alaskan pings. EVE and Wurm were amazing except the combat just felt lame/uninspired and Wurm was super grindy. Freelancer was perfect but after 5 years with no updates or expansions it just started feeling old, and the mods just weren't enough to change that.
Proxima Sin of Brighthaven wrote:
What an interesting interpretation of this:
My point is there is plenty of room to go out exploring, questing, harvesting, running escalations etc. and unless you have groups hunting you whom with you are actively at war your threat of PvP will be light to moderate.
I feel no desire to put small groups at ease about the defensibility of their settlements. Fact is unless they start doing things like recruiting more players, training to fight, and making allies they will lose their settlement in the long run. Pretending like they are safe will lead to complacency and more "GW broke their promises!" when they eventually lose their holdings.
They need to be a bit afraid so that they do something about it.
I'm not trying to run people off, I'm trying to paint something other than TEO/TSV's sunshine and rainbow picture that's going to leave everyone feeling betrayed when they realize it's not true. I want people to be prepared to fight back instead of imagining the fight will never come. We both want the same thing but I'm afflicted by this thing called realism.
Saiph the Fallen wrote:
Not sure on how reading Nihimon's post would lead you to reply in this way.
He's rehashing a debate that happened months ago where he and I were debating against allowing consequence free (or consequences too light to be meaningful) slaughter. It's a done issue. We won that debate and the post I was replying to was the first time I've seen it brought up in months.
To pretend like any notable portion of PvPers are still advocating a murder simulator is disingenuous. We are for the most part quite happy with the war simulator we've been given.
The easiest / most reliable way would be an overlay for the map that players can turn on to see which towers are currently vulnerable and how long until the non-vulnerable towers go vulnerable.
That would save people constantly asking questions in global (and alerting everyone to their movements by doing so).
People won't always (or even frequently) group by level. Chances are that outside a newb zone there won't be a group of level 15 traders, a group of level 10 traders, and a group of level 5 traders but a bunch of groups of level 1-20 traders.
As far as not getting PvPers to target low level PvEers the solution is like you suggested with the star metal, make targeting the higher level ones sufficiently more rewarding. I'd much rather kill an enemy carrying star metal than inferior copper ore.
The random slaughter issue is one which has long since been resolved. Most of the people wanting PvP now days are talking about wars, feuds, and outpost raids. That is the system working as intended and far from a simplistic murder simulator. Some of your and Forencith's posts almost make it seem to me like you believe if a group drops a feud or war dec on you and pursues a very aggressive/bloodthirsty (but not at all random) war through the proper channels that they are going to bet banned for greifing.
I would be beyond shocked if that was the case.