Goblin Squad Member
|
That is a great policy for the UNC. It is possibly an important policy to think about for Ozem's Vigil.
Oh, but then LG wouldn't be the hardest and narrowest of roads, now would it?
Thank "Goodness" that we are extremely welcoming of LN and NG players and Companies. I wonder if they won't find plenty of interesting stuff to do if they are part of Ozem's Vigil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
otherwise known as NBSI.To add to Bluddwolf's point:
NBSI seems Lawful Evil.
Actually, I think NBSI is True Neutral. It is founded on the neutral concept of self interest / self preservation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is founded on the neutral concept of self interest / self preservation.
We will all have differences in opinion on that. Those concepts are not mutually exclusive to neutral. Evil and Good also have such motivations, if not more so.
I see neutral as not having a strong trigger motivator to either side of the spectrum.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with this. I think SAD is one of the best concepts about PFO, even though I will never use it myself. Encounter it? Yeah I have a feeling that will happen. ;)
This is why the SAD mechanic is so important.You personally may not use it, but your settlement better be prepared to. If your settlement does not, your borders will be flooded by unaffiliated noobs ninja harvesting your resources.
The only other defense is to set your settlement's Trespasser flag to all but "Blue" targets, otherwise known as NBSI.
Unless we're able to set so that harvesting of resources by non-citizens is a crime, in which case all such harvesters would gain the criminal flag.
|
Unless we're able to set so that harvesting of resources by non-citizens is a crime, in which case all such harvesters would gain the criminal flag.I agree with this. I think SAD is one of the best concepts about PFO, even though I will never use it myself. Encounter it? Yeah I have a feeling that will happen. ;)
This is why the SAD mechanic is so important.You personally may not use it, but your settlement better be prepared to. If your settlement does not, your borders will be flooded by unaffiliated noobs ninja harvesting your resources.
The only other defense is to set your settlement's Trespasser flag to all but "Blue" targets, otherwise known as NBSI.
Tag the resources before collect them? Sounds a bit strange to me...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe he was referring to Andius's post in a another thread, saying he could harvest with impunity--using a newbie alt affiliated to an NPC starter Company--in territory considered the "property" of another, as he'd be immune to wars and feuds by virtue of being aligned to an NPC Company.That is likely true, unless an NPC settlement can be feuded or made a war target. In the absense of thar scenario you only have three choices:
1. Ignore
2. SAD
3. Kill for Rep LossThis is why the SAD mechanic is so important. Several months ago I raided the issue of "What if a merchant opts out?" This harvester scenario is identical.
If harvesting or caravaning requires few and low tier level skills, a merchant based company would be smart to use unaffiliated noobs to do their hauling or harvesting for them. These noobs would have the exceptional "armor class" provided by a harsh reputation system.
There are several ways to avoid this through the skill / feat / crafting and or faction systems.
By gatibg access to certain resources through skill or gear tiers and or faction rank, you partially remove the specter of the unaffiliated, naked noob. The SAD is a meaningful player interaction that elevates the situation as well.
If it's actual "property", meaning something falling within territory that you had jurrisdiction (and therefore could set laws upon)...I'd assume there would be some way to set a "tresspass" flag or make harvesting of resources by a group that didn't have permission to do so an "illegal" act. I think acting against someone with a "criminal" flag in your own territory doesn't incurr a reputation hit.
If that's not the case, then the game mechanics have some serious holes in them.
There are ways that such things could be handled within the context of a reputation system if GW wanted to impliment them. A system granular enough to set permissions for individuals or that simulated such effect would do it.
Conversely, a settlement could set a NRDS for entry into it's territory but set a Blue only policy for taking certain actions (such as harvesting resources) within that territory. That could also concievably handle such a situation.
SAD would also seem to handle it, although doesn't SAD have an immunity period that would allow the harvester free reign to continue harvesting with impunity after the initial SAD was issued?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, I think NBSI is True Neutral. It is founded on the neutral concept of self interest / self preservation.otherwise known as NBSI.To add to Bluddwolf's point:
NBSI seems Lawful Evil.
I'm not sure one could reliably map NBSI or NRDS to alignments.
You could have a NBSI because you are trying to preserve your resources (Neutral) or you could have it because you just like killing and want to kill anyone that comes into your territory for the sport of it (CE).
You could have a NRDS because it fosters trade and establishment of markets better and that's how you think you are going to get rich (Neutral) or because declaring open hostility towards newcomers eliminates the possability of corrupting and seducing them to the path of Evil (NE).
It's part of my nit, which I'm sure you are aware of, why representation of alignments in any sort of mechanical way is so problematic is such games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Tag the resources before collect them? Sounds a bit strange to me...Unless we're able to set so that harvesting of resources by non-citizens is a crime, in which case all such harvesters would gain the criminal flag.I agree with this. I think SAD is one of the best concepts about PFO, even though I will never use it myself. Encounter it? Yeah I have a feeling that will happen. ;)
This is why the SAD mechanic is so important.You personally may not use it, but your settlement better be prepared to. If your settlement does not, your borders will be flooded by unaffiliated noobs ninja harvesting your resources.
The only other defense is to set your settlement's Trespasser flag to all but "Blue" targets, otherwise known as NBSI.
Not really that strange, you are tagging the node (or land) from which the resources came. It's very common in real world situations. I own land, I can grant you the mining or lumber rights to such property, that doesn't give you any other rights. Conversely I can rent the property to you to live on or simply grant you free access to it but retain or mining and lumber rights for myself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pure self interest is not neutral. Pure self interest is evil. Self interest harnessed by benevolence is neutral.Disagree.
Pure self interest is a neutral behavior. Could be good/evil by the ways you use to those express those self interest.
I view it like this. Self interest is neutral. Harming others for self interest is evil. Putting others ahead of your own self interest is good.
A great example is this case.
The murderer was evil.
The bystanders were neutral.
If some had stepped in to help her they would have been good.
The fact 37 people would stand by, watch someone get stabbed to death and do nothing, but most of those people probably pay their taxes is why I say we live in a lawful-neutral society.
But since I suppose that going IRL in the house of an enemy player and taking his family hostage in order to force him to assassinate Hobs at the next Paizocon is in violation with the EULA, we don't really have a choice.Not to worry...I don't go to gaming conventions. :)
*Gets on Walkie-Talkie*
Cancel Operation Hobbyhorse.
If I'm sitting in one of your sky metal hex, with a unaffiliated alt, without any flag, screaming "I'M JACOB AND I'M GATHERING THESE RESOURCES JUST TO PISS YOU OFF", what would you do ?
I pictured it being yelled in my "British Hillbilly" accent. Teehee.
The message sent, we killed you because we enjoy killing those weaker than ourselves and especially those that think they can taint us.
Not sure if typo.
Not Blue, Shoot It (If you aren't allied with us, you die)
Not Red, Don't Shoot (If you aren't specifically an enemy, you are safe)
Thanks, Gol. I was a bit lost there.
UNC Policy Question: Will the UNC generally discourage its members from being rude (out-of-character) to their targets?
For instance, the idea of a bandit taking his merchant target out for a drink afterwards has been raised as a humorous example of the bandits being fine folk OOC.
However, what if the merchant congratulates the bandit on a well-earned victory, and the bandit says, "shutup you gaytard lol"?
Or what if a member of the UNC was making bigoted remarks, or verbally bullying players, or tricking newbies into attacking him and getting killed by guards?
I expect that sort of behavior would be heavily discouraged at the organizations often regarded by certain posters as "naive". The UNC often seems to show a fairly cynical approach to MMO communities, though, so how would the UNC handle obnoxious members?
Please keep in mind I do not have an agenda and am not out to ask "loaded" questions. This is a point of curiosity I felt suited this thread best.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My personal policy is I avoid using global or local chat. After many years of experience with MMOs I have formed the opinion that vey little of use comes from chatting on them.
In EvE Online it was usually corporate policy to not talk in local chat, not ever. It is not only a security risk to yourself, but there is also little to be gained from chatting there.
Now as to your specific questions. I suggest to UNC members not to converse with others, especially if your intent is to mock or ridicule them. If your victim starts whining that you'd defeated them, even calls you names, just ignore them. You already kicked their butt(s), they know it, you know it, and no one else really matters. Just move on, you will also achieve the maturity high ground, and defeat them again!
If on the other hand they ask in local what they could have done better, or they praise you for your victory. Take that opportunity to acknowledge that they fought well, and maybe give them a tip or two. Being gracious in both victory and in defeat is something that I like to practice.
On the issue of language, I honestly don't give a f$&k! I'm a libertarian when it comes to language use. If you are that offended by something that a member of the UNC says, report it. Will the UNC do something about it internally, my answer to that is "No"!
The first of six River Freedoms: Say What You Will, I Live Free
When I am in one of my schools, I hear vulgar language, racial slurs, ethnic slurs, gender slurs, orientation slurs, hundreds if not thousands of times per day. That is not from just the students, it is from their parents as well.
I am numb to it, I couldn't care less about it and I refuse to try to correct it. The only thing I can do is make sure they (students, parents or colleagues) never hear it coming from my mouth.
Okay, thanks for the response.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to add to Bludd's post, it is out intent at UNC as a whole (And most likely all companies attached to Aragon) to be decent Players, even if we are playing "Bad guys" IC. While I agree with Bludd in that I don't care about language and slurs and what not, though I don't think it is something that should be used constantly, or in derogatory means. I am not bothered by the use of the F-bomb, S-bomb, and such. I was in the military after all and it is fairly common place there.
While it is used as a humorous example, I really might take someone out for In Game drinks and BS a bit after I robbed them and/or killed them. If they are a good sport about it and I don't have a contract to kill someone else at that moment, then why not. Loser buys right? :-)
It has been our goal from day 1 for the UNC to have a standard of conduct OOC, while being the bad guys IC. This is not only in actions, such as those commonly agreed upon to be "griefing", but also in our chat and VOIP use. This doesn't mean we require all of our members to be nice to one another, or other players we encounter, but to be civil and decent to them. There is no need to verbal abuse or harass anyone at any time. That would be counter productive to our goal and playstyle anyway. Just like robbing and killing people to the point that they leave PFO would lower the amount of targets we have, doing the same thing verbally would accomplish the same thing and has the same effect.
I would definitely talk with anyone that has had a "report" or complaint raised against, though any action taken would vary case to case. Most of the time, it will be something along the lines of "watch what you say, or just don't talk to people OOC." We can be bad guys and provide a role and content for others IC in PFO without being jerks and a$$hole players OOC.
Thanks, Goodfellow. I find that very reassuring.
To clarify, my question did not regard trash talk. I love to trash talk in games, actually. It makes it more satisfying (and comedic) when people manage to beat me. :)
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
In accordance with UNC defacto policy, bringing this here:
If you want to continue discussing that, do it in PMs or in a thread appropriate for it.I also don't think it is productive to discuss whether or not a commitment to positive gameplay requires more than following the rules. Nobody is likely to seriously consider different opinions on that subject.I still insist that a commitment to positive gameplay involves much more than refraining from breaking the rules.I will give you the benefit of having changed your mind on the subject.Is there a thread more appropriate for this? You are also free to PM me and explain how the two quotes I posted reconcile with each other. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had changed your position.
If that is not the case, this is the place to have that discussion. TSV is a signatory of the accord, and you are a Steward of the Seventh Veil. Every other signatory has the right to know how what they have signed is being interpreted.
I will keep this civil, but I will not take this discussion into the shadows. The UNC has made it a defacto policy to discuss public issues out in public view.
I also don't think it is productive to discuss whether or not a commitment to positive gameplay requires more than following the rules. Nobody is likely to seriously consider different opinions on that subject.
I still insist that a commitment to positive gameplay involves much more than refraining from breaking the rules.
There is no conflict between those two statements. Nobody is likely to provide any new information to the discussion, so nobody is going to change their mind.
And failing to break the rules is still insufficient to demonstrate a commitment to positive gameplay, because supporting positive gameplay means taking positive action in support of a goal, not just abstaining from a subset of actions, most of which are contrary to that goal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And failing to break the rules is still insufficient to demonstrate a commitment to positive gameplay, because supporting positive gameplay means taking positive action in support of a goal, not just abstaining from a subset of actions, most of which are contrary to that goal.
Just for clarity: The ONLY way one can support positive gameplay is by actively doing something about positive gameplay? So if you're not ACTIVELY making the game better for others, then you're no longer supporting positive gameplay?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your position remains unproductive and argumentative towards the principles of the Roseblood Accord.
J
The principles of the accord are:
1. There is no central authority
2. There is no hard set definition of what constitutes positive game play.
3. The only requirement of a prospective signatory is that they pledge to adhere to positive game play, as GW will deem that to mean.
Now the UNC, myself in particular, has stated what our definition of " positive game play" is in our view, and that was widely accepted by many who read them. They did bit accept them as their own, but they did accept them as being adequate to include Tge UNC as a signatory.
I will add, that our definition does go beyond the basic "bare minimum, we will follow the rules." We have frequently stated that we will limit our own, permitted, game activities if banditry if we felt that we may be "over fishing the pond".
These two facts you have willfully ignored and instead have decided to lodge baseless agrumebts that we somehow are not dedicated to positive game play.
This is not a UNC issue, this is a TSV leadership issue and a Roseblood Accord membership issue. Your bringing this discussion here instead of in the Roseblood Accord thread will not work. You will not shield yourself from the spot light of the other signatories.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
because supporting positive gameplay means taking positive action in support of a goal, not just abstaining from a subset of actions, most of which are contrary to that goal.
I am curious of this point as well. If the RBA is talking about what steps we need to take towards a positive gameplay goal I have not been privy to that conversation.
I would not mind having that conversation, but it isn't happening in the KotC RBA forums.
Have I misinterpreted your statement or are there more permissions I and my ambassador need?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
because supporting positive gameplay means taking positive action in support of a goal, not just abstaining from a subset of actions, most of which are contrary to that goal.I am curious of this point as well. If the RBA is talking about what steps we need to take towards a positive gameplay goal I have not been privy to that conversation.
I would not mind having that conversation, but it isn't happening in the KotC RBA forums.
Have I misinterpreted your statement or are there more permissions I and my ambassador need?
You are correct Charlie, we were not privy to any meetings as well. If you could kindly repost this over on the Roseblood Accord thread, since this is not a UNC policy issue or at least not exclusively so.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Your position remains unproductive and argumentative towards the principles of the Roseblood Accord.
J
The principles of the accord are:1. There is no central authority
2. There is no hard set definition of what constitutes positive game play.
3. The only requirement of a prospective signatory is that they pledge to adhere to positive game play, as GW will deem that to mean.
While two and a half of those are true, they are not the central principles. There is no central authority, nor is there a definition of "positive gameplay" for reference. The requirement for membership is that one is committed to positive gameplay which stands by itself.
If Goblinworks policy were the definition of 'positive gameplay', it would be referenced instead of not defining the phrase.
I don't think that your description of "positive gameplay" was a description that a large fraction of people concurred with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
UNC as the bandit company provides positive gameplay by bringing fun/profit driven banditry into the game. They provide their membership with content and profit enhancing the game for their members. The provide merchants and other targets with an element of danger that adds thrill to trade and outpost ownership and a sense of accomplishment when they don't get robbed instead of leaving those activities dull and repetitive. They provide value to anti-banditry forces by giving them something to fight against.
This all adds up to mutual benefit.
Beyond that I know UNC has bandit training programs for newb bandits and The Sentinels will be providing new player protection and guidance.
We aren't just not breaking the rules we're creating content and initiating programs to increase PFO's player retention.
What more do we need to do to demonstrate positive gameplay?
I think the real issue here is you see UNC as a threat to TSV. I think the definition of positive gameplay you believe in but don't really want to state is "Playing in league with our organization and it's allies."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think that your description of "positive gameplay" was a description that a large fraction of people concurred with.
Just so we are clearly talking about the same thing, this is the official UNC definition:
"Positive Game Play" is a pledge as a player to play within the rules and mechanics of the game. It is a pledge to not unduly prey upon the new player, at the risk of spoiling their new found experience within the game. It is a pledge to not bring about frustration, just for the laughs. It is a pledge to make every attempt to have our interactions viewed as meaningful and hopefully entertaining for both friend and foe alike.
So far, you are the only person to reject this policy for not going far enough. You will likely muster only yourself and one or two other people that agree with you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can simply be stated like this, no matter the "definition" of positive game play and how each views and interprets that definition, we at the UNC, and Aragon as a whole, always have and always will pledge to provide a service to the community, in the form of "the bad guy", all the while doing so in a tasteful and meaningful manner. We realize that this will not always leave a happy impression on our victims, but it is our goal to provide meaningful and enjoyable confrontation. In doing this, it is our intent to increase the enjoyment of all parties we come across, as well as their sense of accomplishment when we are defeated or otherwise thwarted.
THIS is OUR definition of "Positive gameplay" as it will increase the enjoyment of playing PFO, and promote positive enjoyment of the game.
FYI, while worded a bit differently and maybe said in a new context or something, this is the exact thing us Aragonians have been saying at each and every mention of positive gameplay. It is our belief that it will work and be performed as intended. If it is not, then the leadership council of Aragon DEMANDS we hear about it so that actions, or persons, can be adjusted to realign this view and bring it to fruition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Caldeathe, the UNC has been the target of so much hostile posts that most of us are numb to it and just accept that people are scared of us. Since day 1, we announced our intent to take on the bad guy role and have caught flack for it since from "those guys." I doubt you will have to explain yourself in the same way. So no, you should be fine without a definition, you won't ever be asked.
It got to the point that people are reporting posts that "offend them" and that is fine. Go ahead and play that game. We will stick to what we will do. We said our peace. We try to defend ourselves and to explain our purpose and intent and I am done doing so. We got our message across. Read into it what you will, I am done with this. I am just going to ask that this thread be locked down and ended. The UNC no longer needs to explain ourselves.
You don't want us in your little boys club the RA, then fine we won't be in it. I am just tired of the stupid bickering and the, what I have deemed, intentional misreading and twisting of our words.
This thread won't be responded to by UNC anymore. Any other thread started or post in another thread asking or questioning UNC policy will be ignored by us. We are just done with this.
In EE, we will be there and will do as we have explained and stated countless times in countless threads.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry to see all this went this far, i for one look forward to seeing you and the UNC as a whole in game and thank you for your honesty in your posting so far.
Right, guys, UNC have abandoned this thread. I declare this the first of many conquests for the Directionless Coalition! I guess. I don't really care. I fixed my w key, but now my S key is broken.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right, guys, UNC have abandoned this thread. I declare this the first of many conquests for the Directionless Coalition! I guess. I don't really care. I fixed my w key, but now my S key is broken.
This thread is now officially about the status of KC's keyboard. Any questions not related to KC's keyboard should be asked in another thread.
Thank you.