I'm also offended by the phrases "Loss in a game" and "Loss of money", can we not use those terms? Also, I find the word "unacceptable" to be unacceptable. Thank You.
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm also offended by the phrases "Loss in a game" and "Loss of money", can we not use those terms? Also, I find the word "unacceptable" to be unacceptable. Thank You.
Qallz,
I can respect the fact that some people do not like the frivolous use of the word, especially if there are replacements that could convey the same meaning.
The post that was deleted was actually based on a false premise anyway. If the poster felt that the MVP does not warrant a subscription, then he or she is not being forced to participate in EE.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also offended by the phrases "Loss in a game" and "Loss of money", can we not use those terms? Also, I find the word "unacceptable" to be unacceptable. Thank You.
If you don't like the rules of our house, you're welcome to go elsewhere. However, by posting on this forum, you are agreeing to follow the rules, and your ability to continue using our services is conditional upon doing so. If you have questions or concerns about moderation policies and decisions, please take them to the website feedback forum, or email webmaster@paizo.com. This thread is not the appropriate place for the discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also offended by the phrases "Loss in a game" and "Loss of money", can we not use those terms? Also, I find the word "unacceptable" to be unacceptable. Thank You.
How about stop being so juvenile, Qallz?
Making light of such things is just silly, and trying to get Pazio to introduce 'house rules' about terms like loss and unacceptable when Jessica used them to iterate the terms of use for this site borders on what people term as a toxic community. EVE will be much more forgiving of such behavior if it is something you must do.
Sorry to derail your thread even more, Bludd.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Back on subject: Since it's coming up elsewhere now, does the UNC stand by it's previous assertion that any group which refused on ideological grounds to pay tribute would be considered hostile to UNC in all cases?
If a merchant (grey / neutral in UNC standing) refuses a SAD on any grounds, he or she will be subject to attack if we choose to do so.
No group is held fully accountable for the decisions of one individual member. So if Nihimon refuses, that has no bearing on if Lhan is encountered later.
To reaffirm my previous position, if I offer someone a 1 copper piece SAD, and they refuse it, I would kill them if their risk vs. reward favors me. If they then continue to hold that stance, I would know that offering them a SAD is futile. I would not give up the advantage of ambush in future encounters. That is not me setting them to "red", that is that individual setting himself to "red".
Are you saying that as a policy The 7th Veil will not accept SAD offers?
Are you also saying that The 7th Veil wants all of its members treated the same, or are they allowed to hold their own policies?
I'm also offended by the phrases "Loss in a game" and "Loss of money", can we not use those terms? Also, I find the word "unacceptable" to be unacceptable. Thank You.How about stop being so juvenile, Qallz?
Making light of such things is just silly, and trying to get Pazio to introduce 'house rules' about terms like loss and unacceptable when Jessica used them to iterate the terms of use for this site borders on what people term as a toxic community. EVE will be much more forgiving of such behavior if it is something you must do.
Sorry to derail your thread even more, Bludd.
Well said, Jiminy, very well said.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Back on subject: Since it's coming up elsewhere now, does the UNC stand by it's previous assertion that any group which refused on ideological grounds to pay tribute would be considered hostile to UNC in all cases?If a merchant (grey / neutral in UNC standing) refuses a SAD on any grounds, he or she will be subject to attack if we choose to do so.
No group is held fully accountable for the decisions of one individual member. So if Nihimon refuses, that has no bearing on if Lhan is encountered later.
To reaffirm my previous position, if I offer someone a 1 copper piece SAD, and they refuse it, I would kill them if their risk vs. reward favors me. If they then continue to hold that stance, I would know that offering them a SAD is futile. I would not give up the advantage of ambush in future encounters. That is not me setting them to "red", that is that individual setting himself to "red".
Are you saying that as a policy The 7th Veil will not accept SAD offers?
Are you also saying that The 7th Veil wants all of its members treated the same, or are they allowed to hold their own policies?
I'm very unambiguous when I make policy statements. I was just mentioning that you had previously made statements on the subject, and that it would be inappropriate to let the discussion fester on the subject of the moderation polices.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm very unambiguous when I make policy statements. I was just mentioning that you had previously made statements on the subject, and that it would be inappropriate to let the discussion fester on the subject of the moderation polices.
We are as well, but we recognize that policies do change over time because conditions change over time.
Just look at how the concept of PFO has changed so radically in the past few months. Yes, I'm sure some in your camp will deny that it has, but that wouldn't be accurate in the view of the majority of forum goers.
It took GW over 6 months to definitively state that at PFO's core in PVP. Ryan has rejected the notion that there is "sanctioned" and "unsanctioned" PVP, particularly "unsanctioned" PVP because some (like Nihimon) wanted to equate unsanctioned pvp or any action that costs reputation as toxic game play.
There was also the misconception that the alignment / reputation system was put in place to "defend the new player". This belief was held by Andius, and also rejected by Ryan.
I also held the idea that the reputation system was a gauge of how we play within the rules of the game, and that too was rejected by Ryan.
Ryan than went on to say that there is a chance that the alignment / reputation system does not see implementation until late EE or even until OE rollout.
All that being said, if your policies are not as fluid as the changing conditions, you may find yourself caught flat footed.
The only iron clad policy that the UNC have is this one:
We will rob those that we do not know (grey) or do not like (red)if they present a favorable risk vs. reward profile.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very unambiguous when I make policy statements. I was just mentioning that you had previously made statements on the subject, and that it would be inappropriate to let the discussion fester on the subject of the moderation polices.We are as well, but we recognize that policies do change over time because conditions change over time.
Just look at how the concept of PFO has changed so radically in the past few months. Yes, I'm sure some in your camp will deny that it has, but that wouldn't be accurate in the view of the majority of forum goers.
It took GW over 6 months to definitively state that at PFO's core in PVP. Ryan has rejected the notion that there is "sanctioned" and "unsanctioned" PVP, particularly "unsanctioned" PVP because some (like Nihimon) wanted to equate unsanctioned pvp or any action that costs reputation as toxic game play.
There was also the misconception that the alignment / reputation system was put in place to "defend the new player". This belief was held by Andius, and also rejected by Ryan.
I also held the idea that the reputation system was a gauge of how we play within the rules of the game, and that too was rejected by Ryan.
Ryan than went on to say that there is a chance that the alignment / reputation system does not see implementation until late EE or even until OE rollout.
All that being said, if your policies are not as fluid as the changing conditions, you may find yourself caught flat footed.
The only iron clad policy that the UNC have is this one:
We will rob those that we do not know (grey) or do not like (red)if they present a favorable risk vs. reward profile.
Thanks for answering the question that I asked.
Do you really believe that PFO has changed significantly as our shared (and often not-shared) understanding of what it will be has changed? I think that the actual design changes have been minimal, and that it is the models of PFO that exists only in our minds which have changed; because those models are influenced both by things outside of us (developer statements, other information) and things inside of us (intended playstyle, previous experience), those understandings are both imperfect (not reflecting all possible information) and variable (not the same as each other).
TLDR; PFO hasn't changed, even though what we think has changed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the game's direction hasn't changed, its messaging certainly has. Speaking of changes.... Change of topic: UNC and Role Playing
Whenever I have run a guild, as the sole leader or as part of a council, I have also tried to create an RP theme for my / our guilds.
The UnNamed Company has a few major elements of its RP Theme: The River Freedoms; Norse / Viking culture (Linnorm Kingdoms in PFRPG); and the variants of the Chaotic alignments (mostly CN, some CE, few LE, fewer CG).
These three elements combine well within the Raider Culture of the Linnorm Kingdoms. This will manifest itself in a change of intentions on my part, and the UNC will likely be a bit more violent then I originally envisioned. This will result in more raids / ambushes and killing than SADS.
We are therefore using this Role Playing Theme as justification of all of our actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think you really need justification, Bludd. An RP background and ideology of the UNC certainly doesn't go astray, but no organized groups really need any justification.
I'm trying to read up more about Golarion, and the Linnorm Kingdoms does sound pretty awesome and will work well as the UNC background in my opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think you really need justification, Bludd. An RP background and ideology of the UNC certainly doesn't go astray, but no organized groups really need any justification.
I'm trying to read up more about Golarion, and the Linnorm Kingdoms does sound pretty awesome and will work well as the UNC background in my opinion.
Wasn't meant as an overall justification, but a role playing justification. We (UNC) are starting to bring all three pillars (PvP, PvE and RP) together.
But I'm glad you can appreciate the conne toons we are trying to make. As for reading up I the Linnorm Kingdoms, you can google them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hadn't heard you say anything about PvE and the UNC before. Are you thinking of involving your company in that sphere of play?
BTW, I like that you're tying the organization to the game-world. Really adds a nice feel to the MMO when people make the effort instead of going out of their way to break immersion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hadn't heard you say anything about PvE and the UNC before. Are you thinking of involving your company in that sphere of play?
BTW, I like that you're tying the organization to the game-world. Really adds a nice feel to the MMO when people make the effort instead of going out of their way to break immersion.
We see the potential in being involved in escalations for three purposes. First, to mitigate or even end an escalation in defense of our settlement. Second, it will be a good source of income, reputation and influence. Finally, there was some suggestion that the boss mob of an escalation will drop an item that can be used to advance an escalation. If that us the case that item can be used as a weapon against a rival.
PVE was always a part of our plans, it is just an aspect of the game that needs less defending than PvP. It will also be so limited that it is less of an activity for us.
As for RP, I have always been a thematic RPer and a bit if a lore junkie as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for the explanation; you're always advertising as a PvP group, so I was curious exactly how much you meant by including PvE there. Escalations do indeed seem like a good place for PvPers to join in helping the PvErs, for the same reason they might help you out: an out of control escalation might cripple a settlement enough for it to be destroyed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that the reason we do not talk about PVE is the fact it seems implied as part of gaming.
We PVE to make money to PVP. The only reason to not PVE as a PVPer is because the PVPer either has a passive income or has mass wealth. Its not often that you make money PVPing, although I will say that PFO looks to make PVP more profitable then other games.
It wasnt often in Eve that PVP made me money. Usually when I went out on a roam, I would fly till I died... sometimes dropping loot off at stations if it was possible. The times I made money was off someone hauling high end loot and not paying enough attention, or off of highly equipped PVE'ers who thought they were safe in 0.0 or low sec.
Great thing about PFO:
SAD's
No Massive Safe Zones
Smug Non-PVPers
Those 3 things will make me money.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Great thing about PFO:
SAD's
No Massive Safe Zones
Smug and delusional Non-PVPersThose 3 things will make me money.
I would add to this list:
Raiding of Outposts and Caravans
Hiring ourselves out as hired protection with Alts, and then raiding those same settlements later with our mains ( Both Sheepdog and Wolf or Jackal).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I want to thank Andius for contributing to our lexicon the metaphor of Sheep, and Sheepdogs. Ryan Dancey for giving us "Wolves". I am adding "Jackals" to represent 3rd parties or opportunists who take advantage of a weakened opponent.
Sheep = Non Combatants
Sheepdogs = Guardians of sheep and ward off Wolves
Wolves = Prey on Sheep and challenge Sheepdogs
Jackals = take advantage of the Sheep, when the Sheepdogs have chased after the Wolves or have been weakened by the wolves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Great thing about PFO:
SAD's
No Massive Safe Zones
Smug and delusional Non-PVPersThose 3 things will make me money.
I would add to this list:
Raiding of Outposts and Caravans
Hiring ourselves out as hired protection with Alts, and then raiding those same settlements later with our mains ( Both Sheepdog and Wolf or Jackal).
Good additives, I should have thought of raiding and mercenary work... woops lol, way too early of a morning.
All thats on my mind right now is JMP LBL and LBL with S ON and CHK PRT... LOL Robot Language
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Xeen and others... For the time being, we will be focusing on the Role Playing aspects of UNC.
Look up the guide (google it) on the Linnorm Kingdoms, and begin to think of ways that we can integrate Ulfen culture into our company.
I am also in contact with a Norse themed guild in another game, have already joined them, and working on bringing their membership over into UNC.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always enjoyed playing in Norse themed settings/games.
But I should mention, Vikings were not only about raiding/banditry.
They were great explorers, traders, and craftsmen.
They beat Columbus to America, had trade routes setup all the way to the Middle East and Central Asia, and forged the greatest sword in Europe {The Ulfberht} which was unrivaled for about a 900 years.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But I should mention, Vikings were not only about raiding/banditry.
That is true, and it did not escape me. But, the UnNamed Company is mostly about raiding and banditry:
The people of Broken Bay hearken back to a simpler time
in Ulfen history, when plundering the southern lands
constituted a sort of regional pastime and trading was
restricted to well-defended ports. These folk see the other
inhabitants of the Linnorm Kingdoms—particularly
those of landlocked Hagreach—as varying degrees of
cowards or traitors to their ancestors.While the raiders of Broken Bay still focus their assaults on Cheliax,
Varisia, Nidal, and other southern nations, they are
increasingly turning their attention to other Linnorm
Kingdoms as these views of regional cowardice grow. The
shipyards of Bildt have been turning out more longboats
and fewer fishing boats, and the hearths of the city
overf low with tough young warriors eager to make names
for themselves. Raiding is more fun than fishing for a
warrior, but there have to be targets to attack. Finding
a way to make a consistent living off of the unwary and
undefended of western Avistan is the challenge of the
age—a challenge Ingimundr must overcome if he wishes
to keep his crown.Ingimundr himself is a hard man and a brash one.
But beneath his boasting lies a shrewd, calculating, and
manipulative leader, a fact exemplified by his handling of
the raiding issue. Ingimundr has done more than anyone
to increase Ulfen raiding, a feat he achieved by publicly
espousing a more warlike and traditional lifestyle, without
explicitly encouraging violence and theft. This approach
keeps him from being held to account by other, more
conservative Linnorm Kings. At the same time, he privately
encourages raids and officially ignores the provenance
of the goods and gold that enter the port. As a result
of these policies, he’s seen Bildt’s fame rise as plunder
surreptitiously f lows into the port and into his coffers.
Ingimundr sees a return to the old ways not only as an
end in itself, but also as a means to greater power and glory
for himself. Broken Bay is the natural home of the true
Ulfen raider—if raiding becomes more important, his
region does as well, and with that increased importance
will come increased clout among the Linnorm Kings.
Even if “unsanctioned and unfortunate” raids on fellow
Linnorm Kingdoms do little beyond encouraging those
kingdoms to return to their roots and seek revenge,
Ingimundr would call it a victory.
There are some real nuggets in there that we plan to incorporate into UNC policy, even if kept privately, that we believe could become a reality in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a policy of the UNC, our motto is an oath to seal any deal or the rationale to break off relations.
Sworn "On Coin, Blade, and Pain of Blood".
As primarily mercenaries, raiders and bandits our motivation is driven mostly by greed or lust for coin.
The blade represents the threat, our resolve, and out willingness to fight.
Pain of blood, is the caution and the promise, that we will kill or die for the coins that we seek or the contracts that we have accepted.
This motto will be accompanied in-game with the transfer of a bloodied dagger and a single coin to accept or decline any relationship or deal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So. Are you Erik "the Red" or "Lucky" Leif? Or maybe Tilsted "the Grey"?
Actually I have a name picked out already, I'm just not revealing it yet. I'm going to leave it up to the forum goers here to wonder for a while during EE. The somewhat bright enough will figure it out soon enough after EE. The brilliant would guess at it now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh god he knows too much
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Cirrole guessed that language, but not the name.
Language = Danish
Name is not going to be "The Red Wolf" or in direct translation "Wolf the Red"
Next hint: European names tend to be based on professions or activities that one does.
What profession is Bluddwolf, or what does he do?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So. Are you Erik "the Red" or "Lucky" Leif? Or maybe Tilsted "the Grey"?Actually I have a name picked out already, I'm just not revealing it yet. I'm going to leave it up to the forum goers here to wonder for a while during EE. The somewhat bright enough will figure it out soon enough after EE. The brilliant would guess at it now.
Barry
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ragnar Danneskjold