Faction Map (Landrush 6 / 15)


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
This could still be a nice thread about an awesome map somebody made.

There is no question that the map is awesome. I think the question is toward the context or pretense in which it was made. People have worked very hard to put the RA together in the light that it is advertised and to have others suggest and continue incorrectly characterize it as something else because they are more familiar with that something else has generated passionate responses and in turn questions of intent.

I personally don't think the RA as intended needs defending. It is what it is as listed on paper. Others in the RA differ in that opinion with me. C'est la vie.

Goblin Squad Member

Dat wun bubhosh skribbul. Guurzak like.

Guurzak would like eben more if name colors wuz relativ size, like on da Goblin Wurks skribbul.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FMS Quietus wrote:

First I think you are taking this way too personal.

I don't think the Accord is 'bad.' I actually like and respect quite a few members in there. Yourself included. I do not see members of the Accord as independent and I listed my reasons why. There are numerous posts on this board where statements have been made about the Accord helping each other to recruit to secure locations. I'm not saying that's bad or wrong or needs to be stopped. It's smart actually. I'm merely answering why we call ourselves independent and Zac's post is highlighting the landscape as we see it with votes. If all of this is wrong, please correct us and clear up this massive misinformation.

You're right, I probably am. It's been bubbling up a bit. I think it's very important to distinguish between what some members of the RA may choose to do, and what the RA itself is for and what it means to be a member. We are all independent entities making our own choices about how to proceed. If certain members want to help each other in certain ways, it's going to happen. But that doesn't mean that RA itself EXISTS to serve those ends.

It'd be insane for the RA members in the SE, for example, NOT to be planning for alliances, nations, and helping each other in that manner from the start. In the same way we hope to form those relationships with you and the other groups in the Northwest.

I am being very straightforward about why we are in the RA. We believe in the ideals of positive gameplay and want a fun environment for everyone in PFO, and for newbies in particular. That's it. What others do is their own concern, and that underscores the point that we're all making our own decisions here. There is not some RA engine of support for other RA members, even if some members help some other members. I have seen Athansor very vocally support Thod's Friends, for example, and say glowing things about you guys as well. Being in, or not being in the RA had nothing to do with either.

Likewise for Kabal. We didn't have the slightest clue what their plans were. Did other RA members? No idea. And the point again is that we all are doing our own thing and not part of some greater RA machinery.

The tipping point for me is when someone starts telling me the RA is this and the RA is that, and its members (me, or Magistry, or even Talonguard) are this and that when it's simply not accurate at all. If other RA members are those things -- fine -- but the RA itself and the rest of its members are not tied to it.

Sorry if my previous post came on a little strong.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
FMS Quietus wrote:
You're avoiding my question. I would like to know why I would have an idea of whether or not Tavernhold knew they were about to be pushed by talking to you guys.
Nobody could have "known" because they've indicated that "F" was their second choice, not first.

This is actually not accurate, the selections of every settlement founder can be known by sending in someone to join, just to get that information.

Armed with that information, a large group or one with many affiliates can than manipulate the map locations. This effort's purpose could be to secure positions that are strategic or economically necessary to approach if not actually achieve self sufficiency.

There is a great deal of politicking going on with the land rush, not that there is anything wrong with that. To believe or pretend that there isn't is either naive or deceptive.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

T7V Avari wrote:
How about we make a political map denoting the settlements that have players who are part of Pax Gaming? It would paint Ozem's Vigil and Hammerfall in the same color as Callambea.

So... what you're saying is that Ozem's Vigil is in the same 'faction' as Golgotha? :]

Yeah, really gotta watch those labels and avoid assigning false meanings to 'groupings'.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't wait for the actual game to start so I can (hopefully) see you thread-hijackin', post-jumpin', repeat-the-same-arguments-ad-nauseum bozos kill each other!

Hey, great map! Thanks, the color version is really useful!

Grand Lodge

Bluddwolf wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
FMS Quietus wrote:
You're avoiding my question. I would like to know why I would have an idea of whether or not Tavernhold knew they were about to be pushed by talking to you guys.
Nobody could have "known" because they've indicated that "F" was their second choice, not first.

This is actually not accurate, the selections of every settlement founder can be known by sending in someone to join, just to get that information.

I fail to understand the context of this response, unless you are trying to infer that there is indeed underhanded vote-toggling, and active forum subterfuge being used to try and push non-RA sponsors out of the area.

I'm a bit confused here I'll admit, as I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing. Perhaps you'd like to shed some light here for me please Bludd.

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks for all the hard work put into this map! It's very easy to read!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
...naive or deceptive.

Both words contain little, if any, connotation other than negative. Is it truly necessary to choose those terms, rather than others less likely to engender ill-will?

Yes, I'm sure this question would be better if delivered in such a way as to make it clearly rhetorical, but I'm all-too-often at a loss to understand why, when word-choices are available that would cause a reader to have to work hard to take offence, those are so often not the choices made.

Goblin Squad Member

CBDunkerson wrote:
T7V Avari wrote:
How about we make a political map denoting the settlements that have players who are part of Pax Gaming? It would paint Ozem's Vigil and Hammerfall in the same color as Callambea.

So... what you're saying is that Ozem's Vigil is in the same 'faction' as Golgotha? :]

Yeah, really gotta watch those labels and avoid assigning false meanings to 'groupings'.

Exactly. At least don't be surprised when somebody gets offended. But it appears everyone is at ease with this now, so...yeah. Fruitful chat everyone!

Goblin Squad Member

FMS Quietus wrote:

I believe Zac is referring to votes for the game called Land Rush. See plenty try to pretend their associations offer them no benefit right now because they are talking in game, not the Land Rush. But we aren't. The Accord is a recruitment alliance for the Land Rush and that most certainly does not make you independent. IF the Northern Coalition would be allowed to join the Roseblood Accord, then the stance of positive gameplay would make sense and in our minds, valid. We could join the Accord without feeling like we are taking sides. We are not the only ones that feel this way and you may call yourself independent, but you are not. You are in an alliance to secure locations. You are in an alliance for 'mutual benefit.' Once you get in the game, if the Accord falls apart - its purpose has already been served.

We should ask Tavernhold about their feelings of a blindside when it was obvious certain members knew where they were headed. If Tavernhold would of been a part of the Accord and not neutral, I wonder if they would of lost F at all. Or at least perhaps they would of been clued in that it was going to happen. Maybe they already knew. I have no idea. I hope they were given a heads up. That would of been an example of positive gameplay if they had been notified.

Note: I'm going to change up some terminology here, hopefully it will make things more clear. Most notably 'members' will be referred to as 'signatories' as it better outlines my view of the Roseblood Accord.

I'm tired of seeing the RA portrayed as an alliance/faction/whatever. The Roseblood Accord is a document, nothing more. The signatories are in agreement to promote positive gameplay and mutual success.

Let me clarify, that "Positive Gameplay" is not synonymous with "Meaningful Gameplay" for the purposes of the RA. This is why UNC was refused. Banditry was not considered "positive gameplay" in the scope of the RA.

If I'm wrong one on these assumptions, of the RA signatories can correct me.

The Landrush is a competition, if someone wants a spot, are they supposed to go to the current owner and politely ask them if they can take it? No. You fill out your list of preferences, and see where your size takes you. If signatories of the RA seem to be working together, and not stepping on each-other's toes, it is because we have developed friendships. Are new groups supposed to go to everyone below them and disclose their selection list to everyone they may unseat? I'm guessing Kabal didn't get their first choice, because if I was making a list I would put down what I want, not what I know I can take.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any signitory of the Roseblood Accord or The Seventh Veil.
Assumptions made within the post are not reflective of the position of any Roseblood signitory or the Seventh Veil.

Goblin Squad Member

KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
FMS Quietus wrote:
You're avoiding my question. I would like to know why I would have an idea of whether or not Tavernhold knew they were about to be pushed by talking to you guys.
Nobody could have "known" because they've indicated that "F" was their second choice, not first.

This is actually not accurate, the selections of every settlement founder can be known by sending in someone to join, just to get that information.

I fail to understand the context of this response, unless you are trying to infer that there is indeed underhanded vote-toggling, and active forum subterfuge being used to try and push non-RA sponsors out of the area.

I'm a bit confused here I'll admit, as I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing. Perhaps you'd like to shed some light here for me please Bludd.

I was just clearing up the misconception that it can not be known what a settlement founder had selected as his / her 30 choices. This information can be easily gathered and then used to manipulate the settlement locations based on a variety of desires.

I'm not making any specific accusation, but I'm not so naive as to think it's not happening. I also clearly stated, I see nothing wrong with it. The Land Rush is PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
FMS Quietus wrote:
IF the Northern Coalition would be allowed to join the Roseblood Accord, then the stance of positive gameplay would make sense and in our minds, valid.

I have seen nothing in the text for either agreement that precludes signing both. We've actually considered doing so. (We are aware that the unanimous consent of all NC members might be an issue in such a case, but we will not withhold information about interest in RA to join NC - that would violate the spirit of both agreements, and more importantly, our own adherence to Wheaton's Law)

EDIT: As for being "allowed" to join Roseblood? Who can stop anybody? Check this out:
I, Zweistern, hereby declare my intent to abide by the Roseblood Accord. My signature does not bind any other member of my Company or my Settlement.

FMS Quietus wrote:
We should ask Tavernhold about their feelings of a blindside when it was obvious certain members knew where they were headed. If Tavernhold would of been a part of the Accord and not neutral, I wonder if they would of lost F at all. Or at least perhaps they would of been clued in that it was going to happen. Maybe they already knew. I have no idea. I hope they were given a heads up. That would of been an example of positive gameplay if they had been notified.

Hi, I'm with Tavernhold. Zweistern's a holding name until I determine who I'll be in-game, which will be influenced by the final results of land rush - I'll not be posting often because I don't want to lose my ability to change names. As far as I know, we were not warned of our impending displacement, but nobody in our organization has expressed any hurt feelings over that. As we formulate our own plans moving forward, we have some people we're thinking of approaching for alliance purposes ("Alliance" here means sharing a settlement). If we decide to try to retake F, we are more likely to discuss possibilities with Kabal than start an escalation which would lead to a settlement full of people we recruited solely for their vote without consideration of whether they share our actual goals. I'd rather be relegated to T (NTTATWWT - I'm sure it's lovely) than end up with a huge unruly mob, all wanting to go different directions.

We all have all 30 spots listed on our draft lists. We all have the possibility of displacing and being displaced. We don't take Kabal's intrusion as a personal affront or declaration of feud, and we will not intend to offend whoever we push if we don't stick with J. We just want a plot of land to build a tavern on. Someplace with a good view of the sky. And not too expensive.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zweistern wrote:
...a plot of land to build a tavern on.

Is terroir a concept that applies to lovely-fermented-malt-beverages? The article mentions hops, so I thought I'd ask.

If so, I hope you find *exactly* what you want, and that everyone gets out of your way. We needs us some tavern; this thread's proved it...again.

Grand Lodge

I'll drink to that! ^

Goblin Squad Member

Nice map! Very neat looking.

I am obligated to point out that "Blackwater Glade" should read, "Blackwood Glade" however... ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Kitsune Aou wrote:
I am obligated to point out that "Blackwater Glade" should read, "Blackwood Glade" however... ;)

Hope they had flood insurance!

Goblin Squad Member

<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:
Kitsune Aou wrote:
I am obligated to point out that "Blackwater Glade" should read, "Blackwood Glade" however... ;)
Hope they had flood insurance!

I guess that lake/swamp overflowed? sadface...

Goblin Squad Member

Nobody knew what our draft list was. Did it change after reading/speaking to people on the forums and voice chat.. Yes it did. We put our list in order of where we wanted to be as of draft day, who knows it might change.

Yes people can join and look at our draft list, which is why it was not set till less than an hour before draft. Our people did not come from the RA, except one, who basically got told nothing about anything because I assumed he might be exactly that, a spy. Turns out he just didn't fit with one of the other groups, and he does with us (High Five Bunibuni).

We were going to have to boot somebody, and we preferred not to notify our top choices. If it makes anyone feel better Z and Y were pretty high on the list. When we have our meeting at the end of the week, we will re-prioritize our list again, based on how many people we bring in and how many guild mates we get to get off their butts and claim their kickstarter pledges, and where/what we think other people will be doing.

Personally, we have no issue with Tavernhold, and this :

Zweistern wrote:
Hi, I'm with Tavernhold. Zweistern's a holding name until I determine who I'll be in-game, which will be influenced by the final results of land rush - I'll not be posting often because I don't want to lose my ability to change names. As far as I know, we were not warned of our impending displacement, but nobody in our organization has expressed any hurt feelings over that. As we formulate our own plans moving forward, we have some people we're thinking of approaching for alliance purposes ("Alliance" here means sharing a settlement). If we decide to try to retake F, we are more likely to discuss possibilities with Kabal than start an escalation which would lead to a settlement full of people we recruited solely for their...

Pleases me to no end to hear. There will be no hard feeling if they decide to take it back and do so. Granted.. we will react accordingly ;).

Goblin Squad Member

Zweistern, you can create aliases at any point without worrying that post count will lock you into a name. The only place where that matters is on the account's original/native name. Post away and then alias whenever you like.

Goblin Squad Member

This is quantitative data. Just the facts accumulated, from Land Rush, plus the NC & RA lists.

It's to help everyone understand what's going on, and to be informed. I'm sure NC & RA have something similar, but now we all can reference the same.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, my "displeasure" at losing F is part of my theatrics. Hell, those of you who have talked to me know I don't even really drink. We're going to adapt and move forward. We like F and would like to get it back some way or another. However, it's not the only spot on the map we want.

Goblin Squad Member

<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:
Your feelings and your faulty assumptions have no bearing on whether or not we are independent entities. Whether you view us as such or treat us as such is irrelevant. We'll continue to act as such just the same.

Boy does that sound familiar.

Goblin Squad Member

Aet Areks Kel'Goran wrote:
<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:
Your feelings and your faulty assumptions have no bearing on whether or not we are independent entities. Whether you view us as such or treat us as such is irrelevant. We'll continue to act as such just the same.
Boy does that sound familiar.

Yes, let's bring THIS up again

Goblin Squad Member

Realistically, anyone who's actually offended by losing a spot on the map probably needs to visit their local equivalent of Tavernhold more often....

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
Zweistern, you can create aliases at any point without worrying that post count will lock you into a name. The only place where that matters is on the account's original/native name. Post away and then alias whenever you like.

Good to know. Thanks!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Virgil Firecask wrote:
We like F and would like to get it back some way or another. However, it's not the only spot on the map we want.

I make no promises, but I am open to discussion.

Goblin Squad Member

Virgil Firecask wrote:
...some way or another.

1) Join Kabal

2) Become #4 on the Leaderboard
3) Move anywhere you please...pretty much

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Virgil Firecask wrote:
...some way or another.

1) Join Kabal

2) Become #4 on the Leaderboard
3) Move anywhere you please...pretty much

OPTION 1 BABY!

Seriously though.. option 1.

Because that would rule.

Goblin Squad Member

<Kabal> Sunnfire wrote:
Virgil Firecask wrote:
We like F and would like to get it back some way or another. However, it's not the only spot on the map we want.
I make no promises, but I am open to discussion.

I really like the levels of enthusiasm, spontaneity, and excitement you are bringing to the game so far. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Beautiful map. I had a feeling something bad was going to happen when I saw you coloring Roseblood Accord Signatories blue and Northern Coalition Members red.
_______________________________________________________________________

@Quietus, Sunnfire had told me a "likely" top-choice for their draft. That obviously changed. I had and have no idea what their draft order is, and have no intention of temporarily joining their Settlement in an attempt to find out, especially considering the likelihood that they will change it according to their latest desires right before the next draft, not to mention the fact that it's just not the kind of thing I'd do.

Also, for what it's worth, I've been extremely tempted to tout Ozem's Vigil and Tavernhold when I write my recruiting posts, but didn't want to without permission and felt awkward asking for permission, so I refrained.

Goblin Squad Member

Kitsune Aou wrote:
<Kabal> Sunnfire wrote:
Virgil Firecask wrote:
We like F and would like to get it back some way or another. However, it's not the only spot on the map we want.
I make no promises, but I am open to discussion.
I really like the levels of enthusiasm, spontaneity, and excitement you are bringing to the game so far. :)

I aim to please, come on over and join in the fun ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
...not to mention the fact that it's just not the kind of thing I'd do.

While, as Sunnfire told us, changing's exactly the kind of thing they would do, hence obviating the purpose of the exercise. Of course, now that he's told us, he could surprise us by not changing...hmmm.

Goblin Squad Member

<Kabal> Sunnfire wrote:
OPTION 1 BABY!

Best part: it's not an either/or option. They take your advice, do 1), and the rest follow along behind anyway.

Goblin Squad Member

<Kabal> Sunnfire wrote:
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Virgil Firecask wrote:
...some way or another.

1) Join Kabal

2) Become #4 on the Leaderboard
3) Move anywhere you please...pretty much

OPTION 1 BABY!

Seriously though.. option 1.

Because that would rule.

I'm pretty sure those weren't meant as "options" but an order of events to get pretty much any spot you all want.

EDIT: D'oh! scooped again:

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
<Kabal> Sunnfire wrote:
OPTION 1 BABY!
Best part: it's not an either/or option. They take your advice, do 1), and the rest follow along behind anyway.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

<Kabal> Sunnfire wrote:


Yes people can join and look at our draft list, which is why it was not set till less than an hour before draft. Our people did not come from the RA, except one, who basically got told nothing about anything because I assumed he might be exactly that, a spy. Turns out he just didn't fit with one of the other groups, and he does with us (High Five Bunibuni).

I have neither the bosom nor the long sexy legs to be a successful female spy! Nor the hard glinting bad boy eyes that make women swoon, sweep me into their beds and then babble all sorts of secret information to me after I have satisfied them over and over again. :-)

I'm betting now, once Sunnfire lights a fire under the other members of his original guild to join, we will have over 40 [50+ maybe?] members for the next land rush and one of the big boys may get bumped which may start a small landslide of others getting bumped next week. Don't know that as a fact, just guessing.

Just out of curiosity and not asking for the exact rank, but how many companies have Z, Y, E, AC or F somewhere in their top ten list? If you are not shooting to be a pure mountain or pure cropland settlement, I would bet pretty much everyone has one or more of those hexes in their top ten.

So people are going to get bumped. I figure more will get bumped as time goes on and those smaller [6 or less members] companies start figuring out what's going on and try to join a larger group to get a settlement hex they would like to play in.

Also, some groups may disband and join another just for RP purposes. If you are primarily a dwarf or elven oriented settlement that isn't very large and you find yourself in charge of hex L, M or O with little or no chance to move up to a "better hex", are you going to stay there farming or are you going to join a settlement in places you would like to be? Mountains or Forest, depending on race.

Black Glade Farms or Forgeholm Mountain Farms has such a nice ring to it, don't you think? :-)

Goblinworks Executive Founder

FMS Quietus wrote:
IF the Northern Coalition would be allowed to join the Roseblood Accord, then the stance of positive gameplay would make sense and in our minds, valid.

Great idea ! As a RA citizen, I second your motion, a great super-pact of nonaggression server-wide would be awesome.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:

Personally, I feel that separating out RA members on maps like this at ALL is counterproductive. It's basically people who've said "Hey, positive gameplay I see as a valuable goal" though people have varying opinions about what all that entails.

That does not imply any kind of alliance or allegiance of any sort, or that any RA member is suddenly not independent. At most it signifies people who are likely to be cooperative in general. Not just to each other, but to anyone who wishes for cooperation.
Some people who do know better about the RA have what I would call misperceptions, and people who DON'T know about the RA in any kind of detail are going to be handheld down a path of faulty assumptions when they look at a map and see RA members grouped like this.

Sorry that this is where these thoughts are coming out in, it could really be any of several threads where I've had these thoughts.

I have a problem with the above bolded part. This was the idea the UNC had of the RA when we offered to join its membership, but was quickly informed that membership in the RA is more than simply stating "we support positive gameplay." Each of the members have ALSO agreed to only have mutually beneficial interactions between themselves, and that is the reason the UNC was not welcome to join, as our playstyle isn't mutually beneficial to our targets.

If what you say is true, that the RA are simply a group of like minded players showing support for a positive gameplay experience of the various players in PFO, then I don't see a problem with anyone wanting the same to be allowed to join your membership, including the UNC. We support positive gameplay and supporting a healthy gaming environment within PFO.

I am asking everyone to not use this post as a means to derail this thread, I was simply pointing out an issue I had with the quoted post. To get this back on topic, I think that BECAUSE of the mutually beneficial "clause" within the RA charter, I think that qualifies it as a "faction" (For lack of better term) just as the NC's NAP does the same, so the map is just fine the way it is in that regard. This is my opinion and thoughts on the matter.

Side note: Great job on the map. Looks great!!

Goblin Squad Member

@ Nihimon

I can assure you that Ozem's Vigil will never object to reading our name in a post that is positive. You don't need permission from us to do that. Actually we appreciate any and all positive or even neutral mention, as I am sure just about anyone does. So thank you for any and all such times that you have already done so. They are not few. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Interesting.
I was not around for that, perhaps you can elaborate in a PM as to what the 'issue' was?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would readily welcome the UNC and her various chartered companies to the Roseblood Accord. If you declare yourself a signatory, then you are a member. We cannot choose who is a part of the RA, and I sincerely hope the UNC does commit to the RA and is willing to put unfortunate actions by individuals in the past.

Goblin Squad Member

The map is nice and all, I appreciate the time put into it and the purple haze around the groups that have moved is awesome. I just don't see the need to have the NC or RA displayed.

The 'Northern Coalition' is nothing more than a few groups that have declared neutrality with each other. In the real world I believe that is the stance of many countries. If this kind of map is going to continue it's going to start looking like a kindergarten finger-painting. Neighbors all over are going to be making neutrality agreements. For example, as independent as they say they are, I don't see Ozem's Vigil and Elkhaven attacking each other. Save it for actual alliances and nations.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a personal opinion and why I changed hats for a moment:

We are all here to play a great game. We will be playing it together. I have not been around here for as long as some, but it has been a while and a journey. I write "journey" because it really has been transformative for me in the way that I look at sandboxes and open PVP games. When I first got here, I was very anti "open PVP" and "bandit". I have changed a great deal since then and recognize the importance of both in such a game. There are many here that have changed what they post and seem to feel is best. I have changed my view. Why is it so hard to believe that others have also? As far as I can tell feuds, wars, faction fighting, and yes "banditry" are positive game play according to the developers. They are content. They are desired for entertainment.

If the Roseblood Accord really is for positive game play and interested in such, and also does not have the hubris to believe that their definition is THE DEFINITION, why is not everyone a member or being asked to be a member? Or, being held up to questioning that no one else is? Is that really a positive, welcoming attitude for a group that espouses "positive game play"? Is it just a few people in the Accord that have decided that people can't change and/or they know what "positive game play" is best or what is it?

I also recognize the importance of aggressive organizations. Both organized (Lawful) and what I consider crazy (chaotic). There isn't a single organization here that is really for "negative game play". There are many that disagree what that is and so, they are forming up into larger "associations".

It looks like you exclude some that proclaim for positive game play, you do not invite ALL individually (as you pretty much do with every new face you see here), and that you hold some up to questioning that no others and total new people do not have to endure.

If you operate in this manner and do not understand why you might appear to some of the public as at least "exclusive", well, hmmm....

2 cents. <clink, clink>

Goblin Squad Member

Ravenlute wrote:

The map is nice and all, I appreciate the time put into it and the purple haze around the groups that have moved is awesome. I just don't see the need to have the NC or RA displayed.

The 'Northern Coalition' is nothing more than a few groups that have declared neutrality with each other. In the real world I believe that is the stance of many countries. If this kind of map is going to continue it's going to start looking like a kindergarten finger-painting. Neighbors all over are going to be making neutrality agreements. For example, as independent as they say they are, I don't see Ozem's Vigil and Elkhaven attacking each other. Save it for actual alliances and nations.

Because when He first posted it, someone asked him to do it. (One of those "if I had a time machine...'Pow!' moments.")

Goblin Squad Member

I'm finding it interesting that people are viewing this as "factions" to begin with. Yes, they happen to be associations. Yes, a few members (maybe even just a few individuals) of RA and NC might have some small amount of resentment for each other (myself not included, so I may be overstating things by saying "small amount of resentment"). But does that make these groups opposing factions? Does it make them factions at all?

Last I checked, when Deathwatch signed the Roseblood Accord, we weren't signing into a war.

Goblin Squad Member

Here's what I would be thinking if I were evaluating the Accord as a potential signatory: what does "mutual success" mean, and what happens in zero-sum scenarios where success cannot be mutual? Two settlements cannot own the same hex, so how does the Accord come into play when two signatories both need to expand into the same site?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:

This is a personal opinion and why I changed hats for a moment:

We are all here to play a great game. We will be playing it together. I have not been around here for as long as some, but it has been a while and a journey. I write "journey" because it really has been transformative for me in the way that I look at sandboxes and open PVP games. When I first got here, I was very anti "open PVP" and "bandit". I have changed a great deal since then and recognize the importance of both in such a game. There are many here that have changed what they post and seem to feel is best. I have changed my view. Why is it so hard to believe that others have also? As far as I can tell feuds, wars, faction fighting, and yes "banditry" are positive game play according to the developers. They are content. They are desired for entertainment.

If the Roseblood Accord really is for positive game play and interested in such, and also does not have the hubris to believe that their definition is THE DEFINITION, why is not everyone a member or being asked to be a member? Or, being held up to questioning that no one else is? Is that really a positive, welcoming attitude for a group that espouses "positive game play"? Is it just a few people in the Accord that have decided that people can't change and/or they know what "positive game play" is best or what is it?

I also recognize the importance of aggressive organizations. Both organized (Lawful) and what I consider crazy (chaotic). There isn't a single organization here that is really for "negative game play". There are many that disagree what that is and so, they are forming up into larger "associations".

It looks like you exclude some that proclaim for positive game play, you do not invite ALL individually (as you pretty much do with every new face you see here), and that you hold some up to questioning that no others and total new people do not have to endure.

If you operate in this manner and do not understand why you might appear to some of the...

That is what I am trying to change.

To me, personally (not speaking behalf of TEO or the RA or anyone else), I think the Roseblood Accord is about putting positive gameplay above your own gain. Certain tactics might be a bit more effective, but they would also be a little bit toxic or what have you. I don't know these tactics and naming them would be pointless.

Banditry? Sure, that's great. I look forward to having to figure out how to handle bandits (fight em, bribe em, avoid em, whatever). What I don't want are bandits who abuse the system to actively ruin the day of those they attack. I believe the UNC will be very effective bandits and a pain in my pocketbook (if they even leave me an empty pocketbook), but I think they will be a source of positive gameplay.

Anyone who dedicates themselves to making PFO a better place, can and should be a member of the Roseblood Accord.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe would it be a good idea to take this conversation in the RA thread, to avoid polluting this one ?

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
If the Roseblood Accord really is... why...?

You and others should probably ask such questions in the Roseblood Accord thread.


Mama Mia!
Here we go again
Good god,
Why can't folks resist this?

Virgil Firecask wrote:
Also, my "displeasure" at losing F is part of my theatrics. Hell, those of you who have talked to me know I don't even really drink. We're going to adapt and move forward. We like F and would like to get it back some way or another. However, it's not the only spot on the map we want.

Dun dun DUNNNNN

Nihimon wrote:
Beautiful map. I had a feeling something bad was going to happen when I saw you coloring Roseblood Accord Signatories blue and Northern Coalition Members red.

This topic is so hot, even the colors can start fires. Funny enough, it's the RBA that's more annoyed by them, even though they get the jedi colors. ;P

51 to 100 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Faction Map (Landrush 6 / 15) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.