Cirolle's page

154 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:

It is a little bit interesting that even bright, thoughtful people categorize one another into 'us' and 'them' and proceed to describe baseless characteristics to whichever group is 'us' and whichever group is 'them' with little regard to the individuals so categorized.

It is as if we somehow imagine that the characteristics we ascribe to the respective groups override the characteristics of the people comprising the group, even though the grouping action was primarily an event in the categorizer.

Then the individuals, perhaps out of some sense of loyalty(?), astonishingly self-identify into the grouping they have been collectively assigned.

Very reminiscent of modern political party dynamics.

We each of us have preferences. Our preferences are unique and individual.

To be fair "they" started it

Sarcasm is really not a great way to argue.

It just lessens your point.

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

From yesterday:

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Unity 4 (which we are using) is a 32-bit platform. Unity 5 has been announced and a 64-bit feature set. When and if we migrate to Unity 5 is something not currently on our roadmap.

Ah thanks.

Been absent (on vacation with spotty internet)

Was sitting here reading through the Unity5 updates, and (of course) thought of PFO.

What version is being used and will it be upgraded to Unity5?

If it is being upgraded, what effects will we see with the new Unity?


I like how you explain every point i made earlier, in such detail.

Such patience.

(No one say much wow)

Audoucet wrote:
Thannon Forsworn <RBL> wrote:

Under the current system you can build all support buildings if you want, that is an option, doing so would probably let you cover everything but opposite alignment restricted things with the caveat that training needs to be found elsewhere.

The downside to allowing easy access to full support is that while specialization could be a thing, it doesn't need to be a thing. So instead you would probably have one settlement handle the majority of their needs and only build a new settlement to handle all the special cases, reducing the need of multiple settlement to only 2 or maybe 3, in the case of splitting along alignment restrictions. Every nation would only need 3 settlements to support everything in the game then.

I understand your point, but I think that it would be better if they added more diversity, than creating some artificial need for choice.

I am really with the crowd supporting the "friends" argument.

I would find it very very stupid, if I was forced to live in say Brighthaven because I want to be cleric, and my friend in Phaeros, because he wants to be a roguee. These are not opposed roles, and I would consider it very bad design to discourage it.

It is not bad design

It is just design you do not agree with.

If it is more important to a settlement, that every individual gets to play whatever they want, they can choose to go that route.

It would be a bad decision most likely, but the option is there.

As far as I understood it, you can indeed make a settlement that will SUPPORT nearly every single role.

You get support form both training and support buildings.

Nearly, every, single, role.

If we look at some of the roles, the ones you choose to miss out on, might not even fit the alignment of your settlement.
So, even closer to supporting every single role (of your settlements choosen alignment).

Here are some thoughts on that system. I will try to stay clear of the obvious ones that have already been mentioned.

If you really want a settlement that can support nearly every singly role, you will have to make some compromises.
There will be buildings that you cannot build, if you fill it all up with training and support.

As a player, you might consider the good of the whole, instead of insisting that the 3 rogues in the settlement should have a building.
You have to make a compromise here also.

You can indeed always play with friends, it is your choice if you live in the same settlement though.
This leads to some other choices.
What if your friends settlement gets attacked?
Will you try to talk the leadership of your settlement into joining that war, so you can help your friends?
They will have to make some choices if there is a lot of your friend group living in their settlement.

What if the two settlements goes to war against each other?
What will you do?
Fight your friends (could be fun actually)?
Stay out of the war, along with your friends in the other settlement?
Get your friends to convince their settlement to stop the war and you try to convince your leaders (DOWN WITH WAR! WAR KILLS! BABIES ARE CUTE!)

What if you were smart, and actually got some say in a settlement.
Maybe you and your friends holds several different POIs between you, for both cities.
If the leaders wont listen to you, you can always dedicate this to another settlement.

I really feel, that the system does promote a lot of meaningful choices.
My brother wants to play a blacksmith and I want to play a scout type.
If he ends up joining a crafting settlement, I do not expect them to cater to my scouting ways.
But I will sure come around a lot. Maybe pick up some weapons, hire some guards, take them all to my settlement, make some money, split it with my brother...

I think he was talking about this.

Maybe he didn't get longer in this thread.
Maybe he saw that it would take a long long time.

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Having graphics that are no better than 80% as good as AAA has no meaningful market effect. People who care about graphics will hate the product. Since we won't be anywhere close to 80% of AAA I can't worry about it. If it's a fatal flaw, it's an unfixable fatal flaw.

Being wrote:
Wildstar: I'm not paying money to live in a Looneytune cartoon. Period.

Hehe, yeah, it have some charm though.

Not into that style as I said.
But it is very pretty and well made.

Being wrote:
Cirolle wrote:
...But simple graphics, better is better no matter what. It is not a matter of taste really.
I believe it is. I'm not playing wildstar because of the graphics and that is surely a matter of taste.

Wildstar have great graphics.

I do not like the style though.

Crash_00 wrote:

Better graphics is not always better. Sure in a single player game, or a small scale multiplayer game, you could probably make that statement and be right. In a game where the number of players on the screen moving at one time can be in the hundreds, it simply is not the case. Better graphics can end up being a horrible, horrible idea.

Take a look at MAG's graphics vs. CoD's graphics as an example. MAG looked like a previous generation game in comparison, but but if it had had CoD level graphics, it would have made the large battles (128 vs. 128, compared to CoD's 9 vs. 9) pretty much impossible.

PFO is about settlement warfare. Settlements can have hundreds of players. Assuming two large settlements duke it out, you could see 1000 people fighting over an area. Better graphics are not a better thing for that case. More efficient graphics are the better thing.

First, let me just say, I understand why PFO is at the stage it is with its graphics.

It does not bother me, personally, the least.

You don't have to cover it up and make excuses for it.
It is what it is for very specific reasons.
As Ryan explains in his post above, they are creating a gigantic world, they have a small team, and they have limited resources compared to some of the huge companies.

But, I am pretty sure, that if someone came along and said "Hey, we will make AAA graphics for you, fast and free", that they would take it.

Multiplayer games have also come a long way.
Most of the time, it is on the client side, that "lag" happens if it have to do with graphics.
This is easy to deal with, by offering lower settings.
PS2 is a great example of a very decent graphical game, with many many players fighting.

The rest of you post goes on, talking about the same as the first paragraph, so I will leave it at that.

There is no bad thing that goes along with better graphics, really.
You cannot make a game worse, by adding the option of higher resolution, more varied landscape, better lighting, realistic shadows etc.
It is not possible, as long as you offer settings.

My post, that you responded to, was actually a long question about what Audoucet meant when he was talking about graphics.

Audoucet wrote:
Being wrote:

Better graphics are better. Okay graphics are okay.

Better is better than worse.

Well, I actually don't agree at all. The more sophisticated are the graphics, the more they seem outdated, a few years after.

Age of Conan or Rift were way superior to WoW, in my opinion, when they came out, but now, my opinion is that they suffer the comparison.

About the Trinity, I would add that an essential part of the Trinity is the capacity to completely counteract the damage received, with healings, which will count in D&D. You can't "sustain" healing, as in a MMO with the Trinity.

Just chiming in, because some of what you are saying doesn't make sense to me (could be me, there is always that possibility).

Better graphics are better graphics.

I am getting the feeling, that you are talking about the either aesthetics or stylized vs realistic even.


Stylized vs realistic (uncanny valley)

But simple graphics, better is better no matter what.
It is not a matter of taste really.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Am I the only one that gets a mental picture of the whole UNC popping up in their underwear, with bows, renaming themselves the UDC?

How does the page get "broken" sometimes, where the text doesn't fit the screen?

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Isn't this simply done to reflect that all arrows always hit you in the knee?

Summersnow wrote:
I'm noticing some ideas popping up that are little more then thinly disguised attempts to bring the same ganking and griefing techniques used in EVE into PFO and I'm reallly not liking it.

I am interested in which ideas you are referring to.

Ryan Dancey wrote:
I bumped twitter to 30 votes required to trigger a tweet.

Thank you.

Don't underestimate the PFO crowd.
They love being "heard"

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Cirolle wrote: twitter is getting spammed.
I'm glad I've never found any interest in Twitter. I used just to think I didn't care whether people know what I'm doing or thinking, but now this is a concrete reason :-).

Well I am glad you are glad.

I am a hipster and follows more than one game through twitter though.
The burden.

It can be a great way of keeping up with news of things you like, except if one source takes up all of the feed.

You sound like someone in the 90s saying they are happy they are not on some stupid forum, following their game.

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Holly smokes! You guys have done a fantastic job! Overnight we got 33 ideas and 1008 votes! That's outstanding!

Please set the twitter limit higher.

as it is now, my twitter is getting spammed.

It is taking up around 75% of my tweets. This is not a good ratio, even if I like PFO a lot.

Did it crash?

albadeon wrote:
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
albadeon wrote: does force the good-aligned settlements into violent conflict with their neighbors...
I agree with some the responses preceding, that suggest violent conflict's not necessary. Another perfectly-acceptable route is to coordinate with your neighbours, select which towers each group will claim and hold, and then work out the schedule of open PVP windows so that you can decide what portion of all of you'll be defending what portion of all your holdings at what hours.
Yes, if there turns out to be a way to do that and have me and my also good neighbours emerge fairly well developed, I'm fine with that. All I'm saying is that wether or not that is possible depends on the actual numbers. And what I'm afraid of, is that they might be set up such that acting acording to your good alignment is going to have serious disadvantages.

How many people are signed up for your settlement?

Shane Gifford of Fidelis wrote:
Cirolle wrote:
I don't think you are right about this.

Care to extrapolate, or at least say which part of his post you don't agree with?



I don't think you are right about griefers getting the least upset about dying.
I don't think you are right about griefers being the ones that throw their keyboards in anger.

I think the typical griefer tend to be more in control of their own emotions than the average joe.
I think most of them, knows what ticks people off and they get their enjoyment from this.

That is the game they are playing.
They are usually not playing for the same reasons as you, so death in the game will have little meaning to them.
Usually, their accounts have little meaning to them also.

I think it is a common mistake, to try and downplay them, as you did.

If you recognize someone as a griefer, there is usually not much to do.
You can report, ignore, turn around and leave (don't go back for your corpse 50 times)...
If you respond to them, especially in chat, you are playing their game.

I could be wrong though, and all griefers are just 13 year old kids with hormones going crazy.

Lam wrote:

@Pandora's I could only give you one plus. Thank you.

If people in alpha testing can report back their video (from that list) and the experienced performance (what ever that means), then a pattern may develop, even for the unoptimized interface. Speed of network connection may also be an issue for some.

I find it very hard to make any sense of an alpha build system test.

I am playing another game (which is in beta right now) with my brother.

By ALL means, my system is better than his. He have a slightly better monitor, but only because the old one blew up 3 months ago.

He can play this game on high settings (not ultra) without any problems.
I can play it on any setting, with the same problems coming up all the time.
It does not get worse or better, no matter what settings I change.
It is a common problem in this game, and not one that seems to make any sense when it comes to brand, size, year made, or what type...

Aet Kard Warstein wrote:

One thing I've found is hard-core griefers like to kill... they don't like to die. You see those people throwing keyboards and smashing things when they die? That's a griefer who just got his throat slit. They dish it out, but can't handle taking it. I personally think that is a personality trait (flaw?) that led them to become what they are.

At any rate, best defense you have: Learn to kill, and practice often.

I don't think you are right about this.

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

Some folks would, some wouldn't. What I don't understand why we'd want to ask the devs to add /death, when the loser of the Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock could just use the character-delete function that the game'd already have.

Players may thus mimic Permadeath--if they choose--while costing no additional development resources. In a PM, someone told me they'd want the system to delete the character in order that the player would not be tempted to avoid Permadeath, but--once again, to me--that's just willpower, and asking the devs to assist us with willpower-issues seems a bit...odd.

ok, lets take it one step further.

We have PFO, like it is planned to be right now.
Except, that when one group attacks a settlement, the loser of the war can choose NOT to lose their settlement.

Sure, you can use your usual argument, that some people might choose to to do this, but why would they?

I am already doubting that most people will be able to handle even losing this much.

How many people do you think will rage quit, once their settlement is lost?
PD, doesn't seem so bad, compared to losing months of work on a community build.

I don't expect people like Nihimon or any of the gentler people to stick around past OE or even through EE.
They simply wont think it is fair.

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

I've never understood requests to developers to add Permadeath or Hardcore elements. It feels--to me--as if they're already there: if you die, start a new character.

What have I missed in trying to grok the fullness of those suggestions??

I am not talking for PD here, just to make it clear.

Imagine they removed the ability to die at all.
No one could take any damage.

Instead, your characters went up to each other and played a quick rock-paper-scissor match.

After that, the loser could CHOOSE to type /death and his character would die and the looting rules etc from the rest of the game would work.

If the loser didn't want to, then he could just move on.

Would you choose to use /death?

So close.

Good luck you guys :)

Wow really?

I would love that

CBDunkerson wrote:
Cirolle wrote:
I dont think alignment will matter much in EE
Possibly not at the start of EE (~July 2014) when most of the game's systems have not been implemented yet. However, by the end of EE (~December 2015) it seems clear that it will be a very different story. When during that ~18 month period the changeover will occur is obviously uncertain, but I'd bet on sooner rather than later.

I guess you are right.

Everyone should hurry and figure out their alignment before its too late.
Hurry folks, before december 2015 is upon us.

Nihimon wrote:

@Duffy, I believe Cirolle's point is that, during the early stages of Early Enrollment, things like Settlement Facilities won't matter because they won't be in the game yet.

The problem I see is that even if alignment and rep is in the game on day one of Early Enrollment, it may be irrelevant. The only way to train skills will be to access trainers at the NPC settlements which will have to be open to all characters because there won't be enough diversity in the initial terrain to have lots of them. There won't be much to do against the environment besides kill groups of monsters which don't offer much threat. So the most interesting thing to do will be to fight other characters, and I expect that to happen quite a bit.

The challenge is that the message that sends to everyone is that the game is just a PvP free for all with zero consequences. If that becomes the accepted norm, the game will fossilize around those assumptions and we'll never be able to change them. Having alignment and rep doesn't mean anything if there are no consequences attached to changes in them.

Therefore I think that we may need to impose some external forces on the game environment to rationalize the PvP until enough other features have been deployed to give alignment and rep meaningful consequences.

There will be many people switching settlements, especially early on.

(Not saying there will be many people staying in their original settlements).

You got the quote I was looking for btw, thank you.

I simply do not think it is going to be important enough, that settlements HAVE to put in what alignment they are planning to go with.

First, it will not matter in EE. Maybe down the line, but not a first.

Second, we can only talk about how the plans for system will effect our playstyle.
We have no actual clue how it WILL effect us, once it is in.

But, my point was as you said.
I dont think alignment will matter much in EE

CBDunkerson wrote:
Cirolle wrote:
Does it matter to the player what alignment they choose, as long as they choose the same (or one step away from) the settlement they join?

Yes. Certain roles (e.g. Paladin, Barbarian, Monk) and skills associated with them will only be available to certain alignments. The alignment of settlements will influence how efficiently they operate and how much criminal and/or evil activity in the area decreases that efficiecny. If a character's core alignment differs from their effecitve alignment as determined by play style (e.g. a 'Lawful Good' character who indiscriminately attacks everyone they meet) they will take penalties. Et cetera.

Alignment matters.

I don't think it will matter much in EE.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Cirolle wrote:
Does alignment really matter?
In that it determines who can gain access to skill upkeep and other services of a settlement, yes alignment really matters.


Does it matter to the player what alignment they choose, as long as they choose the same (or one step away from) the settlement they join?

Does alignment really matter?

Lord Zodd wrote:
For serial you guys! ManBearPig ate VictorBearWolf. That is why he can't respond to this thread.

Well, I came here to see what this game is all about, and clearly it is just going to be a copy of SoT.

Bet you all hate Zombie Nazis too.

EoX Hobs wrote:

I finally had time to read the replies here in the wee hours of this morning (about 2:30 a.m.), so now, I am caught up.

First, I thank Ryan for his multiple replies which have added clarity to his past actions/positions, as well as a better idea of how he plans to move forward into the future. That does not mean that I approve in all cases, but his efforts to clarify are appreciated. That some thought his statements concerning the Golgotha question were clear from the start is certainly those individuals' perceptions and I do not seek to impose my interpretation upon them. However, given the number of posters who have agreed with my thoughts concerning clarity, there seemed to be enough people, including those outside the EoX, with the same perception as myself, to warrant a second look at how all this has played out.

"I don't understand what this thread is trying to accomplish. I am not being dismissive, I am genuinely unsure what Hobs wants Ryan to do."
- Lord Zodd

As the CEO of a company, where promoting positive ties to the entire customer base is crucial - ties forged by clear statements, concise objectives, and professional customer service/interaction - I thought that my concerns about a year of troubling episodes needed to finally be voiced. I do not subscribe to the belief that every customer is always right, nor should the company in question bend over backwards to appease such customers if they believe their policies/actions/practices are correct. The prudent question is how does the company know when they have reached the point where there is need to reexamine their position? My answer would be, when enough people from varying "camps" have the same perception of their performance. I'll use this analogy from my classroom (I teach 8th grade). I make all my own assessments, partly so as to ensure that the phrasing of my questions match the language I have used in teaching the material. One of my philosophies about any assessment is that the phrasing of the test should never interfere...


This is just like reading a Goodfellow post, after a bunch of unc (Xeen and Blud, just to name names) have come out as total jerks.
Except, you actually started this

Good job Goodfellow copy, not as well written though.

You guys need to take a break

I mean seriously...

I am running out of popcorn, and I am scared that if I go get more, I will miss something.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Are these groups one guild or what?


Pax Rawn wrote:
T7V Avari wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

To me, the question that confronts the community is not the question of moving votes from one group to another. The question should be "is Pax one guild, or several?"

If it is one guild, then no member of Pax, regardless of the history or timeline of that membership should vote for any guild but Pax Aeturnum.

If it is several guilds, then there's no meaningful problem except in the case of people who voted for Pax Aeturnum in Phase I and subsequently shifted their votes in Phase II. It would be scrupulous for Pax Aterunum to clearly tell its members not to vote for anyone but Pax Aeturnum, but that's just optics.

And frankly, I don't necessarily think Pax' opinion about their structure is the defining one. Perception will be the reality in this case.

Hmmm, Nowhere did he allude to a judgement you say?

Perceptions and all...

If he is going to pose things like this to conversations, then he needs to be clear that this is just a discussion topic and not a judgement.

Absolutely not.

People on both sides interpreted that wrongly, not Ryans fault. I saw and still see it very clearly as Ryan trying to push the debate into relevance. As long as we are debating relevant topics, they are going to let us have at it.

the debate was never relevant. The reason I quoted the PM from Ryan to begin with with a show that he told us that he wouldn't remove Golgotha from the land rush.

after discussing the rest of the contents of that PM (which I did not take out of context) the golgothans decided that they did not share Ryan's concerns about big shadowy organizations coming into the game and that they would not remove themselves from the land rush. That was deacon and the rest of his leadership call to leave them there. Nobody elses. Golgotha alone has thousands of dollars tied up in early enrollment, why would they not want to vote for their settlement? that entire thread was completely worthless. It might...

Its true about thr money.

If some small guild comes in and have only spend 1000 dollars, and Gol have spend 5000, then i think Gol deserves 5 settlements.

Khas of Fidelis wrote:

Allow me to answer the question about the votes. Those were votes from Fidelis members who did not vote in Land Rush 1. They were pulled to throw our support behind our new home, Ozem's Vigil, and as such, had nothing to do with this discussion.

I hope this clears things up.

I think we all know they were pulled.

But why though?
There are no rules saying they cannot vote if they haven't already.
And its been made clear that Gol wont be pulled.

So, my question is, why not use those votes and any other vote from new members that any of the pax guilds get?

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:
Cirolle wrote:
Darcnes wrote:
Cirolle wrote:

That is all mighty fine.

If you have a game to play in afteri EE
Vague premonitions based on the behaviors of the few is not a good reason to abandon one's values.
Ok Ghandi
*laugh* I would have taken that as a compliment, I think it was not intended as such. Funny that.

Wasn't trying to be insulting.

And in rl I agree, it would be a compliment.
Its easier to have morals and standards when we are not really threatened.
Can be seen in how most people think torture is horrible, but its kinda ok if you torture terrorists.

Pfo is not real life.
Its a virtual place, where we can actually loose something (virtually).
Having high standars here is ok, as long as most hold these.

You can say, that if one of the largest groups do not, that its time to take off the gloves.
There wont be a virtual UN to step in when soldiers run over your sit down pacifist show.

So, while acting like Ghandi in game would be noble, I don't think it wilk be the way to survive and stay in the game

Darcnes wrote:
Cirolle wrote:

That is all mighty fine.

If you have a game to play in afteri EE
Vague premonitions based on the behaviors of the few is not a good reason to abandon one's values.

Ok Ghandi

Armenfrast wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
For the record: I do not have an opinion about Golgatha being on the Land Rush. I think there are persuasive arguments pro and con. I care more about the Community's opinion about the matter than I do about the matter itself.
I think that this is the very point that makes people uneasy. The community is teared and many would like to know wether YOU (or GW) are OK or NOT with Golgotha being on the Land Rush.

The community is not teared.

Part of the community had a fight.

TEO Aeioun wrote:
Cirolle wrote:

I think this is the wrong way to go.

If you stand back and let Pax do whatever they want, there will be no game left for you guys after awhile.

The only sensible thing you can do, is use the same methods as Pax.
Get those votes and back up smaller guilds.
Unite and make it clear to everyone that you are a force that stands together.

Principles are all good, but not when you are the only one living by them.
If you stick to your guns on this, you will end up sticking to them without being able to play PFO.

I think it's a little premature to predict the future like this. I feel The Roseblood Accord is a bunch of people that want to play with each other and not throw fingers at each other on the forums.

That is all mighty fine.

If you have a game to play in afteri EE

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Darcnes wrote:

I share several of Hobs' misgivings about this Ryan.

There is a rather fine line between polling the crowd for temperature and turning it into the Hunger Games of Paizo threads, even a comparatively mild one. The effect you ended up having was that of capricious Greek gods meddling in the affairs of us mere mortals.

If you want our opinion on something, be clear about it, from the outset.
"Community, what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? No, I will not throw anyone off a bridge as the result of this thread."
Then avoid rephrasing the question in such a way that implies the matter of bridge throwing may still up for debate after all.

You want to get the lay of the land before making a ruling? Fine.
You are just curious about something and want our thoughts with no further ramifications whatsoever? Great!
You have a mechanic you want our input on? Even better!

You want the community to tell someone 'no' when you have already given them tacit permission to ignore your preferences? Why in seven hels is the CEO of the game even asking the community to express their opinion for or against a player entity when they are not going to do a damned thing about it one way or the other?

You are making a PVP game. A competitive game. ** spoiler omitted **

You have told us that whatever is not forbidden is not necessarily permitted, but our first prime example does not reinforce this. What PAX did with those two settlements makes perfect logistical sense, it was fair, and it was against GW's wishes. I do not have a problem with the decision you made about not doing anything, I have a problem with the fact that you begged someone not...

I do not agree with this at all.

If you ASK someone not to do something, and they go ahead and do it anywas, you should not then put your foot down and tell them they canøt do it at all.

Then you should just tell them, to begin with, that they are forbidden to do it.

It was very clear from the beginning, to me at least, that there wasn't going to be a GW ruling on all this.
I am not sure how anyone could have thought otherwise.
Actually, I think the people that was most focused on if GW was going to make a ruling, was Pax. And I think that was only because they were worried.
Once they were reminded that GW wasn't going to do anything either way (and I say reminded, because it had been stated way before), all doubt about how Pax fells about the opinion of other were gone.

I think it was important training for the community to have that rather heated discussion.
Lines are being drawn, people are showing their true selves.
It is easy to hide behind a mask of niceness, when there is nothing to lose.
Now, it seems there is something at stake. It is only natural.

I do not think there was much toxic behavior in the thread.
Yes, there were a lot of statements and posts that I am very sure felt like attacks to some.
Get over it, it will get worse. I wonder what some people will do once they lose a settlement that they have spend months (years?) on building.

I do not feel it is GWs job to go in an solve these issues.
If they start, where does the line go?
This issue was mainly among the big players.
You might have felt it was most of the community, but that is a joke.
There were not thousands of people involved, only a small handful of the people that have already committed to GW in some way.

If GW have to go in and act like a judge in a case like this, should they then also go in and act like a judge if (when) the Pax union gets into an internal fight over some (probably stupid) political thing?
"Oh my god, this Pax officer raided the guild bank... RYAN RYAN RYAN... HE RAIDED THE GUILD BANK"

Now, I know you sit there and think, that it have nothing to do with it.
But it does.
Just because it was one of our bigger fights, doesnt mean that it is a fight among the whole community. Far from it.
You think you are the most important thing in this game right now (all of you) and as long as it is all on the forums, you are.
But, you are the not the whole community.

Nihimon wrote:

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that the Roseblood Accord is made up of a number of relatively small guilds that are all committed to positive gameplay and want to help each other succeed.

We are not affiliated with any mega-guilds. We're just players who are really interested in Pathfinder Online, many of us having very high hopes that Ryan's vision of "lots of meaningful PvP; little meaningless PvP" can work, and that members of the community will voluntarily refuse to adopt the attitude that "everything not forbidden is permitted".

We hope this message is getting through.

I think this is the wrong way to go.

If you stand back and let Pax do whatever they want, there will be no game left for you guys after awhile.

The only sensible thing you can do, is use the same methods as Pax.
Get those votes and back up smaller guilds.
Unite and make it clear to everyone that you are a force that stands together.

Principles are all good, but not when you are the only one living by them.
If you stick to your guns on this, you will end up sticking to them without being able to play PFO.

To Pax.

You DO realize that you can (and have always been able to) use your other members to vote for Gol, right? (The ones that haven't voted)

There would have been no slap on the writst from GW or anyone else official for doing so.
As Ryan said, he made it pretty clear on page 2, that they are not going to get in between the players.

I am not sure why you pulled the 4 votes to begin with.
It clearly wasn't because you give a rats ass about what other players think about you.

And why should you?
Pax is the biggest thing in this game so far. No one can match your numbers.
So, you probably have put more money into the game than any other group.
Basically, this is YOUR game right now.

In fact, if you are a bit smart about it, you take your votes and devide them up, so you can get a third (hell even a 4th or 5th as far as I can see from the numbers).
That should ensure that you will dominate the map from the start.

I am positive, from Ryans statements, that they would let you from GWs side.
They are leaving it up to the players to handle, and there really isn't one thing the players can do about it if they don't like it.

I wish you luck in Paxfinder Online

Oh, and thank you Ryan for giving other people an opening to state their opinions.

Was getting a bit scary there

Wasn't there something about one Pax being the military and another being the traders or some such?

If they had defined the roles of their cities, I don't see how they aren't "One".

Or am I once again lost here?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
Cirolle wrote:

Wait... a little behind here.

There is something I think I have misunderstood.

Concerning trolling, I have always thought it originated from the fishing term, and people less fishy later just assumed it had anything to do with actual trolls.

Am I missing something?

Would make more sense, if Blud is a trained fisherman.

I'm sure the term you're thinking of is 'trawling', but it is a happy coincidence, that one of the principle methods of 'trolling' is to lay some bait, and see who you reel in.

Pretty sure I am thinking trolling, which involves lures and bait vs trawling that involves nets (like commercial fishin they do on all 5 boats my family own).

You made me double check if it was a language thing though, so kudos :-)

Wait... a little behind here.

There is something I think I have misunderstood.

Concerning trolling, I have always thought it originated from the fishing term, and people less fishy later just assumed it had anything to do with actual trolls.

Am I missing something?

Would make more sense, if Blud is a trained fisherman.

1 to 50 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>