Cirolle's page

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

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?

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

So....

Are these groups one guild or what?

:p

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.

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 :-)

I think one thing that has been overlooked here is the definition of "suck". No matter what Ryan or GW believes will constitute "suck", there will be a group of players who will still perfectly enjoy the game at that level of "suck". Bottom line, it won't suck for them.

Of course there will be a group of players like that.

However, this (sub) discussion sprang from Xeen saying that is S&D wasn't going to give rep, then he wouldn't use it and just take the rep hit instead.
So, we are not talking about "some" people, we are talking about Xeen, and maybe all of UNC for all I know.

The reason he would take the rep hit, is because he simply doesnt think it will matter.
Well, that was his opinion, but then he also said he would like to play as a high rep.

Now that I think about it, it all smells a little of "If you dont give me what I want, then I will just act against how you want me to act"

Realizing that, I actually think I am done with this part of the discussion.

Xeen seems to be of the conviction, that one (if not the) major mechanics for makinf sure the game will not turn into a murdersim, simply either won't work or it will hqve such a little effect, that you don't have to worry about it.

It seems the main reason for this is "because I said so".

His conviction is so strong, that it comes out as fact most of the time.

But, to be fair, he might be right.
We don't know til we see it.
With that in mind, we should probably discuss anything as if none of the suggested mechanics will work.
That would be very constructive.

Bluddwolf wrote:

Cirolle wrote:

You have no clue how badly it is going to be low rep or how hard it is to gain rep.

We all have no clue either way.

Actually, I think we can draw one clear conclusion about how much it will suck to be Low Rep & Chaotic Evil - it will suck enough to "powerfully shock" players out of random killing.

That seems to be the intention, yet i keep seeing people making sound like it wilk be no big deal to be low rep.

If that would be the case, then rep is not working as intended.

If it truely does suck (and shock), then no rep loss after a S&D should be enough.

I for one do not think there should be any mechanic, beside time, to regain rep

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

Interesting how SAD is simultaneously useless to those who want to use it and overpowered to those who don't even plan on playing characters that would be frequently SAD'ed... I suppose that's the internet, however.

I planned to use it when the benefits were in balance with the drawbacks. Without a rep bonus, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.

There is more benefit to just ganking a merchant then using the SAD system.

No additional skills to train
No time for the merchants friends to respond
75% loot
Better chance at the best loot

Without a rep bonus, I do not see the need to train the skill for it.

You have no clue how badly it is going to be low rep or how hard it is to gain rep.

If rep is easy to get back and it doesnt effect you much to loose it, then it really isnt doing its job.

Cirolle wrote:

Look in the SAD thread for ambushes

SADs and Ambush are two separate things.

So, the new blinds system, that knocks people out of fast travel, AND give a stealth buff, have nothing to do with ambushes?

I could have sworn it would be a good idea for an ambush.

Tyv?

Lets write some fsn fiction.

"Steelwing eyed Bluudwulf through the steam of the sweat tent.... "

This would be a big game changer to me.
I would no longer be interested in PFO.

It is not because I think the idea in itself is horrible, I just think it would make a totally different game than what I am looking for.

On top of that, it seems to be trying to deal with a problem, by making it easier to do.

tl;dr Spider webs carry an electrostatic charge and the beating of insect wings generate small magnetic fields so insects don't have to fly into webs just near them to get pulled in and spiders catch their prey with physics.

Is this true?

Sorry, didn't read the longer explanation.

I plan on have a slightly ludicrous background for my character. Brother Zael is a delusional activist who originally was an inquisitor for a church (not sure which one yet) but due to unorthodox methods and ideals was excommunicated for heresy. Because of his past service the inquisitors merely tortured his powers from him using colorful magics and sent him away, never to return on pain of death. Having become disenchanted with religious orders and structures as a whole he has become a political/social activist who uses rather direct means to accomplish his goals. He dislikes the structured Lawful Good establishments at the moment thinking them on a whole to be rather close-minded.

In the end he is a slightly insane individual who is chaotic evil (not fully set) but thinks he is lawful neutral. His goals are basically to curb LG communities and eradicate scum which is more or less whoever has a big bounty or whom he doesn't like, though he doesn't think of it like that, of course.

So you see my background is rather unique, I mean who else got excommunicated and tortured to oblivion as a setup? And I am sure mine is but one of a myriad of equally enticing backgrounds that will be used.

That is so odd.

He is also a brother.
His name will be Brother Mmicus.

Wanna join up?

I would like to say, that I do want characters to start at worthless hunks of meat

Just want to clarify, that eg means "for example".

Cirolle wrote:

Can we not start this again?

Certainly, you are a neutral party so I will explain it to you.

When you have a settlement declare war on you, the following MAY have been the causes, or may be true in general:

1. You may never know the reason why you have a war declared against you

2. Wars are declared when you have done an action that is in no way aggressive, in your mind.

3. It is usually not a good idea to begin a dialogue with a group that has declared war on you at the onset of the war. It is even worse during the timer before the war actually starts.

4. Telling a settlement that their members have been killing yours, especially in your own lands, is an invitation for that settlement to declare war on you. You are not just projecting weakness, you're admitting it.

5. Wars are only started against an opponent that projects weakness and the aggressor believes they can defeat the defender. No one starts wars they might lose unless they are idiots, or just out for the lolz.

I see no indication about the settlement vs. settlement domination game in PFO to make any of these five points inaccurate and not sound advice.

@ Cirolle

You should use an avatar, when you make a short post, it almost gets lost on the page.

I understood your intentions.

I was refering to these odd little forum wars some of you seem to have going on.
New people (like me) tend to get put off, if they have to read through pages and pages, of "strangers" going back and forth about seemingly pointless stuff.

I know (from actually reading sll those pages) that there is some bad blood, and in many cases, why its there
It is still not very attractive for the community as a whole.

About the avatar.
Will do, as soon as I stop only reading off my phone :-)

Can we not start this again?