Cyneric's page

Gol Cyneric Torrin wrote:

TEO Pino wrote:

Gol Cyneric Torrin wrote:

... no one besides the violator will take mine...

ahaha, I like your optimism !

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, unless you mean that I will have already over extended past my 10 designated towers before then.

Otherwise that puts said person in the position of violator, which again, isn't a wise choice if everyone else upholds it.

I'm saying if someone in an NAP group violates the NAP, the group should consider making a 'proportionate response', not cry 'free lunch', lest the entire NAP become one.

That follows too much cohesion, it is not the full NAP group saying free lunch, rather it is one group in that NAP deciding to take the towers of the violator, and then others following suit.

I'm unsure of what a properly portioned response would be, that would make economical sense. If I sign an agreement, I expect that agreement to be held to the letter of the law, if someone breaks that agreement, that trust is then broken. I'm not going to say, well it was only once, and appease them, instead I would assume they would do it again.

Yeah a harvester literally has no reason to not be always max rep, being high rep is their only mechanic to ward off anyone attacking them, the risk is simply too high to attack a max rep person.

If it's the idea that races suggested must be a certain alignment, I'm unsure where that idea came about. A fair number of even the core races say things like typically, most, or many and never words like always. If we take they should be as they must be then even the gnome is out of the running. As their description is that gnomes are usually neutral good. The same is true for Half-Orcs that says most are Chaotic neutral, there is not one instance that I found of any proposed race that says all members of this race must always be x alignment.

Edit: Dancey did not say we only want ideas that we can implement right now, he said we want ideas with no qualifier. I would be fine with adding in races at a later date, when it is fitting to. If the voting is only about features that need to be in right this second, then I'm unsure if this voting is serving its stated purpose.

The War of the Towers has changed things for everyone involved in the Land Rush. Before this announcement, it was generally expected that groups would have a chance to get on their feet before the territory control game started. We now know that isn't going to be the case, and Golgotha is primed to take advantage of that fact.

Golgotha is the largest group within the Land Rush that has a publicly stated goal of aggressive expansion, but that doesn't mean that we are going to be stupid about that expansion. Golgotha will take what we can hold. The developers have stated that our ability to train our citizens will be dependent on how many towers we can claim, and we intend to act with that at the forefront of any decision.

We will push our influence across the map, forcing others to accept our manifest destiny of outright, lawful domination. By creating a bastion of unparalleled military strength, we will raise up the entirety of the River Kingdoms by the merit of our example. We will show the community that playing evil is not only viable, but preferable. We will be living proof that being evil and being griefers does not have to go hand in hand. The principles of Wheatons Law run deep in our philosophical core.

Our central position guarantees our ability to project our military force to all four corners of the map. No other large settlement in the current political environment can make as strong a claim to that ability as Golgotha. If a towers PvP window opens up, Golgotha alone is in a singular position to march on it, no matter its location. Mastery of a game comes through constant practice, and Golgotha will provide that to every single one of our willing citizens. We have the opportunity to create the most battle hardened force in the game, and we intend to exploit that opportunity to its fullest.

While military expansion is our primary focus, that doesn't mean that our diplomatic corps have been standing by the wayside. Our relentless pursuit of mutually beneficial agreements with our neighbors has already born fruit. No matter which role you intend to play in Early Enrollment, Golgotha will be able to provide you both Training and Support through our nearby friends. Our lands will be safe from those best positioned to attack us, our non-aggression pacts guaranteeing our citizens ability to roam close to home without fear of being harassed.

No matter your needs, Golgotha will be there, ready and willing to help. Don't wait until Early Enrollment to make a decision. Make the smart choice. Join Golgotha today

Setting the precedent that a "multi-guild gaming community" is not a Guild for the purposes of this Land Rush will have consequences, especially if any more "multi-guild gaming communities" show up. Every mega-guild is set up the same way Pax Gaming is. You're saying it's perfectly fine for them to have as many entries as they want.

My purpose was never to harm Golgotha. My entire purpose - and I have no doubt everyone will make up their own mind as to whether or not I'm being honest - was to try to encourage the players of Pathfinder Online to choose to foster a community where the requests of the developers are honored rather than ignored.

I do not care, not one bit.

Maybe I was not clear at some point.

Let me try to be as clear as I can be.

Goblinworks is not going to remove Golgatha from the Leaderboard.

We cannot assert a right to tell the community who is and is not a Guild for the purposes of the Land Rush because it is impossible to write a rule that will be definitive, and that cannot be easily gamed.

Golgatha, and Pax, have to decide how they want to approach the promotion, and live with the consequences of their actions. Those consequences will not include being removed by Goblinworks from the promotion.

We've been very clear what we expect of the winners of Phase I. The community will let Gogatha and Pax know to the extent they feel those expectations are being honored. You are your own referees. You collectively own this problem. You can engage with it, or ignore it, as you see fit.

Then under no circumstance, we will remove ourselves from the leader board. No amount of guilt trips, or bad feels from this community, or threats of in game action will move us from this course of action. This thread and line of thinking has been an utter waste of time, patience, and an undue amount of stress for nothing of value.

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

Kitsune Aou wrote:

What I mean is this question about timing: if Golgotha were to join Aeternum, would the restrictions (e.g. alignment/reputation) or customizations take effect BEFORE Golgotha would be given the opportunity to establish a brand-new settlement after the launch of EE?

Can you clarify what you mean?

Sorry, the thoughts in my head are not relaying to my fingertips well. :P

It is my understanding that functionally the only standing arguments as to why Golgotha needs its own, separate, settlement (at least in the beginning) is because there will be certain restrictions on some companies and individuals belonging to certain settlements - such as alignment differences, or reputation level restrictions. And The reason that this would matter is because it is my understanding that establishing new settlements will not be an option in the very beginning of Early Enrollment. Therefore, if the restrictions were not applicable until sometime after the ability to claim new settlements, then there remains no functional reason why Golgotha should need its own settlement from the land rush - they could simply use the collective force of Pax to claim their own new settlement when the time came.

[EDIT/ADD]: Therefore my question to GW is: Which comes first - the restrictions, or the ability to claim new settlements outside of the land rush ones?

I'm not going to say much, Lee says it all for me, we start off at a greater disadvantage then others.

From the thread http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qyuc?Blog-Rushing-the-Blog#27

The basic plan, highly subject to change once the settlement system gets actually up and running, is that settlements won in the land rush will start with a Hall/Keep (i.e. the first and central building every settlement needs) and a selection of always useful support buildings (banks, possibly some development index boosters, and such) and a bundle of resources. Everyone else will have to go clear out a hex from any hostiles that may hold it, gather the resources to build a hall (bulk goods, company influence, money), spend the time building the hall, etc.

Lee, that's because no on ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Pax: If you want to be a part of something big, these people are for you. Can't say they got much going for them other than that imo, but they do support all sorts of life styles and they are BIG.

You wound me sir

I look forward to taking your green hat sir, and fulfilling my dream of opening a green hat supply store

I figure it's about time to post about how we are structured, and our views on certain hot topic matters.

We are an oligarchy ruled by a council of three, each council member is divided by alignment, and advocates for members that fall into said alignment.

Cyneric: Neutral alignment
Morbis: Evil
Huin: Good

In this way all members below council are fairly represented within the guild.

Our primary task is as a standing army, assassin's or caravan guards for hire, we are mercenaries and will be primarily focused on contract work. As such, banditry is a low priority for us, and not something that we will participate in regularly.

We are still taking contracts, however we have recently entered into an alliance with Golgotha, so any future contracts must not conflict with the terms of said alliance.

With that said, since everyone seems to be doing it all willy and or nilly, I figure I should join the party and talk at least about my views on griefing and what have you.

I view griefing as something that is repeated, so corpse camping and the like, as well as anything that is verbally abusive, or could be considered harassment.

I do not view RPK as griefing, though I would like to encourage people to make RPK at least fun or interesting for both parties rather then, I kill you and take your stuff. Perhaps throw in some RP, or make some sort of crazy demand for pants or green hats, something at least more memorable then just a gank.

If anyone has any questions feel free to comment in said thread, or send me a pm.