I say that isn't fair. The existing smallholder should have prior claim, property rights. It should require more investment to claim a hex on which there is one or more opposing smallholdings than would be required if the smallholdings not there. Seems like any claim goes out the window if you do not show up to defend said claim. On the topic of ownership for these goods, it would be a great thing to allow companies/settlements ownership of store-bought in-game items like the smallhold and basecamp. Eligible members could check them out, and if they left the company or settlement they no longer have access to them. (Could make them disappear for cooldown period before reappearing in settlement / company vault.) If the company or settlement is instead disbanded/destroyed, whoever had the item would likely retain ownership at that point, possession and all that. Point being, a group could donate towards the smallhold, and not feel like a single member can screw them over. If company/settlement store pseudo-accounts were feasible, that would be kinda nice. Just add money to the joint account and authorized users can spend it.
Could Audacity, belonging to the settlement Dagedai, purchase a Smallhold and with the permission of Phaeros, attach it to said settlement? Would this essentially give us bind points at both Dagedai and Phaeros, and access to both settlements' storage? Would Phaeros have the option of revoking permission, thus destroying our smallhold? Would there instead be a sort of eviction notice?
We are coming into the last stretch of the land rush. Some people have seen a lot of shakeup, some are finally settling down. These final days should prove to be quite interesting! One of the things many of us have eagerly been awaiting has really started to change landscape of the landrush, that would be companies banding together to secure a location. I would like to invite any individuals or companies who have not settled on a home yet to consider living with us. We are Lawful Neutral and we have very few requirements of our inhabitants, all of which are intended to see our city thrive without placing an undue burden on the populace. We are a hub for travel, trading and crafting among the variety of services our denizens will be offering. In short, if you do not know where you want to be already, there is a good chance you could benefit greatly in making your home with us. If you wish to see a bit more about us, take a look at our settlement thread. If you simply wish to sign on, take a look here! Feel free to leave any questions you may have below, or send me a PM if you prefer. I look forward to seeing some new faces!
I believe that whoever is being observed should need to notice it on their own, or even someone nearby with a high enough perception and a clear view of both the stalker and prey. Letting anyone get a free notice like this tells players they do not need to invest points into being observant. I say this even as a town leader knowing that I am likely to attract this sort of attention. If I and my cohorts fail to notice A) the potentially disguised assassin, and B) the observation action itself, I really do not feel bad about what comes next. It is not a clear death sentence even then, but at that point, if you die from assassination, you have failed three times.
Finally got around to setting up forums. They're functional, but currently a work in progress. That said, feel free to stop by and say hi!
Towers have a PvP window. When the window is open, the Hex the Tower is in does not inflict Reputation penalties for PvP. While the window is open there is a capture area near the tower, probably outlined by a wall or similar structure. Standing in that area gives your company points towards controlling the tower; the first company to cross a certain threshold gains control of the tower. If you are defending a tower you control, you lower everyone elses points for each person in the control area. Will multiple companies from the same settlement be competing against each other? It seems like support from the sponsoring settlement could well end up being counter-productive to the settlement's interests as a whole if this is the case. I would like to see control be established based on cumulative settlement effort, with company control awarded based on the percentage of support a given company put in towards the effort of the settlement as a whole. Can a company control more than one tower?
I really appreciate that you take the time to respond to these concerns, and at such depth. I like where you are approaching this from and generally just appreciate the outlook you have been expressing. I may not always agree with the form it takes, but I am just one voice in a community of passionate people. The approach you have taken in marketing thus far is spot on for attracting discontented players like me, who chafe at having fewer options in play as new games come out rather than more, and who thoroughly enjoy contest. Your Kickstarter description was a breath of fresh air, everything since has been reaffirmation.. Redefining perceptions of PvP is the responsible route to go, you are doing the entire industry a favor if you succeed in this one thing. While I am eager for PFO and its success, I am even more eager for what that will mean for MMOs in the long run. Keep at it, make your vision a reality. I will gladly give praise for your successes and stern words when I think you have mis-stepped. Now hurry up with the alpha so the rest of us can play too. =p
Purpose: This company exists solely to network the greatest number of trade oriented characters possible. Designed to be a second or third company that never becomes sponsored. Alignment: True Neutral
Notes: No obligations towards others, save that you stay respectful in the context of company dealings. There will not be any non-aggression or preferential treatment expectations. This is simply to stay connected with others in 'the business', a place from which deals can be initiated based on advertised products or services. It is not meant to circumvent contracts, and officially we encourage such to still be used as a matter of protecting yourselves. Please respond below or pm me if you wish to join.
Companies and individuals join RA, not settlements. Some such groups have domain over settlements to greater or lesser degrees. While enforcing RA acceptance might make sense for Brighthaven and Phaeros where they may wish to be selective in their membership, it is quite the opposite for Dagedai and I believe also for <insert Magistry settlement name>. We are in the thick of things, rather than being somewhat isolated and exerting stronger control over the surrounding territory. Dagedai actively encourages anyone with a stake in trade to set up shop there, which would not be possible if we were to exclude others. The only thing this means for Audacity is that not everyone around them is committed to the same ideals. That is fine. Suffice to say that the Accord mentions nothing of enforced settlement ideals, nor should it. If a founding group wishes to enforce such a filter, they need simply list it in membership terms for all to see. We do not. To each their own. ;)
As many of you may know, Dagedai aims to be a place of commerce. We have seen and talked to a variety of other such settlements. We want to open a standing invitation for any other traders or trade settlements to send members or representatives to take up residence with us. Just as we expect to have scouts looking for good deals and merchants securing arrangements for goods needed elsewhere, we expect many others will be doing the same. We want to make your work as easy as possible. The more business we can promote, the happier everyone is likely to be. If there are other settlements that wish to facilitate the same smooth transition of goods, we would love to hear from you as well. Knowing where trade is more important than politics will help many in the pursuit of profits without having to worry about who they might be offending, or embargoes they might be violating. Join Dagedai in creating a strong network of commerce, whatever the political climate might be.
My support few away as soon as we were questioned by Nihimon. We had a list of questions we had to answer and then back up... etc. Of course, we did not see anyone else who joined after go through that. Yes, you were questioned, partly because you issued a list of the conditions under which you would join, partly because of your self-created reputation. There were very legitimate concerns about how your proclaimed style of play was going to work in the context of the Accord's mutual benefit clause as well as the definitions/limits you proposed for positive gameplay where UNC was concerned. If you had instead come to us with Bluddwolf's most recent declaration along with simply stated open support and reiterated it in the context of what would have been markedly fewer questions (lacking a list of conditions which with to contend), you would have met with an almost entirely different reception. There is no point in pretending that various members of UNC and several members of the Accord that are prominent in the community have had much more personal disagreements, but the tone of Bluddwolf's most recent declaration and what you came to us with are vastly different. I hope you can appreciate this from where we stand.
Yes, absolutely, 100% sure. There were many questions and concerns, all equally valid, all equally voiced, though from what I have seen, not all equally addressed. Nihimon's were the ones that seem to have dominated most of your attention. This is not indicative of where power lays, but where you were focused. Also, taking the Pax discussion here was kinda dumb. He derailed the crap out of your thread. I happen to agree with your outlook on bringing an unrelated PAX discussion into the RA thread. I am sure you have seen my responses thus far.
More than tired of this topic, and the names it includes, arguing points long since worn out. There is no benefit to continuing either side of this discussion, and only more harm will come of it. As for claims that no calls have been made to drop this or take it to PMs, you may want to "Retract this statement. Now." as this has been asked for, multiple times, by several people, throughout the duration of this topic, in whichever thread it is occurring. The calls you see now are simply more of the same by the people that are tired of seeing this crap brought up, regardless of who did it, and concerned about the continued damage it is going to inflict to all sides.
It was a great offer Bludd, do not get me wrong. What was missing for us was a simple 'we agree to the Accord and wish to be a part of it'. Knowing what you will or will not do is important for your own sake coming into the Accord. Every member should have given thought to this same question before signing on. Clearly defining what you will and will not do as part of the conditions to joining, while open, is not in the spirit of the Accord. You must know where you will draw the line should the need occur; but once you actually put conditions on your membership, you have moved beyond what the Accord is meant to accomplish. The phrase "what is not forbidden, is permitted" was a big influence on drawing the Accord up, as an example of behavior to avoid. Laying out terms of acceptance defeats the purpose of a long term commitment to asking two things of every action you take: is it good for the community/game, and is it going to hurt someone in the Roseblood. If we had said, "Bludd, this is great, welcome aboard UNC", we would have had to accept that you were committed to the Accord, but only where you openly stated you were. The Accord is not a set of rules to abide by or laws to adhere to. It is an ideal, rather two of them, that we commit to moving towards. This is distinctly not the same as actions to shy away from. This is what I mean when I say hedging your commitment. Everyone that has joined so far has simply said they agree with the Accord and they wish to sign up. None of us has put conditions on our willingness to join. The player must be a good fit to the Accord, rather than the Accord changing to fit each player. It certainly means something different to each player, but our commitments are the same. This is all partly in response to Bludd, partly for anyone coming into the thread recently. For those wondering, Audacity simply agreed to the commitments listed in the Accord. We made an effort to work out the kinds of positive gameplay we could engage in that would be of mutual benefit to ourselves and the others, and we have continued to do so as new members join.
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.
You want to get the lay of the land before making a ruling? Fine.
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:
For those of you not familiar with competitive play, take a moment and read this. You may not agree with what is said, but it accurately describes a fundamental difference in actions that many are likely to have when compared to your typical gamer (TT or otherwise). 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 to do something and then... nothing. As you can see by now, my frustration has very little to do with the issue regarding PAX and the rest of the community. Like Hobs I have sunk a fair amount of cash into this game and I am telling you that I am not satisfied with how a couple of fairly serious issues, including community management and the landrush as a whole, are being handled. I am pretty sure you would not be hard pressed to point your finger blindly and find someone who has spent even more than me that shares some or all of the grievances expressed in this thread thus far. You wanted PAX to listen to the community about how we feel. I want you to listen to me about how I feel. Hopefully you will practice what you preach. For the record, I am not angry with you, and this is not an attack. It is most definitely a request to reconsider some of the choices you have made in regards to our community. I sincerely hope that had you two more months to plan out how landrush was going to happen once it started during EE, that it would have been executed with more forethought.
Xeen, that is quite enough. What you appear to be doing here is fabricating such a perception. I know you and a couple of others either believe this, or at least conveniently ignore all evidence to the contrary; neither of which makes it public opinion. Nihimon's actions will alter the reputation of the Accord and by association its members. At most, he speaks for our reputation in that sense, but no more or less so than everyone else in the Accord. Just as Nihimon does not speak for the Accord, neither do you. If you continue to make claims that anyone that has availed themselves of our posts concerning the Accord can clearly see are incorrect, about a group you are not a part of, I will continue to correct your attempts to do so.
* An important note--when Players are portraying Characters that are Evil, I understand and appreciate the distinction and also know that such Players can do this in a way that is still respectful of other Players. I have high hopes for our current Evil and otherwise "bad guy" leaning crowd in this regard. You will set the tone for how others see Evil in this game. Reminds me of this..
The Bloodrose Accord and Nihimon have made it clear that we are their enemy. I want to be exceedingly clear here. Nobody speaks for the Roseblood Accord. Many speak as a part of it, but none for the entity as a whole, nor its constituent parts. We, Audacity, have declared nobody as an enemy. We will uphold mutual benefit to the other members of the Accord, but it is in no way whatsoever beneficial for a company-for-hire to be declaring enemies, particularly not before the game has started. The ONLY groups we are committed to take action against are those hurting the game by their actions or one who has deeply betrayed the Accord from within. Since there is no game to speak of as yet, and by definition no actions to take, we cannot see our way to moving against anyone. Xeen, I hope you are willing to amend your statement.
There is most definitely going to be different cultures in game than out. We will have to do what we can to curtail toxic behavior in either place, but at least the forums are moderated and if it comes down to it trolls can be ignored and flagged if they cross the line.
I would really like anyone reading this to take a moment and think about the title. -------- Are we, as a community, heading in the right direction? I have seen emphatic assertions about how not-caustic we are. I have also seen 10 pages of vitriol and filth spewed out between factions at the behest of just a couple of individuals. That was just yesterday. We are frequently seeing entire threads derailed by people expressing opinions they have no business bringing into that particular discussion, just because they can or because they feel justified in the damage they are about to do. This has happened in several places and affected multiple groups and individuals. Not simply benign off topic chatter, this is the variety of 'we are going to drag this thread through the mud', knockdown, dragout, Chris has to get involved acid that hurts us, as a community, all of us. That was this week. Is this where we want to be heading? Engaging every troll with a contentious opinion? It has gotten so bad that Keovar felt it necessary to make a thread just to get people to laugh. We argued there too. We all need to start thinking about whether whatever it is we have to say is going to in any way be good for the community, or if it is going to do nothing more than contribute to the problem. All of us. I have seen some people I have a great deal of respect for say things they absolutely should not have. I have seen people I have zero respect for stir up the general populace into a fervor. I have to stop reading some threads just to keep myself from expressing some rather unkind opinions about the contributions of some individuals. Bringslite has had to check me once even, fortunately in time to limit the damage I was about to do. Just think about it. Ryan has made it very clear how valuable the community is to the future of the game. Right now, that is not a pretty future. I can already imagine a few people ready to lash out about being expected to keep their mouths shut. Suffice to say there is a few worlds' worth of difference between healthy discussion and knee-jerk reaction without due consideration to what is being said, both in what we have read and what we say in response.
For the record, Anna antagonized Elsa the whole damned movie. Merida as seen in Brave was not Disney canon, but a slim Disney version of her was crowned and added to the Disney Princess collection. BS if you ask me. Strong female character? Not slim enough. As soon as your start defining things you have players that care more about the letter than the spirit of the thing. RAW v RAI. There will be none of that, and because there will be none of that we will strive all the harder to see the spirit succeed.
That ship has probably sailed, it would not hurt my feelings if they were willing to change the term to settlement alliance or some such. Whether they do or not, there needs to be an explanation of term and intent clearly posted on the land rush landing page.
Ryan, Lee, Stephen or someone. From my correspondences so far it seems as though the confusion around the term guild is pretty bad. The problem I am seeing arises from the, vast majority of, population that backed KS2 and then went off the grid. Last they heard, guild was a backer level that appealed to player groups, be it gaming groups, clans or those that called themselves guilds. It assured them reservation of their guild name. It was a 1:1 correlation between groups of players and the PFO organization they would have. It did not mean settlement name, nor coalition of companies backing a settlement. Fast-forward a year and a half. You just sent out updates which, by the reactions I am getting, did nothing to explain the terminology shift in the Paizo community. While the same shift occurred over the course of several blogs, it also seems to have not made the desired impact. Efforts towards this shift were decidedly sabotaged when GW casually started referring to guilds again in the same posts that these returning players were referred to. No explanation that the term guild now meant something entirely different, nor what that meaning now was, and that this meaning would only apply to the landrush itself. Please do something about clearing up this confusion. Players have no sense that there should be anything other than 180+ separate groups all vying for their own settlements, many of which have just a bare handful of players. They have no reason to believe that banding together will not cost them their guild, which we now refer to as company. You are looking at a near complete lack of collaboration at this juncture. I could very well be shooting myself in the foot here, but it is a crucial piece of information that the majority of the community is missing out on to really make the landrush an exciting thing.
Ryan was clearly aware of this matter that he perceived to be an issue. PAX was clearly informed of the options that lay before them.
PAX made their choice. Now the greater population of the forums are aware that such an exchange occurred. PAX got their way, Ryan is dissatisfied but has made his choice. There are certainly ramifications to this choice, of which the publication of details is only likely to serve to increase the chance that others are going to see this as tacit permission to do the same. The only opinion I care to share is this:
Carry on, or not.
Two of my favorite moments: 1) MajorMUD: I was in a gang(guild) that one of the top players had created, which he let very few people into. I was playing a mage at that time, of a particularly intelligent yet fragile and clumsy race. The epitome of glass cannon. Players generally kept macros of action sequences even back then, and I was no different. My opening salvo made the room weak to fire and proceeded to use a lot of fire against that same room. A few days after I joined my cousin noticed which gang I was in and wanted to join. I said to ask the guild leader, who proceeded to tell him the only way anyone could join the guild anymore was to kill me. This was news to me, but hey it was my cousin so I said I would let him swing first, knowing full well that his initial backstab would almost but not quite kill me. He swung, and my incredibly weak and clumsy character dodged of all things. We never did get any more members. 2) I was at a buddy's house playing EverQuest with him, after a while we ended up feeling a little bored. We ported over to Kelethin (woodelf starting city) and found where the newbs were killing bees. Proceeded to charm one and give it all the best druid buffs he had: movement speed, armor, hps, regeneration, strength and a damage shield, then broke charm and watched it roll over every newb that attacked it and ran them down when they tried to get away, yelling for help with the bee. Eventually a group teamed up on it and killed it, earning the fine steel swords it was holding. It was great to see them band together, and hilarious to see them freaking out about the killer bee.
We would like to extend a warm welcome to The Balanced Scales Trading Company for joining our great Settlement. Much profit, so coin.
I expect Audacity might define it more in terms of refusing to take "revenge" contracts, but I've never actually heard Darcnes state that so I might be getting myself in trouble trying to speak for others. We have actually agreed to simply not take a hit on Accord members (assuming due diligence does not fail).
Custer was a "hero" too, and not even God could sink the Titanic. Let's save those kind of labels until you've actually faced battle. You just brutalized a perfectly good Firefly quote. Shame on you.
Personally, I will fight tooth-and-nail to ensure that governing body has as little power to meddle in members' affairs as possible. This is also something we will fight for. I would prefer to see any such governing body act more as an intermediary among the members than an authority.
As far as strategy goes, the safe option would be to cluster all the good settlements around Fort Riverwatch. This might be the case if the NPC cities had the kind of weight that they do in theme parks. The analogy is that of starting cities, beginner areas, not that of a capital city or other font of power. Within months it is going to be these starting cities that are seemingly out of place amidst the much more powerful player cities. The one thing that these places will offer is the NPC regulation of behavior and immutability. They are not going anywhere, neither are they going to be the heights of player focus.
I am rather at a loss as to how this thread has degenerated this far. The Roseblood Accord states two simple objectives, positive gameplay and mutual success of its members. These are not the same thing, they are two completely separate goals. At times they can actually be conflicting goals and then must guide each other towards an acceptable resolution. Bluddwolf asking to join is great, so long as he is taking into account both aspects of the accord. Nihimon asking the questions he did is also important, primarily because the points that Bluddwolf made addressed only one of the purposes of the accord. I said this earlier, before signing off on this, I had to come to grips with which actions we were willing to forego in regards to which targets. We are willing to clearly state that positive gameplay is our goal, we will discuss these matters with the other accord members, we will likely see what this encompasses evolve over time. We are not equivocating about our participation in this aspect of the accord, it is an all or nothing effort and we are all in. Furthermore, we also agreed that we will assist the members of this accord to mutual benefit, this is a completely two way street. Other members of the accord may not appreciate how much this is the case quite yet, with us not being in close proximity or having a similar alignment, but I think some do and this is why we have been able to have serious discussions on how we can help each other. I will repeat myself again, to anyone wishing to join this accord, you will need to consider in what ways you are going to contribute to the goal of mutual benefit. It is not all about positive gameplay. This was definitely a big part in our decision making process, but it was still only a part of the whole when it came to joining this accord. We did so eyes open, aware that whatever we ultimately felt to violate the spirit of positive gameplay may not be shared 1:1 among other groups, nor that we had sole dominion over such a concept. At no point do I recall us discussing the formation of a church or a CC by the name of Apple in which we sought to control the mind share of all things related to positive gameplay. We have a strong idea about what positive gameplay constitutes, we have decided to build an alliance with others who support our version of the concept, and we have published it for others to see and decide if it is something they wish to take a part in. We are not saying that UNC may not share our concept, nor that PAX lacks its own. Neither do we accept that doing so alone qualifies them for joining this accord, as it only meets one of the requirements. --- Do not take this as me being angry, I am attempting clearly to state what I see as needing to be less vague, given the nature of the discussion thus far.
While we who are active in the forums represent a minority in the bigger picture, we also represent a minority that is likely to put more effort into the game than the average Jorah. These three big companies are also going to be the easy choice for a great number of players. They will have the most players, the most progress made in the shortest amount of time, and the simple appeal of being popular, which they will continue to appear more so with each joining player. If we made the claim that people will follow our example, that certain would be arrogant of us, but really we are just trying to show a consistent front of behavior for others to take their cues from. Most of them have probably not given a lot of thought to what their goals are, or what actions they are and are not willing to take. Regardless of these masses outnumbering us, having 100 people all tell you the same thing is enough for most people to realize "oh hey, maybe I should not just go try and kill everyone after all". It will not be de facto behavior for all just because we say so, but it can be consistent for anyone that learns by example. I realize there are actually a few people out there that do not particularly care for Nihimon or Lifedrgn or Hobs, but when enough people hear those names on enough tongues, with enough repetition, chances are they are going to have that some sense of a person being well thought of that many of us have come to adopt over the last couple of years. Our leaders setting examples of conduct is going to have an impact. Bluddwolf will be looked up to in some circles. As scary as it sounds, be prepared for that. (kidding BW) We will not be the ones to determine whether the game succeeds or fails, but we will be setting a very visible stage for others to look at coming into the game, who will in turn pass on their behaviors to the next even larger group. Positive gameplay starts somewhere, we can all see to it that it starts with EE, whether we are a part of this accord or not.
I feel that I should speak up from the perspective of a group not intending to reside in the Southeast mountains. Audacity did not enter into this agreement for protection, we got involved because of the commitment to positive gameplay. We do not feel that banditry is bad for the game or its players. We do not wish for special consideration against such activities. We do intend to provide services of mutual benefit to other members of the accord. We have made arrangements to do exactly this. We would gladly make such arrangements with those outside of this accord as well, these arrangements would be in good faith with those we have already entered into. UNC would need to decide for themselves what they would be willing to put towards the goal of mutual success, just as we had to decide for ourselves how such success could be brought about. We would love to see UNC find the middle ground that lets them thrive in relationship of mutual success, particularly with members of this agreement, but more than that we are very glad to see UNC show support of the Roseblood Accord and the goals it is made up of. @Andius the first thing Audacity offered this effort was expansion out of the Southeast corner. New players will be given every opportunity for exposure to these ideals. Trade routes will be established the same day the land rush is finalized. It is also far too early to say that this accord will remain even confined to the region it was set forth in. We believe more groups will want to be a part of this, and we hope they come from more areas than simply the Southeast. As for the points Nihimon brought up: 1. Is it "positive gameplay" to prey on the weak and inexperienced? It is not positive gameplay to single out the weak and the inexperienced. However, adversity is how we learn, anyone so presented with a losing situation is also presented with an opportunity to learn from it. 2. Would players seeking a "positive gameplay experience" feel fulfilled if they were robbed by bandits who had promised to provide that "positive gameplay experience"? If said players made the mistake of equating "positive gameplay experience" to "being attacked is bad", then I am sure they would. If they understood that "positive gameplay" is in the context of everything the game has to offer, and not simply how it affects an individual session of one player, I do not think they would be able to honestly state that being robbed by bandits did not add value to their experience. Though perhaps not their net-worth. This falls into the category of meaningful PvP as defined/designed by the developers and is thus included as part of positive gameplay. 3. Would robbing members of their valuables or raiding members' Outposts contribute to "our mutual success"? This is the one I will leave to UNC, as I do not pretend to know to what extent they would be willing to curtail banditry. 4. Is Banditry compatible with Milani's stance against oppression? Robin Hood. Oppression as applied to griefers has already been answered. Oppression as applied to raiding an invading army? Certainly. Oppression as applied to an all lawful-good aligned society that excludes those of other alignments? Absolutely. |
