Doggan's page

Doggan wrote:

SheepishEidolon wrote:

Doggan wrote:

So will we no longer have an iconic that uses a bow/crossbow as a primary weapon? That's lame.

The crossbow is still there, on his back. Maybe he is a switch hitter to the point that both the handaxe pair and the crossbow can be considered primary weapons.

Except the video talks about his focus on dual wielding.

It took 2 feats to be good with a crossbow in the playtest and 1 to effectively dual wield. Harsk can easily do both. The only issue I see is splitting his Hunter's Edge between flurry and precision.

You're missing the point. It's not a complaint about Harsk specifically. Just the fact that there will no longer be a character with a focus on iconic fantasy weaponry. Sucks for folks like me who enjoy that.

So will we no longer have an iconic that uses a bow/crossbow as a primary weapon? That's lame.

Dang. What a disappointment. Hopefully in 3E the Charisma based pool will be gone, and something better will come of it. Basing it off of Charisma is one of the main problems. And will continue to be so, now that you're basing class abilities off of it. MAD is bad. I was hoping that would have been obvious after 1E.

This is disappointing. The new edition is supposed to be about evolution, but a LG Paladin isn't evolution. It's just standard fare. Even 1E has archetypes that allowed other alignments.

Maybe it's time to do away with the Paladin class, and rename it something like Paragon. Lose the archaic grasping to the ultimate do-gooder, and make the class a representation of a deity on earth.

I'm hoping that more alignments become available before the core release. I'm hoping that there is actual growth and evolution.

Doggan wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I want to take a moment and talk a bit about the a concern I am seeing here with some frequency, and that is that characters will be streamlined and not customizable. I get that we are using some terms that may lead you to think we are going with a similar approach to some other games, but that is simply not the case.

Characters in the new edition have MORE options in most cases than they did in the previous edition. You can still make the scholarly mage who is the master of arcane secrets and occult lore, just as easily as you can make a character that goes against type, like a fighter who is skilled in botany. The way that the proficiency system works gives you plenty of choices when it comes to skills, allowing you to make the character you want to make.

I think you're understating some of the customization options that folks are looking for. A fighter skilled in botany isn't against type. That's just a profession skill. Against type would be something like a muscle wizard who plays as front line (and is so fun).

The customization fear comes from what was given to us as players. Take any base class, and with traits, feats, and archetypes you could turn them into just about anything else. Some of Pathfinder's charm was glut of choice.

The way I read it, Jason is talking about choice/options in terms of fluff, while you're talking about choice/options in terms of crunch. But we'll have to wait and see.

Fluff isn't really a concern though. You need 0 mechanics support to fluff something. If I want to say my elf wizard looks like a Salvador Dali painting, nothing is stopping me beyond my DM saying okay.

I want to take a moment and talk a bit about the a concern I am seeing here with some frequency, and that is that characters will be streamlined and not customizable. I get that we are using some terms that may lead you to think we are going with a similar approach to some other games, but that is simply not the case.

Characters in the new edition have MORE options in most cases than they did in the previous edition. You can still make the scholarly mage who is the master of arcane secrets and occult lore, just as easily as you can make a character that goes against type, like a fighter who is skilled in botany. The way that the proficiency system works gives you plenty of choices when it comes to skills, allowing you to make the character you want to make.

I think you're understating some of the customization options that folks are looking for. A fighter skilled in botany isn't against type. That's just a profession skill. Against type would be something like a muscle wizard who plays as front line (and is so fun).

The customization fear comes from what was given to us as players. Take any base class, and with traits, feats, and archetypes you could turn them into just about anything else. Some of Pathfinder's charm was glut of choice.

Phylotus wrote:

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

This is their new baby, their second baby.

What's Starfinder then, their adopted child? :-P

It's our child pulled forward into the future and then brought back to our time.

You heard it here first, folks. Starfinder is Cable.

Oh man. Are you bringing Liefeld on as part of the creative team also?!? Will we see huge shoulder pads on every iconic?

There's Planar Adventures, and that's it.

I wonder how poorly it's going to sell.

I've bought most of the hardcovers since I picked up Pathfinder. Only currently missing Crimson Throne and Emerald Spire. I was really hoping to get more time out of it. Now I'll probably unload my collection before the playtest comes out and the massive book sell off begins.

Change is good. Change is fine. But it's hard not to feel a sense of loss when your hobby of choice is no longer supported by the creator unless you buy this newer and shinier thing. But I get it.

With the easy availability of online rule resources, I likely won't buy anything beyond the core book for PF2, and maybe some setting books (the only hardcovers I won't sell).

Yeah... about that whole stamina thing... Deep breath...

Frankly, I'm very tired of Paizo not letting us ALL be involved in the playtesting process anymore. The open playtest is what built Pathfinder into a success, but since they started tightening their grip and trying to impress us with their creative team's glorious visions, it seems like they do nothing but ruin what I loved most about the game. I see more and more ego trips and snide behavior from the designers and less and less of them actually listening to feedback. It's not okay. Unchained was full of cringe, Occult Mysteries was a trainwreck, but Starfinder is an outright affront.

I despise Starfinder's rules. I love Starfinder's art, theme, story, mood, love it, but the rules are like going back in time to Star Wars RCR and just Unchaining it. The Vitality as HP/Mana system didn't work, and Force Points were never properly balanced; We moved on for a reason, why did they go back? It's bad enough they ruined Pathfinder psionics with this occult magic BS, but now space opera's getting shafted too? I want to love this, but I can't. I'll use the starship rules, the power armor, and some of the tech, but the new class format, themes, condensed skills, revised action economy, BAB rework, and all the rest of their in-house Unchained design philosophy can kiss off. I play Pathfinder BECAUSE it's 3.5 improved, stop trying to change it! If we wanted a streamlined system we'd play 5e. I wanted Pathfinder in space, not SWRCR5e Unchained. That said, I will be converting everything back to the way it should be and I guess I just don't get to be part of the global campaign.

0 out of 10 stars on the system.
8 out of 10 for the art (they skimped on the detail of the undead fleet),
and -9001 out of 10 for not letting us ALL help design it.

Open it up, Paizo. Let us playtest again. Let us decide again. That's what built this community, that's what will sustain it into the future. A bright, shiny future with hit dice, spell points,
level 9 spells,...

I can respect your dislike, but one part of your statement bothers me a little bit:

"I play Pathfinder BECAUSE it's 3.5 improved, stop trying to change it! If we wanted a streamlined system we'd play 5e. I wanted Pathfinder in space, not SWRCR5e Unchained."

Nothing is stopping you from playing Pathfinder in space. There's even rules to convert Starfinder into Pathfinder stats. I could see your complaint being valid if the book was called "Ultimate Space" or some other variant on the Pathfinder RPG line. But it's Starfinder. It's different. And there's plenty of people who have no problem with that. Please stop using "we" like your view represents the entirety of the Pathfinder fan base. There's room for more than one system.

More specifically, I sat down at the table with my wizard, his intelligent item psychic cohort (my followers from Leadership were back in my private demiplane where I was astral projecting from...and in my other private demiplane tending to my clone), the solar angel that I'd called via greater planar binding (utilizing Augmented Calling and Spell Perfection), a bythos aeon that my cohort had brought via greater planar ally (via the Faith psychic discipline), and a Gargantuan animated object (animated and made permanent by the solar angel). This rose to eight characters when I had my psychic cohort use monster summoning VII to bring in three (I rolled high) celestial triceratops in the first round of our first combat. (I should note that I'd mentioned all of these to the GM before we sat down to play, and he signed off on all of them.)

You obviously knew what you were doing, even if the DM didn't know what you were doing. When you have that level of system mastery, with that much freedom, you should be able to edit yourself to not ruin anyone else's experience at the table.

Check yourself before your wreck the game.

I'm super looking forward to it. Hopefully this will not take away from development of Pathfinder related material though.

9 spell level spontaneous nature magic caster.

Only class I can think of that I'd really like to see.

Serpentine creatures can make use of items that go in the belt, eyes or headband slots. That's it. Animal Archive is useful for that sort of thing.

What was said above. Make sure it's actually taking the -3 on every attack roll. And also make sure its slowed down to 20ft movement speed in combat. Make sure he paid for barding instead of regular armor. DR thing is legit, but he has no way of getting a feat at level 2 as a druid. But it's only 1 time per day, and lasts 1min/lvl.

In the end, it's vulnerable to the same thing all other characters are. Disable it and it's fancy armor means nothing. Animal companions have garbage will saves.

Really though, if it becomes a serious issue where all of your other players are feeling left out, take him aside and talk to him person to person. Ask him to scale it back a bit.

I love the Gunslinger, and think it's one of the more fun classes to play.

I can't stand the Shaman iconic. I think the trans-gendered aspect to it was pandering, and ham-fisted. Easily the worst iconic to date.

It annoys the crap out of me to see players constantly playing the same super optimized characters over and over again.

I hate playing with DMs who feel it necessary to ban everything outside of the CRB, but it seems to be all I find.

Pathfinder Society is a waste of time, and every DM that I've run across during PFS sessions aren't worth a damn.

I dislike the Adventure Paths. I think it's a bit crappy that Adventure Path subscribers are the only ones who get store discounts.

Pathfinder Online is a terrible game, and if it wasn't for the minis I got from the Kickstarter, I'd forever regret buying into it.

Sandpoint is pretty detailed. As are Korvosa and Magnimar. And by this time next year, Kintargo is gonna be pretty detailed. Westrcrown's pretty well covered as well.

A big hardcover book of a city would indeed be awesome, but fitting that into a schedule is tricksy.

I'd even go for a hardcover about a country. Each city getting a map, several pages (or more). It's something that I feel is really missing from the setting. Yeah, I know we're free to make our own details, but I feel like the world could use this stuff.

Don't do it. It's a trap.

Combined with the steadfast refusal to even acknowledge the repeated requests to update old AP's it seems like every time a whole new set of classes or a whole new version of previous classes gets introduced, it creeps my previous purchases that much closer to obsolescence, reducing their collective value.

This line right here made me chuckle a little. I have everything Paizo has released for the core PF line, along with almost everything from the campaign setting and the companion books (I skip APs because I don't want to run another person's adventure.) The most used book at my table? The first Pathfinder book I bought. Core. Next most used? APG. I still value the old books as much as the new ones. I guess I just don't see new options as something that makes my old options irrelevant.

I allow my players to use all of the hardcover material. Haven't had any problems yet. I don't try to memorize every mechanic of every class. Only the ones that my players are using in the current campaign so that I don't have any surprises. I love all of the options. There's classes from earlier books that I'll never play, and some from the later books that I'll never play. But just having those options available (even if I never partake of them) makes me feel far less constrained as a player and a DM.

Relieved by this for sure.

I appreciate the religious standing of your friends. I also have friends who are practicing Wiccan. That being said, the Witch is part of the Pathfinder rules. Namely a class within the Pathfinder world of Golarion. It's not meant to emulate people who are Wiccan and refer to themselves as Witches. There is nothing wrong with the Pathfinder Witch, and no changes are needed.

However, you seem to have a pretty firm idea of your own envisioning of the Witch class. The Pathfinder rules are great in that you can throw away any part of it that you wish. Or rebuild it how you wish. Nothing is stopping you from doing so. You've got a good list of stuff there that you can add to your own version of the Witch class.

If you are a resource locust because you're trying to economically damage your opponents, that's the system working as intended and there are lots of ways your opponents can mitigate that problem.

There's a corner case where you have an alt account (or character) do it and try to avoid some of those mitigation factors. But that's any easy corner case to detect and resolve: "Dear customer service, we keep finding people in nearby hexes strip mining and they're all aligned with NPC settlements and we can't get rid of them without taking Rep and Alignment hits, please make them stop."

Sounds far more like a design issue that should be fixed rather than something left up to customer service.

Still if you take X, I'm cool with that. :)

It's so fun being loved.

Glad to see another Dwarf iconic. Not so glad to see 10 pages worth of discussion on Shardra's junk instead of all the spirit connection, and the fact that they never thought she was mildly insane for constantly talking to inanimate objects.

I'd love to see Week 10 ended a few days early, without any warning.

And failing to break the rules is still insufficient to demonstrate a commitment to positive gameplay, because supporting positive gameplay means taking positive action in support of a goal, not just abstaining from a subset of actions, most of which are contrary to that goal.

Just for clarity: The ONLY way one can support positive gameplay is by actively doing something about positive gameplay? So if you're not ACTIVELY making the game better for others, then you're no longer supporting positive gameplay?

Bluddwolf wrote:

Obviously behavior that we deem to be inappropriate would be met by our own internal sanctions. To say that a lack of understanding was created by not stating the obvious is absurd.

Right. You have now explicitly said that behavior which does not merit a sanction from Goblinworks is not deemed inappropriate by you.

I still insist that a commitment to positive gameplay involves much more than refraining from breaking the rules.

If you want to say that you will have standards that are more stringent than "Don't break the rules", then do so. If you want to actually have standards that are more stringent than the bare minimum, then having a feedback form that doesn't actively mock complainants is... not quite a good start, but at least it isn't a giant leap backwards.

It was already said several times in this thread what the UNC policy would be. You have a bad habit of selective reading. Do a re-read for some clarity, reading everything.

All of that is standard fare for schlock fantasy. I can visualize all of that, easy. A musketeer lowering his gun, cleaning out the barrel, drawing a paper cartridge, tearing it open and pouring in the contents, tamping it down, raising his gun and firing...in 1.5 seconds or less? Not so much.

So, for a heavy crossbow you'd have no problem visualizing a crossbowman dropping down the crossbow, mounting his foot into the stirrup, cranking the string back into a cocked position, bringing the crossbow back to level, drawing a crossbow bolt, sliding it back into the catch, aiming and firing in 1.5 seconds or less? Because both are pretty absurd. But absurdity is standard fare for schlock fantasy.

Yes, it's fantasy. But a small compromise towards realism (eg taking a standard action, minimum, to reload) doesn't seem too extreme a move to make, and doesn't seem to invalidate the gunslinger class. A gunslinger can have multiple guns, and non-gun backup weapons, after all.

As soon as you start wanting to make compromise towards realism, you're stepping out of fantasy. If it's too unrealistic for a Gunslinger to reload a musket as a free action, then it should also be far too unrealistic for Wizards to throw around reality altering power, for clerics to bring back the dead, for monks to do cartwheels down a cliff face, for barbarians to turn into the hulk... Need I go on?

If you can't handle guns and black powder in your fantasy...fine. No big deal. But please, don't try to preach their lack of realism as the reason why. That's simply flawed logic.

Ok so for a good chuck of the adventure, I partially enjoyed it. It began dragging and tonight was the last straw. It took us about three hours to walk through two rooms in a building because they had a couple monsters in them. I had plans for things I was going to do today to get things interesting, but we got railroaded into a quest. We teleport into a room to try to get the jump on someone. This was around 9PM real time. The room had two enemies and a summon. That fight took over an hour at least for some reason. We take a couple steps out of the room to the one across the hall. Three monsters were in there that we had to fight and before I knew it the time was 11:08 PM and I am nodding off due to being bored. I stood up, declared I was too bored to continue and went home.

Back when I played AD&D 2nd, we never had a fight take more than around ten minutes. They were challenging but not just busywork so we would gain experience and gold. Even boss fights took maybe half an hour at the most. Now, they take the majority of the session and we play from about 7PM to Midnight on Saturdays.

You're comparing 2 systems that are vastly different. 2nd Edition didn't have the combat mechanics that PF does. It was a lot more hand waving and DM says than actual rules. Any time you add rules and mechanics, things are going to take a little longer. However, I've had plenty of fights in 2E take longer than 10 minutes, or a half hour. Many of them weren't challenging so much as being bogged down.

Your problem honestly sounds more like a group/DM issue. If your combats are taking that long, it sounds like people are taking too long to have their turn in combat. If everyone knows what their character can do, what their spells can do, what actions they plan on taking in combat. If you want to get through it quickly, people need to pay attention and act quickly. Dither, and it goes slow. At my table, I use 30 second sand timers for each player. That's how long they have for their turn. Sand timer runs out without you doing anything? You just lost your turn.

Also, you talk of rail roading in an Adventure Path. This confuses me. You're playing an Adventure PATH. The whole point of an AP is to travel along the PATH of the adventure, and complete it. And sometimes along that path, you're going to have multiple combats in a row. It happens. From the APs I've read through, there's also ample time for roleplay and other things. All of this is trumped by the fact that, as people sitting around a table, you ultimately decide what you want to do. If your group wants more RP time then let your DM know that.

Pathfinder is what you make of it. Yes, there's lots of mechanics involved in the game. But rule 0 trumps all. The DM can use or ignore as much as he chooses to run a game. Have a talk with your DM, air your grievances, maybe even swap out DMs for a while. But storming out of a game in a huff isn't any decent sort of solution. Maybe you should give running a game a shot? If you want a game run your way, the best thing you can do is run it and show everyone else how its done.

Bluddwolf wrote:

Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:

You get PMs to not be expansionist?!

You mean you don't? Bugger me!! The UNC is always the "special case" I guess. I can't complain, that is btw, working as intended.

I think some are overworried about UNC. If UNC was to spread to the four corners of the map to try to acquire Towers for themselves or others, they would be spread too thin and be easy pickings at their home.

You're correct. That won't stop us, however, from dropping into those hexes with open PvP windows simply for the sake of PvP, loot, and good times.

As a compromise position, I suggest that companies might enter an agreement to remain clear of tower areas open for capture unless they are engaged in the battle, and also agree not to attack certain towers held by certain other companies.

I don't think it reasonable to expect any company that wants to take a particular tower to refrain from doing so out of respect for an agreement with third parties.

I don't think it's reasonable to ask any outside party, save alliance members, to steer clear of tower areas open for capture. Make what allies you can. But expect PvP to happen in PvP focused areas.

Sorry but not sorry, Proxima. Meta safety agreements be damned.

Doggan wrote:

Over the years I've come to a point where I have zero faith in game developers. I find it easier to be pessimistic beforehand instead of disappointed after.

That's fine if it keeps you emotionally balanced, but projecting onto other people and devs via the forum is not a good way to express that. Would you like it if I walked around behind you all day implying you're a liar or a failure in everything you do? That's kinda what the forums are like to Devs. Criticizing is fine, but offer up an alternative or extrapolate on why and what. Implying that they are copping out and will never follow through doesn't really accomplish anything.

Sorry if this is a little targeted, I've been frustrated a bit by the amount of people who combat every idea by just saying 'No' or 'That will never work you idiots' around here.

Right. I appreciate that you're heaping your frustration on me. It's super helpful to the thread. Thanks.

You following me around calling me a liar or a failure is nothing like anything I've said. If you want to make a comparison, do it better. At no point did I say anything like "that will never work you idiots". I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I voiced that I had a concern. Stated what that concern was.

Could I have worded my concerns a little better? Sure. So here goes:

I have major concerns about using the character zerg method as a capture mechanic. It leads to mindless wave-style PvP. I also have concerns that this system may stay in place. Not because GW is a bunch of liars, or anything blown out of proportion like that. Simply because during development cycles of games, plans tend to change. A lot. I don't want there to be a change of plans where this system stays in place long term.

Also, check your PMs please.

Doggan wrote:

Right, I know that this system is supposed to get more complex later on. I just worry that it... won't.

Valid concern, but I don't think its warranted yet.

Over the years I've come to a point where I have zero faith in game developers. I find it easier to be pessimistic beforehand instead of disappointed after.

...Neither the players nor the developers would be satisfied with this as the long term solution.

If the game never get past War of the Towers, it'll be because the game never made it to release status. Regardless, you don't need to worry about Towers being any part of the OE experience.

See above. Your faith is commendable. But mine left a long time ago.

Repeatedly posting the same exact message time and time again should be avoided. Especially during the midst of heated discussions where it will serve no purpose other than to spam that message and further inflame matters.

Also, I often see posts that ask for clarity on other posts in a way that seems to be an attempt to instigate. Simple misunderstandings or questions for clarity like that would usually be better handled in private message form, and the unclear poster to edit their post to be more clear. Instead what happens now is misunderstandings happen, both sides jump to the defensive, and everything escalates.

People should also try to avoid speaking for the community or on behalf of the community. The only people one should speak for is oneself, or a group that has appointed one to speak for them.

Doggan wrote:

AvenaOats wrote:

There's been progress on this since the OP's post. I noted, dwarf, elf, herb, barbarian, magical information, trade and more interested groups to name a few.

I've an idea for a group, but it's quite specialist and at EE most groups will needs be be generalist. I imagine specialization of groups will flourish as more options become available in conjunction with more niches needing filling/opening.

With more player-created content etc, more flavorsome groups could form, though that does not stop some already eg "The Golden Flask" has a specific in game goal it sounds like.

You need to look at Settlements as a whole beyond just the main guild that makes them up. Settlements will be in need of specialists. For example, while Aragon has the UNC for PvP, raiding, and other general purposes, we still recognize the need for specialists. We just recently welcomed a crafting specific group into our settlement. I wouldn't worry about specializing at the start. There's going to be a place for everyone.

Oh I know that alright. We'll see clustering in the Land Rush and fission and fusion around that as locales form around large groups.

But we're seeing some fun group concepts; we'll see more as the game develops hopefully.

I hope so. I love concept guilds/groups. Some of the best times I've ever had gaming were against Shadowclan. An all 'orc' guild back in UO. They were hardcore RPers, and they weren't all that great at PvP. But I don't remember them ever backing down from a fight, and they stuck with their RP combat style for far longer than I've seen most do. I also saw wars between an entire guild of characters named Bob versus another guild who's characters were all named Fred. Pretty hysterical. Not quite so RP oriented, but still all kinds of fun.

Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:

Unlike T7V I don't have to remind Golgothans to be upstanding individuals.

Official: Golgotha has no specific policy prohibiting cheating. Presumably that would be redundant with the Pax Gaming charter prohibiting cheating.

Still outstanding: Confirmation from Aeternum or Pax Gaming that voting twice is specifically prohibited (after all, the guidance from Lee was interpreted to override other guidance issued in the same breath as the voting-twice prohibition, and there hasn't been a direct clarification yet on the issue; precedent suggests that Pax Gaming and Aeternum would hold the prohibition on voting twice on equal footing with the prohibition on LR1 members voting again.)

I swear I clicked on the Roseblood Accord thread. When did this become the Aeternum and Golgotha policy thread? I think you're in the wrong place, Decius.

If the only thing you guys are complaining about is that the CEO of the company, making a game that you really really want to play is not being as clear or as nice as you want him to be when he regularly communicates with you...

You need to go take a walk in a park and reflect about life.

I think you're understating the importance of clarity in the company/customer relationship. Especially since we've had a long wait to get our hands on product that we've already paid for.

I won't deny it may work well. I expect wars between T7V and the UnNamed Company to be fought quite hard thanks to this drama. But is it really worth it? And will it really help the long-term community? Because it sounds like quantity over quality

It would have been hard fought either way. We at UNC love it hard. In wars.

I love Ryan. Screw the haterz. You people can't wait to play the game. If it went up tomorrow you'd all miss work.

The one and only thing you have to keep in mind if you want to keep your sanity is that we have a game to PLAY and Ryan has a game to RUN.

Then he needs to RUN it, and stop trying to PLAY his community. He's trying to wear too many hats. There was a post somewhere about a community manager. It's sorely needed.

But first, I found the thread's theme song!

I would have gone with this.

All apologies to Ryan, but he is the one that said the community should police itself and unless Goblinworks comes down and takes action themselves (which they said they won't), it's up to the community to do what WE THINK IS BEST. If Ryan wants to enforce a rule, he has the power to do it.

I don't know about you, but I honestly think forcing the community to police itself is one of the worst decisions possible. Especially since all we have right now is forum politics and ego wars.

Wow, seriously? By that rationale Pax should have no say whatsoever because their view is more slanted than anyone's, since this involves a Pax settlement.

I met Nihimon's absurdity with equal absurdity.

What WOULD be an acceptable way for someone to have a differing opinion from you, if Nihimon's presentation was so out of bounds for you that you call him a liar and tell him to go away?

Yes, I did say he wasn't being honest. I really don't think he is being honest. Especially because this post is fairly contradictory to what he has previously stated, as Bluddwolf properly quoted.

I'm really curious - if Ryan had never said this, and Nihimon posted it just now for the first time as his own words:

RyanD wrote:

If you look at this situation from the outside, which is what I am doing, and what everyone else who comes to this game will do, it's very hard to say that Golgatha is a separate entity from Pax.

...would the comment be met with the same vitriol that the next handful of posts have demonstrated? Are his arguments so strong that they can only be countered by calling him names?

Oh stop. I didn't spend my entire post calling him names. I said he was being dishonest, and petty. Again, due to contradictory statements and personal belief based on past actions. His arguments were weak, not strong.

Do Ryan's posts not substantially agree with the conclusion that Golgotha and Pax are not likely to be viewed as separate entities from an outside perspective?

Ryan is simply stating his opinion. Which is not the end all, be all opinion of the world. The fact Aet and Gol are both still in the landrush speaks volumes. To the point that this discussion should be long over.

The vitriol here is absolutely ridiculous, especially Bluddwolf's complete flame post. That's a prime example of toxicity if ever I've seen one.

You're defending some of that vitriol you dislike so much, friend.

I think the answer is that Pax is one Guild, and I would ask Golgotha to withdraw from the Land Rush Leaderboard.

It's a VERY good thing that your asking here bears no real weight on anyone's actions in this situation.

The reason I'm doing this is because of how sick I felt when I started thinking that TEO and T7V should do the same thing Pax was doing (voting for allies so the votes weren't "wasted"). I hated that I was tempted to do that, knowing it was wrong.

Pax has since withdrawn those votes, so your request has no merit. Also, I honestly doubt the sincerity of this statement. There's likely several other more honest reasons that you're doing this, but I won't throw any accusations as to what I think they are. Lord knows, reading your posts, you and I don't and will never see eye to eye. But this goes quite a bit lower than that. You've entered the petty category.

I'm a member of the UnNamed Company. However, I'm also a member of Pax. For their World of Warcraft guild, where I play with a couple of my friends who are also there. I'm under the "Pax Mega-guild" umbrella. Should I then remove my vote from UNC? The obvious answer is no. The fact that I play with Pax under one banner does NOT mean I am in Aeternum, Golgotha or Fidelis.

All of that being said: Nihimon, I ask you to remove yourself from this discussion. You are not adding anything worthwhile. Your view is slanted by your position in your own guild, and anything else you say will be seen as a weak attempt to sidetrack opposition.

To be clear, as long as the community at large agrees that Golgotha is separate from Aeturnum, something the majority of posters in this thread have come to agree on, then the current application of Aeturnum votes is neither against the word, nor the spirit of the current land rush?

I don't think it really matters. There's no way to truly get the opinion of the community at large, sadly. Just the loudest that post on the forums constantly. And it's pretty clear that GW isn't going to lay down any sort of law here.

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.

While the community can voice their concerns, will it really ever matter? If you have a majority of people who do think Pax is one guild, how will you even figure it out? Post a poll somewhere? And then continue on to be viewed as a company that performs witch hunts on its customers? Will you just watch the forums, and take the opinion of the most vocal few?

There's too much ego floating around on these forums for any single person or even small group of people to get together and try to come up with some way to get the opinion of the entire community. But people will hang on whatever you say. You really need to give a cement answer here. You need to make a decision on whether or not they count as two guilds or one. Your (being GW's) perception is ultimately the only one that truly matters, as you (being GW) are the only entity that can enforce said ruling. Aside from Pax themselves, but as has been said, they already consider themselves to be separate.

Bluddwolf wrote:

RPKing is not griefing, according to Ryan Dancey. Ganking is not considered greifing according to almost anyone who understands the term. Calling these things toxic, is in itself "toxic" because it tainst a game that would otherwise have greater appeal than what you have given it credit for.

If RPKing can be defined as "The person I just attacked has no idea why I did it", then it absolutely is toxic to the community and the game.

Simple rule of thumb if you've just been RPKed: You had stuff, the RPK wanted it and was able to overpower you and take it. That's it. That's a reason right there. Is that toxic? Nope. It's harsh. Get RPKed enough and you'll learn to travel through safer areas, or in groups, or learn how to fight. Adapt or die.

Doggan wrote:

Andius wrote:

Robbing enemy supply trains is meaningful. Killing random adventurers is not.

Does that mean that you'll refrain from killing random bandits, villains or murderers? Because if not, it makes you just as guilty as those you seem to be preaching against.

Not at all. Bandits, Villains, and Murderers chose to be "other people's content". It would be selfish not to attack them when given the opportunity.

Thanks for your input, but I wasn't talking to you. Unless you're Andius' PR representative, I think he should probably answer questions directed at him for himself.

One of the ideas floating around that is not a what-if is that we will have meaningful pvp. Perhaps a lot of it. 'Carebears' will have a place in the River Kingdoms. They already have their own venture company.

Meaningful PvP is what I'd ideally have. But I also have no problem with killing people to take their stuff. Ultimately, I hope the carebears do have their place within the game. I won't take that away from them. But I wouldn't necessarily want one on a player council speaking for me. Which was my point to begin with.

Doggan wrote:

With the carebear mentality that floats around these boards pretty regularly...

I see many people accuse others of being c@#$%^&*s, but

1) I don't see many of those accusations as being based in reality, but mostly in supposition, mis-interpretation, and needing a target for the point the accuser wants to make, and
2) Ryan's asked us not to use that term:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

@All - lets not use the term carebear.

1: I read these boards enough to see the reality of it. Every time I see anti-pking and anti-pvp sentiment and a post, it's the first thing that jumps to mind. And there's enough of it to make my point. I'm sorry if you disagree. Thank you for picking out a single word of my post though, and ignoring the rest of it.

2: Don't really care if Ryan asked me not to use the term. It has been around from the beginning of online gaming, and it won't stop being used. If it becomes considering enough of a bad, no-no word, then the forums can word filter it.

Doggan of the UnNamed Company. Unabashed PvPer and PKer. Enemy to all things in the realm of bears that care. I mostly lurk and read random posts that look interesting, but usually avoid posting because I tend to make people mad.