Not everyone agrees with the line of argument used in your RL precedent. As such it does not add weight to the PvP discussion but merely opens up a further line of debate that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Please don't bring RL "equivalents" into threads like these. Not everybody will agree with you and all it serves to do is muddy the waters and derail the thread. We're talking about PvP here, not the right to bear arms.
I said nothing about hardcore. I'm a casual player. I'm advocating for PvP that is meaningful to the role I want to play in this game. I don't want to log on regularly and find I can't do anything because I started too many brawls last time I was on.
There will be plenty of things you can do. Random PvP against unsanctioned targets probably won't be one of them though.
To be fair to Morbis, he has already done just that.
This thread is not doing anyone any favours. People are just entrenching their positions and digging their heels in. Those of you on both sides who have any common sense at all - please just stop. Both sides. Quite frankly this resembles an "argument" at Kindergarten at the moment, with cries of "but he started it, Miss!", and it's making us all look stupid. We're better than this. Or we should be.
So to my fellow members of T7V - please lay off the Golgothans. If Nihimon feels the need to comment again, I am sure he's a big enough boy to do so for himself (although I personally hope he's said enough). To those from Golgotha - please just give it a rest for a while, let tempers calm, and let those who are talking - not shouting past each other - try to sort things out satisfactorily for all concerned.
I can understand why Nihimon and others feel that way. It isn't unjustified: Pax and Ryan Dancey have had private conversations (now made public in this thread) about it. Pax, though now attempting to change the perception, has in the past created an aura of 'Pax is Pax' around the groups. Let's try to keep this about the ideas under discussion, rather than the people that are discussing them.
I can understand why Nihimon feels the way he feels too. I also have some issues with how Pax backpedalled in this issue, before doing the right thing when CharlieGeorge held his hand up and said that Pax should "own" the mistake. I further agree that Pax made a rod for their own back with their Pax forum prefixes - and that this whole issue is essentially of Pax's own making (let's not forget that bit).
Can we please let it go now. Contrary to what Nihimon believes, I for one (and I am sure I am not alone in T7V) agree that Golgotha has every right to be in the landrush. They were a separate entity before ever joining Pax, and never would have joined in the way they had they known how LR2 was to be run - we all got caught out by that one. The overall issue has been resolved to the satisfaction of most of the community, and I applaud Pax for taking the steps they have taken.
What purpose would denying Golgotha a settlement serve? And why should we think that the 10 people (say) who come in 31st in the land rush are any more deserving of a settlement than those many more who voted - legitimately - for Golgotha? The argument that you are disenfranchising those 10 people is ridiculous, because it applies equally well to Golgothans. In fact it is worse for them; the "31sters" have an opportunity to find a settlement above them that matches their needs and alignment requirements well, whereas Golgothans do not really have the same in Callambea. And who is going to "take in" such a large group - I suspect nobody.
So, this is me, publicly and on record stating that I do not agree with Nihimon in this matter, nor do I believe that I am the only one in T7V, Phaeros or Roseblood to have this opinion. For me, this thread should have died 500 posts back (ok, hyperbole, but you get my drift). Can we please let it die now?
@Bluddwolf and Andius: Contrary to what you may believe, Nihimon is not motivated by fear, but by principles. You may want to look up what they are in the encyclopaedia.
Xeen, I owe you an apology.
I thought you said that TEO and T7V were directly analagous to Pax Aeternum and Gologotha - you did not; that point was made by someone else.
Having reread all your posts in this thread (properly this time) I can find no fault with what you are saying - yes TEO and T7V have been talking for a long time - though I wouldn't go so far as to say we were "hand in hand". So, for what it's worth, I'm sorry, you were right.
Edit: While I was writing this you posted that Golgotha and Callambea are as separate as Brighthaven and Phaeros - I strongly disagree. But the apology stands.
You can repeat that as often as you want but it simply is not true and no amount of you spouting it will change that. However, I would like to thank you for pointing out repeatedly that T7V and TEO do have similar aims and are both members of the Roseblood Accord - along with several other fine CCs. You have done world of good to our recruitment drive.
Pax Charlie George wrote:
If you are being considered enemies, it's the first I've heard of it.
And I respectfully disagree; if things are getting hostile, that's when you need you diplomats the most. It's easy to jump to conclusions and make sweeping statements without actually thinking about their consequences on a forum - it's much harder to do that "face-to-face" on TS or vent.
Just to clear something up Aou: neither Pax, nor T7V/TEO have created new guilds for LR2.
We in T7V and TEO have been vocal in our support of other Roseblood Accord members' recruiting drives, but all new members of our companies have been told in no uncertain terms that their votes should be cast for us - useless though that may seem - if they are cast at all. The other Roseblood companies, such as KotC, for example, are completely separate entities, with separate leadership and goals.
The case with Pax seems more complicated. Originally there were two guilds: Pax Aeternum and Golgotha. Sometime before LR2 was announced, these two merged into a meta "empire" Xelias. Both companies remain distinct CCs, but under the Pax Gaming meta-umbrella. What's in dispute here is a different issue to what you are suggesting - it's questioning that degree of separation. I'll make no comment on that - I think Pax have already stated their position clearly enough without anyone else muddying the waters.
What is clear - absolutely clear - is that neither Pax nor the Roseblood Accord created new companies for LR2. Pax has 1 that was there from the beginning (Golgotha), Roseblood has members who have joined but are still independent companies. Just wanted to make that point.
At first I thought "To be Announced" was a weird name for a CE company but thinking about it, I see the logic. Too chaotic to have decided on a name yet, and evil enough not to tell you when they are coming. Good call, Bludd :)
I see what you mean - the auto-correct seems to have removed the U in honour :P ...
Welcome Psvinkle - hope you have found what you are looking for in T7V.
I actually typed out a long reply to you 6 hours ago, and my tablet died just as I was about to post it. The thread has moved on since then, so I don't feel the need to make any of the points I was making again. Except one.
Thank you for answering what I was saying, and not making ad hominem attacks. It is refreshing to see someone answer the substance of the post, instead of trying to score points off the poster. While you didn't (and don't) agree with everything (anything?) I said, you answered in a civil and rational manner. Thank you. It seems that that is a dying art on these boards.
Since everyone is sharing their epic PvP victories, I'll do something else.
I'd been playing Darkfall for a couple of weeks, and obviously didn't have many skills yet. I needed a small cash injection, and decided to go on a 'naked' treasure map run - I liked the exploration side too. It took me all the way to the island in the north west (I forget the name). Just as my map started pulsing a little faster to show I was really close, I spotted a guy charging towards me on his mount, and the first arrow flew my way.
Well, I jinked and bobbed, and got a few shots in myself, but it was just delaying the inevitable - he had over 100k prowess and I had less than 20k. He killed me and had a look at what I was carrying - bugger all,apart from the map, which was a small one. I was expecting disappointment and a few sarcastic comments in chat.
He did contact me, but proceeded to give me a run down of what to do when map running, a few other hints and tips, and offered to give me my map back. Not only that, but he later ran point for me on my first large map - and wouldn't take any of what I found as thanks. So not a PvP victory in the traditional sense, but a PvP victory nonetheless - I found a new 'buddy' by getting killed...
I am not arguing about where people will probably start. I agree with you. I am taking issue with the idea that the devs have deliberately carved up the map for different play styles. Will it be a challenge to recruit? Yes. Is that challenge insurmountable? We obviously don't believe so.
If this game is to be the much vaunted sand box we have been so often told that it will, then it will be the players who determine the geopolitical nature of the map. Just look on it as another opportunity for meaningful interaction.
I wish Andius the best of luck with whatever he now tries to do, I really do. This is not a zero sum game. When, however, he spends more of his time railing against Roseblood with strawmen and other fallacies than putting forward anything positive of his own then I will call him on it. It would be good to see him putting together something concrete to back up what he believes in. All I see right now though is vitriol directed at people who had the temerity to disagree with him - which smacks less of rational argument and more of toys being thrown out of the pram. YMMV.
Sheesh, you go to sleep for a few hours and it all kicks off...
You are conflating two different points, Bludd. I actually said it was arrogant to say that we could cause the game to succeed or fail. As for setting the tone, while I don't believe it is possible to state categorically that we can set the tone, there are plenty of reasons to suppose that we might. Is it naivete to attempt to do so? Possibly. But the fact that it is not a "clear win" situation will not stop us from trying. Perhaps that's the difference between us and the bandit types - we're willing to take on a challenge even if it's far from clear that it will succeed.
I cannot begin to explain how wrong you are here to so unjustly single out Nihimon, as I don't know where to start. But I'll try :).
First, this accord was hammered out in long, long (and in my case stupid-o'clock-in-the-morning) meetings on TeamSpeak. Was Nihimon involved? Yes. But so were probably 30 other people from at least 5 different chartered companies. To claim that this is "his" policy and to single him out for it is as ridiculous as it is insulting. I thought better of you than that Bludd.
Second, there is very deliberately no strict definition of positive game play made in the document. Why? Because while we may all know it when we see it, there is sometimes room for interpretation. Nihimon and I have disagreed about this in the past - some of the things that make him uncomfortable are ok with me (and I am sure the other way around too). There is no definition - so how can it be his?
As for "claiming a whole region" (boy, did you ever excel in hyperbole class), are you now claiming that this game is not a settlement based PvP game? Yes, we are laying claim to the hexes around our settlements, and yes, we want allies around us - isn't that the way we are supposed to play this game?
Next: claiming "unclaimable" hexes. First, is this just another unjustified attack on Nihimon? Please point out to me specifically where Nihimon has said such. Second, who is being naive now? Do you really think that because a hex is unclaimable mechanically that settlements will not claim it anyway? Just because you cannot build an outpost or a POI it doesn't mean you can't patrol the hex and shoo off "undesirables". Or did you think that every sky metal hex, for example, was going to be a wonderful demonstration of share and share alike?
As you may have gathered, I am not happy when my posts are twisted to make personal attacks that are not even clad in the thin veils of courtesy. I am severely dischuffed.
As for laying the "arrogance" of the Roseblood Accord at Nihimon's feet, then - in the spirit of Kirk Douglas - I'm Nihimon! (and so's my wife!)
EDIT: P.S. I'm well aware that Nihimon is a big boy and can speak for himself. He's far more of a gentleman than I am though, so I'm not sure if he would. And it wasn't his words that were twisted. Just sayin'.
Pax Falx wrote:
Now that my dissertation on morality and ethics and how they pertain to the alignment system is over, I'll leave you with this: Star Trek:TNG episode where Wesley gets the death penalty for falling into some flowers on a Lawful Good world (Justice).
Any system of justice that wants to execute Wesley Crusher is patently LG.
I think we all need to get a little perspective here.
First, the number of people who have posted on these boards is I believe less than 12.5% of those who are eligible to take part in EE. The idea that we are now "setting the tone" for PFO is untenable given those numbers, and the claim that the game will fail because of the actions of any or all of us active on these boards is arrogance in the extreme.
Second, the northern part of the map already has Callambea at H. Maybe I have missed something, but I do not recall the thread in which Pax said it was dedicated to negative game play. I don't want to speak for them, but I expect Charlie George and the other Pax leadership will be just as harsh with griefers and others who are attempting to break the "rules of the game" as anyone in the Roseblood Accord. And with the announcement of Fidelis, they are providing a settlement that will cater to those of LG and NG alignments.
At the risk of being beaten over the head with a blunt object, I will repeat something I have said several times in TS - you don't play the landrush with the map you want, you play it with the map you've got. Fort Riverwatch is nowhere close to being on that map, so quite frankly, any arguments posited on proximity to new players coming from there are specious at best. The members of the Roseblood Accord made a decision based on what was felt was best for them, given the options available. As Darcnes has pointed out, not all of those choices are the SE mountain range. The decision has been made - can we let it rest now?
If you need to wall jump and use texture clipping to get on the rooftop, then it's obvious that you're using an exploit.
That should be a given; clipping is an obvious exploit.
Secondly, I feel I should refine my answer. In EE, I think we should assume that any such situations are possibly exploits, and report all of them. The devs will clarify whether they are or not, and we'll be able to gain an appreciation of what is felt to be acceptable and what is unacceptable. If it's still possible to climb onto a roof (fairly, without using exploits) and mow down zombies (actually, I DF I think it was ghouls) in OE, I will be taking that as working as intended and have no worries about it.
Pax Bringslite wrote:
Ahem... is that Darkfall talking, Koda?
Games are to win.
Here's where we disagree. Games are to have fun with. If you can set yourself win conditions in alignment with that, so much the better. I, however, cannot see how you can "win" PFO (presumably by taking over the whole map with your company/settlement/empire) without actually losing.
FWIW, I have absolutely no problem with the UNC's stated intent in game, and I don't think your "win" conditions are "wrong" or "bad for the game". In fact, I wish you the best of luck with them - unless you are robbing me, of course!. I just think it's worth mentioning that they are not the only "win" conditions, and for the game itself to win (i.e. keep and grow its player base), they all have to be viable
Alternatively, you can team up with like minded individuals and companies to become a landrush "guild" (terminology being used just for this purpose in PFO) and vote for a spot together, perhaps moving on to form your own settlement later. Being "small" does not preclude you from taking a spot, it just means you'll have to work with others to do so.
With the land rush up and running and EE just around the corner, PFO has just receive a new lease of life and, I suspect, made us all start thinking a little more concretely about plans in the future. One of the things I'd like to have cleared up is whether we'll be able to train at others' settlements, or allow visitors to train at ours. I had taken this as a given, but then I remember Ryan saying something along the lines of "Why on earth would we allow that?" and all was chaos and confusion :P Seeing as I don't have Nihimon's powers of total recall, I haven't been able to find the source for that.
Has this ever been decided definitively? It seems to me that if it is not possible, two groups of people are going to be severely disadvantaged. The first are groups like the UNC, who have stated that they are not particularly interested in running their own settlement; if they are stuck training only at NPC settlements it will lead to them being unable to train higher level skills, or force them into settlement management, which may be a path they are not interested in going down. The second group are those who are splitting off from a "parent" CC in order to form a "colony"; if they then cannot go back to their original settlement to train it may be a long time before they are able to advance their skills.
Allowing settlements to train outsiders also has upsides apart from avoiding these problems. First, it promotes more meaningful player interaction in the form of pricing (not necessarily financial) for said training; second, it allows settlements near each other to develop synergies in training with all the advantages, and risks, that this brings; and third, those with a certain type of training facility may have both a carrot and stick with which to keep the bandits (or others) in line: play nice and you get to train, behave badly and we withhold that training.
So, what's the current state of play on this one?
Who are you, and what have you done with Bluddwolf? Seriously, I leave the boards for a while and the doppelgangers take over ... :)
I think a few people may have missed this little remark, but I think it's extremely important. If (and it's a big if) this is going to be the prevailing ethos of banditry in PfO, then I think we have far less to worry about the "randomness" of banditry than many seem to think. Despite his protestations to the contrary that it doesn't matter, it would seem that, given the above, Bludd too is not altogether in favour of arbitrary PvP (to choose a word other than random) either.
Pax Charlie George wrote:
Being targeted because you are a member of an opposing power should feel different to the victim than if he is targeted in the wilds.
Another +1 for this. This is where the PvP system will win or lose acceptance with a large number of players. It seems to me that we should be trying to find ways to train people to understand and accept the reasons for them becoming the "victims" of PvP rather than either regulating it out of existence or loosening the reins and telling everyone to "man (or woman) up!". Of course training players in this way includes training the bandits too to understand that if their actions do come across as being arbitrary, bad things may happen to them (such as rep loss).
Glad to see that after so many months of being away the same topics are still being rehashed by the usual suspects. /wave @ Bringslite.
As a few of you may have noticed, I've been away for a while, and catching up on what has changed has been a major task. I've also managed to get a few friends who know nothing about PFO interested, and they've asked me for some links for things to read. The problem is there's so damn much of it! I can't expect people to wade their wade through every devblog and forum post - they need a "synopsis" to pique their interest. So I am asking for help...
What I'd like is for people to suggest just one blog or forum post that they think encapsulates something that excites them about PFO, that makes it different, that makes it the game that we all want to play. I could just trawl through and find my faves, but that would be very one sided, and part of the thing that I think is going to make PFO great is its multi-faceted nature. So, with the loud discalimer that everything is subject to change, I am going to start off with a post from way back on Nations, Settlements and Companies, and hope that some of you will help me out. Here's my choice: