Merkaile of Fidelis's page

My first comment was mostly a joke, thus the quoting of a comedy movie. Bad people can be well trained, and no one suggested otherwise.

Alignment and rep are different however. I think of the evil guy as a crooked politician, lawyer or corporate VP (for comedy via stereotype). Generally productive members of society and generally well schooled. The low rep person is more like a known psychopath. Is it simple? Yeah, but we've already made things simple/unrealistic by having settlement membership based on alignment.

I'm not altogether convinced of the necessity of SAD to the success of the game given you'll hopefully have plenty of sink of equipment/resources from warfare/feuds. Granted I'm neither for nor against SAD. While I don't understand the desire to go out and take the fake stuff people worked/played for I understand that this is a desired thing for some. I personally am playing this game for PvP. I'll probably partake in some PvE but it doesn't sound anything more than lackluster from what I've seen and I'm only a crafter when it's a necessity.

All rambling aside I do think the reputation hit is tuned way too much to the harsh side. I don't want to see people killing others for giggles but I do want to be able to protect myself and my settlement when needed. There WILL be people that out-think the systems in game. There hasn't been a game yet where it hasn't happened.

For training of abilities for low rep people, I can get behind a certain level of skill training but not the highest. What true master of Bonetti's Defense or Capa Ferro would stoop to teach a low-life bandit?

My main concern with the harsh reputation system is that a lot of the mechanics will have to go in at once for everything to work. Otherwise even those only interested in protection of others and their settlement (hoping that provides enough PvP...) will have their hands tied by reputation. Plunking in a giant module of mechanical systems at once seems a little counter to the gradual crowd forging process.

They can just use the engine/mechanics for the project eternity game they're working on.

Good news on the other game front! Meh on the card game. ;)

Morale is why shock and awe is effective against a standing armed force/nation. Effective groups will be using methods to demoralize their enemy. Is it good or evil to do so? Neither. No nation has ever benefited from a prolonged conflict (to paraphrase the war sage). If everyone has failed such that war/fighting becomes necessary it's best to end it quickly.

Also: Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.

There's maps, and LG-ness and other goodness as well. PvP and some of that other game junk as well.

I hope to see what I consider true role playing in game. If such exists I'll try and take part as much as I can (without taking a hit to my character's PvP viability).

I'm with those saying that you can try to have someone attempt to be politically neutral. It would have to be backed by a strong enough coalition of force to enforce. It doesn't have to be all the other settlements, just enough to put the fear of destruction into the minds of those thinking to cause mischief. I'm also pretty sure ("cynic" that I am) that someone will come along and test that force's will/power.

Good stuff. I've always liked Obsidian's (Black Isle previously) stories more than any other developer's.

Treaties, kingdoms and empires, oh my!

The land rush may be over but we are still looking for quality, community minded folks!

But your finger may now cause the heart of its line of site to be stabbed through from the blade of your allies. I think it's a fair trade. There are few rings of power in this world and they should be used wisely.

How many different threads do we have!? I don't know which one to bump....I mean provide useful commentary that will draw in new recruits.

Me too! *starts stabbing people randomly*

Wait... what were we quitting?

Bleh Callambea. It sounds like a soup or STD! ;)

Quit giving our votes away Bringslite, they already have so many of ours.

Actually if a group slowly filtered in votes they technically already had over the course of the land rush and used the slow "growth" to ping-pong about the map and cause chaos I might be annoyed, if I really cared at all.

Disclaimer: 99.999% of things said are meant in a lighthearted manner.

Daring or sensible? I question the sanity (in a boy you must like pain sort of way) of those pushing a settlement with small numbers. IF this game is a success I'll be surprised (pleasantly) to see any of the current groups holding onto their settlements.

Good clear info; thanks!

It will be interesting to see what sort of things a settlement will have to give up to accomplish this support.

I had thought the issue of friends in different settlements and paying extra influence to help out would go a little without saying so I didn't post it in the name of brevity in an already long post.

An example:

Let's say I'm in a CC The Realmwalkers of Ogem's Vigil. I have a friend in The Bronies of Aeternum. Our settlements really aren't allied and are aligned differently. If I want to support my friends in Callambea I'd have to pay an influence cost if another settlement attacked them. If Callambea is doing the attacking then not only do they have to pay influence but so do I. Perhaps that's the way GW wants it but I see that as a little steep.

Then there's the problem of me being only one member in my CC. If I can't sell them in why we should get involved then I'm basically out of luck without taking a reputation hit (I plan on being as high rep as feasible). Given how few Paxians were as set as I on playing a good aligned character (they sacrificed to play with the quality people of Pax) I'll have to build my CC with outsiders, so this is the most likely event in my case.

Keep in mind I fully understand that POIs could very well provide me full support in part of my aims but it'll likely take even more than one POI for a settlement specialized in paladins and priests. I find it a bit much to ask the settlement to give up two or more POIs/structure slots so I can indulge in my play style goal.

You cannot play with your friends in the general purpose of the game (settlement warfare) if you are in different settlements. Sure you can do a dungeon (*very unexcited cheer*) but my overall feeling of the game is that the PvE is going to be weak. Until nations are put in even being members of different settlements will be an impediment in warfare without declaring war/feuds or taking reputation hits.

It seems to me that the game systems are working against one another. Groups of people became interested in the game and the land rush was designed around these groups of people. They were divided by alignment. Now, depending on the eventual mechanic they are going to be further divided by support. Maybe there's a method to the madness but GW has no political capital with me.

I can see why a settlement cannot provide master training at all skill sets from a realism standpoint unless they are the largest of cities. Support is a different matter. I stop being able to use skills I use day in and day out (maintaining proficiency) because my settlement doesn't support it? From a realism standpoint it hurts. It isn't causing conflict. I'm not mad that Aeternum went crafting or LN. There's no conflict, just divided goals/styles of play. The only reason I ever looked twice at this game (open PvP, low budget) is because I'd be playing with Paxians, and now the systems have effectively put a stop to that without me sacrificing my preferred play style (don't enjoy neutral or evil play). Depending on the systems I may have to make the decision to diverge from Fidelis as well, but if it comes to that I'll just go play games that I can enjoy with Pax. I could also take playing evil as a challenge and join up with Golgotha.

If someone doesn't enjoy a melee class in heavy armor but has to endure such to play with their friends in a settlement warfare game at the highest levels of ability of their settlement what options do they have? Play in a weaker state or find a new settlement. Those options aren't really that palatable.

I don't like the idea of the support system if it limits the skills one can train/use/keep. With balance issues this will really put some settlements at an advantage over others. I'm not sure how training is being seen as a non-event, but if it is then I support making it more of a commodity to prevent power blocks. If anything I feel limiting support will lead to an increased chance of power blocks as a group swallows up settlements so that they can support all their players. I'm in a wait and see mode at the moment. I don't want to be limited in my skills after I obtain training or in the "level"/amplitude of that skill. I'm fine with training the skill being an ordeal.

Not being a part of the same settlement as one's friends actually does make it a bit harder to play a major portion of the game with them; settlement warfare.

It's starting to get a bit confusing with all the posts...

I kid, but the ability to delete one's posts could be useful.

Infernal is devils and abyssal is demons, yep.

Hey, I typically have a problem with alts...

Can I be an infernal pact warlock? Wait...I might be in the wrong place...

For those less interested in paladin-y behaviors there are other options available. All that clanking about in plate mail is a wonderful diversion for those of us within the shadows and foliage of the wilds. We look to roam the lands about Ozem's Vigil and beyond in search of good fights and better taverns!

I don't speak for Ozem's Vigil but I certainly plan on getting around, especially to the taverns. I'm sure I'll put down more than a few monsters on the way!

I appreciate all the clarifications. I like being competitive so being held back (from a skill tier perspective) in my chosen play style isn't appealing to me. It looks like there will, hopefully, be ways to prevent that from happening.

I'm looking forward to making friends/allies with the groups that will provide the necessary training. I'm sure I'll be spending plenty of time in Elkhaven for sure; and Tavernhold beyond.

Honestly, and I only speak for myself, I'd rather know whether the group I'm in is up to the task of holding what we "own". I'm a firm believer that if this game is good then the mongols are coming. Without groups trying to take our towers we won't learn critical lessons in organization and logistics that will cement the systems we put into place to safeguard our settlement. While I like the heart of what went into the idea, being a team and cooperative player, I think it's best to go forward with the War of Taverns as it is laid out by GW.

I'm worried about being as good as I can be in my chosen role. In order to do that in the current system as described I'll have to chose a settlement other than Ozem's Vigil. I'll have to surf the blogs of the past to fish out the bits about POIs providing training but given the nature of OV I'd really have to form my own CC and take a POI on my own to not be limited in that role.

Personally I think limiting the training available is enough to drive dependency and interaction. Adding the whole support element is just driving me away from those I want to interact with (which this game has already done in the past with the alignment restrictions). I have to chose to take a different role than what I'd like or find a new settlement.

You will be limping along if your favored role is a rogue and the settlement of people you have chosen only supports (doesn't train) that role. You also have to be within one step in alignment as well. It's a very restrictive system. I understand they are driving for interaction but the need to find a settlement to train you to begin with drives interaction. You'll have to convince the settlement you are worth training. If I want to be a rogue in Ozem's Vigil I will be limited in how far I can advance. If I want to be as advanced as possible I have to fall into the roles the settlement specializes in or chose another settlement.

The tower defense stuff should prove diverting for a time but months on end will require some discipline. Bring on the PvP.

Good stuff and I'm not talking about the beer!

Eh when I assign colors for organizing data I generally do it randomly.

Thanks for all the hard work put into this map! It's very easy to read!

I can honestly feel your pain. Having one's advancement in a video game in someone else's hands doesn't sit too well with me either. Truly a game such as this requires people you can trust which is one of the reasons Eve fell through with me. This game is very likely to require one to find a trustworthy group. I would not have looked twice at PFO had I not already been part of such a group. So far most of the drama I've seen is mostly political noise and differences of opinion between groups and not internal guild drama. It'll only get worse as peoples' settlements are sacked.

With a non-committing grunt a man in earth tones taps some mud off his boots. He doubted he'd have a chance to even get an ale before having to head back out again now; hunting mischief makers and false ambassadors. As he walks out into the surrounding wilderness three other similarly dressed people fall into a rough "formation" before fading into the surrounding green.

Yes typically you have to die to get something named after you, unless you are Bobby Bowden. Luckily in this setting you'll just come back again!

Actually USS Shane Gifford or The Gifford is a perfect ship name, especially amongst Frigates and amphibious ships. People named ships aren't uncommon. When you have hundreds of ships names get hard.

Example: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hawes_(FFG-53)

A note, that ship is the only one in the US that can fly the Jolly Roger officially.

Are you worried that a LG settlement will be all craft (and religious services) and no play? Such is not the case. I know of more than a few people that are interested in PvP, especially if it's on a smaller scale!

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm well familiar with sandboxes and RP. I just don't have the same glowing opinion of sandbox games that many seem to have. That isn't to say I don't like them. I just look at them from a quality game experience and production value standpoint. Player made content can be very bad at times. ;)

From the standpoint that all actions in a sandbox game are RP I just don't agree. I'm not saying you can't do it. I'm saying I don't like it. There will always be a separation there for me. I'm not saying the separation is bad either; it just exists for me. When discussing treaties and other matters I feel it's necessary to take game mechanics into account, which is when the RP starts to break down. The vision for this game also seems to lend more toward playing a role rather than role playing based on previous RP threads. Quick in game actions also don't lend well to delving into the whys of action. Why is a character doing what they are doing. Playing a role to me is more character lite, action heavy.

I guess one could say I'm a gamer and a roleplayer and while the two aren't mutually exclusive the venn overlap is perhaps a little smaller for me in recent years. I have strong opinions on realism and propriety (god modding, OOC/IC separation) that I feel in the newer generation of rpers has lost its emphasis. I'm not one to force my opinion on others so I've just fell out of RP lately. I'm always willing to jump in and test the waters, however. I just get out if they're cold to me or someone has relieved themselves in it. ;)

Also, since I don't want to completely derail the thread: Ozem's Vigil, where diverse opinions are to be found! Great beer to be had; if I have to make it myself! *whispers* And where not everyone is obsessed with the law.

I used to be huge into RP but have fallen out of it in recent years as the majority of RP approached barfly type. I prefer character growth / tabletop campaign type stuff.

I don't have much faith that our literal actions in game will approach anything I'd consider real RP but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.

No, you need to make other settlements' names bigger; especially those settlements you want the OE swarm to hit.

Hmmm, 15 pints of locally made ale/beer is pretty stout but fair warning, I was in the Navy!

Some of us may need chaotic and neutral settlent trainers for our more scout/rogue/ranger like skills. That will of course engender trading of services. It's hard to say when we really know few details of the exact system of skills/training and alignments associated with them.

Of course all the taverns of the lands must be visited and sampled!

It's pretty obvious which way I lean but I've been quiet so here goes:

Pax Gaming is a community of independent guilds ruled by a single charter. Basically it's a don't be a jerk charter. Each guild has their own leader who rules as she or he sees fit. Each guild leader of the full divisions is a member of the inner sanctum. The IS only has the power to enforce the don't be a jerk charter. Almost like an end user agreement for a gaming linkedin.

I see Golgotha as a completely separate entity from Aeternum aside from being fellow Paxians. As a matter of fact I was rather worried about having an influx of what I perceived to be a group of hardcore PvPers into Pax. As I prove to myself time and again perception is the domain of the ignorant as the Golgothan folks have proven to be good people.

My girlfriend is the Guildleader of a Wildstar commons guild within Pax. She is not told what to do with her guild and as a commons guild she isn't even in the IS. She picks her own officers within the guild.

If you take a guild in Pax and separate it from the community as a whole it is indistinguishable from a normal guild in any other mmo. The only exception being the common charter of behavior. That's not that different as any guild worth its salt has some form of charter in my opinion.

Do guilds within Pax come into conflict? Yes. The conflict is a little more meaningful in this game as you can lose your stuff but we love to kill each other. I'll purposefully queue on opposite sides of the fence in games to fight against other Paxians. We laugh about it in team speak after they curse me a little.

Are there MMOs with forums more rife with drama? Yeah. Sometimes I'd prefer the outright drama to the veiled passive aggressive. I agree with Papaver's sentiment. Usually the pre game release forum community is in the best state you'll see in an mmo's life cycle. From what I've seen they start off fairly well with a few outliers and get steadily worse as time goes on and a game is released and then ages. Just because they are worse doesn't mean I'd wouldn't like to see this one better.

While ale is a lesser form of libation if you don't want it...

We need more shadowy...I mean scouts! Join up and save me from my stuck up...I mean obsessed with the law comrades.

Honestly it's a cost benefit thing. Goblinworks could rule things with an iron fist and stomp out drama if they wanted but it's not really worth the effort. This forum community doesn't need help stirring up drama, which is the reason I spend more time ghosting than posting. If this game is a success then the people posting here won't even hit a single percent of those playing. They'll have little to no input into the whole game community unless some inspired and inspiring leader shows up and to be honest they'd be better off spending that exemplary talent changing the real world.

Could the rules been a little more cut and dry? Without any doubt. I count myself as a person of the highest integrity and I misread the intent of the land rush 2 rules. I thought the intent was the intrigue of "vote selling" in line with a settlement conflict game. I was expecting a LOT of shady dealings and in the spirit of the game it would have been fun to watch. It likely wouldn't matter anyway. If this game is a success I think it will be the rare EE settlement owner that maintains that ownership as groups like the Goons show up.

I'm going to start some drama if there's no tavern...