Milo Goodfellow's page

While I appreciate everyone's comments and the support to the OP's changes presented to the community, I think there is some off-topic bickering creeping in and to be honest, I am over all that form of "PVP Behavior." I am simply asking the collective "you" to take it elsewhere. This thread was created more as an informative post to alert the community to the changes happening in Aragon with the hopes that there could be some renewed recruitment and interest in joining Aragon.

Again, while I welcome comments and such directed at the OP, I ask that other posts unrelated to the OP be posted elsewhere. Thank you.

I think those remaining are at a comfortable place in their life where they can be at peace with throwing 15$ a month at something that will probably never pan out while others of us have things like weddings and first homes to plan for and don't want to invest in games that don't have a reasonable chance of success.

To this, I just wanted to say that we each have our reasons for staying and sticking it out, but I don't think any of us are currently putting in more money than what has already been prepaid. I, for one, am a bit upset at the fact that there is so much that I thought would be included in the MVP product that wasn't. Yet, I have been required to begin using my prepaid time if I wish to be one of the "original" characters ever to enter PFO. Mind you, this was a very important selling point to me and as such, warranted the investment I made and explains the feeling of being "forced" to activate my prepaid time even though I would rather wait.

I speak only for myself when I say that I will stick it out and follow the game and enjoy what I can from it for these next 2 years before I put any more money into it. I do still hope for its success and wish GW well with it, but I am not happy with it's current state. I am hoping that this feeling is a short lived one. I am trying to keep my faith in GW that they will still deliver the game they blogged about 2-3 years ago. That is the game I invested in and That is what I am still waiting for.

By Order of the Aragonian Council:

The settlement known as Aragon is undergoing several major changes. This being due to the evolution of PFO into it's current state of existence. Here are some of those changes:

Banditry isn't a viable method of advancement within the world of PFO. This is likely to change and when it is viable, Bandit activity may resume in Aragon. Those joining Aragon need not be bandits but should not be opposed to it. Aragon is changing to a more PVE/Escalation/Crafting focused community. While these activities have always been active within Aragon's walls, they will be getting more attention and focus then before.

Until the current membership size of Aragon increases, we will be operating as a single company "The Aragonian Council." This will simplify communication, banking, and other settlement activities. This in no way implies that companies are restricted or otherwise unwelcome within Aragon. Quite the opposite. We want and desire companies to call Aragon home. We are making these changes with the hopes that everyone will see Aragon as a viable settlement and a desirable place to call home.

Aragon will begin actively recruiting both individuals and companies to join our ranks. It is our goal to grow our community into a strong and vibrant entity within the world of PFO. We hope to one day have the membership that the larger settlements have, and even surpass them.

A few reasons to pick Aragon over other settlements:

Aragon has prime real estate in terms of location. We have access to 2 different mountain ranges, each sporting different ores and resources. We are in a forest which provides wood and herbs aplenty. The highlands are not far, including 1 hex immediately adjacent to the settlement. This provides coal and silver in large quantities.

We are near to Thornkeep, and Marchmont, (which is currently the starting location of new players.) Because of close proximity to NPC and starter settlements, the potential for new players is high. Companies that reside in Aragon should have an easier time with recruiting.

Defensively, we don't have any escalation hexes near enough to threaten the settlement proper. This means it is very unlikely that we will have an overpowering presence outside our walls.

If you and/or your company would like to join our settlement, or have further questions, feel free to message myself or Bluddwolf.

ok so just to be clear, if we created our DT characters prior to the fix, we are SOL, at least for the time being? But it is fixed for others? I know my characters are approximately 800 xp off, so about 8 hours apart exp wise. I would like to have that fixed if at all possible. 800 exp is alot, especially at the start.

Anyway, just checking on this and voicing my opinion.

The UnSeen are still looking for those who embrace the shadow and who wish to strike fear into the hearts of their prey.

Are there any assassins out there that seek a home, a place to practice their craft without the prying eyes or the excessive laws that govern other settlements?

Aragon will be your home. The Shadows welcome you.

Apply here for membership and Vote here for the land rush.

I think I can make this one. I work for a bank and I get out at 530, then an hour drive home puts me at almost 7 pm est, then get kids fed and in bed means I missed the whole thing. Starting later means I can watch!!! woot.

Im sorry, my soul was...traded, a long time ago. If that is required, than I must admit I can not join as I cannot pay the fee. Though if I am able to supply another soul in my place, than you need only pick the one you wish me to acquire.

@Caldeathe, the UNC has been the target of so much hostile posts that most of us are numb to it and just accept that people are scared of us. Since day 1, we announced our intent to take on the bad guy role and have caught flack for it since from "those guys." I doubt you will have to explain yourself in the same way. So no, you should be fine without a definition, you won't ever be asked.

It got to the point that people are reporting posts that "offend them" and that is fine. Go ahead and play that game. We will stick to what we will do. We said our peace. We try to defend ourselves and to explain our purpose and intent and I am done doing so. We got our message across. Read into it what you will, I am done with this. I am just going to ask that this thread be locked down and ended. The UNC no longer needs to explain ourselves.

You don't want us in your little boys club the RA, then fine we won't be in it. I am just tired of the stupid bickering and the, what I have deemed, intentional misreading and twisting of our words.

This thread won't be responded to by UNC anymore. Any other thread started or post in another thread asking or questioning UNC policy will be ignored by us. We are just done with this.

In EE, we will be there and will do as we have explained and stated countless times in countless threads.

It can simply be stated like this, no matter the "definition" of positive game play and how each views and interprets that definition, we at the UNC, and Aragon as a whole, always have and always will pledge to provide a service to the community, in the form of "the bad guy", all the while doing so in a tasteful and meaningful manner. We realize that this will not always leave a happy impression on our victims, but it is our goal to provide meaningful and enjoyable confrontation. In doing this, it is our intent to increase the enjoyment of all parties we come across, as well as their sense of accomplishment when we are defeated or otherwise thwarted.

THIS is OUR definition of "Positive gameplay" as it will increase the enjoyment of playing PFO, and promote positive enjoyment of the game.

FYI, while worded a bit differently and maybe said in a new context or something, this is the exact thing us Aragonians have been saying at each and every mention of positive gameplay. It is our belief that it will work and be performed as intended. If it is not, then the leadership council of Aragon DEMANDS we hear about it so that actions, or persons, can be adjusted to realign this view and bring it to fruition.

Just to add to Bludd's post, it is out intent at UNC as a whole (And most likely all companies attached to Aragon) to be decent Players, even if we are playing "Bad guys" IC. While I agree with Bludd in that I don't care about language and slurs and what not, though I don't think it is something that should be used constantly, or in derogatory means. I am not bothered by the use of the F-bomb, S-bomb, and such. I was in the military after all and it is fairly common place there.

While it is used as a humorous example, I really might take someone out for In Game drinks and BS a bit after I robbed them and/or killed them. If they are a good sport about it and I don't have a contract to kill someone else at that moment, then why not. Loser buys right? :-)

It has been our goal from day 1 for the UNC to have a standard of conduct OOC, while being the bad guys IC. This is not only in actions, such as those commonly agreed upon to be "griefing", but also in our chat and VOIP use. This doesn't mean we require all of our members to be nice to one another, or other players we encounter, but to be civil and decent to them. There is no need to verbal abuse or harass anyone at any time. That would be counter productive to our goal and playstyle anyway. Just like robbing and killing people to the point that they leave PFO would lower the amount of targets we have, doing the same thing verbally would accomplish the same thing and has the same effect.

I would definitely talk with anyone that has had a "report" or complaint raised against, though any action taken would vary case to case. Most of the time, it will be something along the lines of "watch what you say, or just don't talk to people OOC." We can be bad guys and provide a role and content for others IC in PFO without being jerks and a$$hole players OOC.

I think that an easy way to have SAD not be out of control in terms of "taking too much," or " asking too high or too low" and such like that would be to make SAD a simple skill check. I roll my perception vs your stealth and that gives a % of goods I "Find" and get to pick from. Honestly, if I am the bandit and I am robbing you, and I (as a player) know that I get to ask for a set %, then it is always a set %, but if it is random based on what I "find" then I don't know if I would be robbing you blind, or if maybe I am only seeing 10% of what you got.

I try and illustrate to make my point clear:

If SAD always "offered" 10% of goods carried, or maybe the value in GP of 10% of what is carried, and that was a set amount that doesn't change, then I could "value" a target based on what I see is the amount I would get on a successful SAD. If I see that you need to give me 100 GP, or 10 iron bars, I know that you have 1000 GP or 100 iron bars on you at that moment.

If it was random, meaning my perception vs your stealth, then random selection of your gear up to that %, I would have no idea (as a player) if that is your whole inventory, or only 10% of it. Maybe you only have 100 gp on you, or maybe you have 200k.

Plus it give me a reason to level perception as a skill, and travelers the stealth skill. I am all for more incentives to learn more skills and varied uses of those skills. I think that will make the whole system more indepth and enjoyed.

Side note: I thought we were done with this whole discussion LOL. Glad to see us talking instead of flaming one another. GG community. <Thumbs up>

I have been mostly quite for a few reasons, one of which is I am just tired of the bickering. The game is almost here, at least for us EE people it is. And with that, I grow board with most of this talk about hypothetical situation and such when we don't have all the details.

Let me post this to everyone involved and see where the conversation goes.

What if there is NO WARNING that your entering a hex at war? Will random guy, or a noob+guide still stay away? What if they don't know your at war?

My response: Aragon has stated that we are likely to attack anyone wondering within our boarders during war as a precaution to spying and such. If people are not warned when entering our lands of this fact, then I say their first death is that warning. Dying isn't going to be a MASSIVE deal, I think. If your a guide, you prolly won't carry much more than is needed to show people around and answer questions. So if you die, you shouldn't lose much. If they other guy is truly a noob, same goes for him. So the death doesn't cause much harm anyway, and death will be a part of the game so a "Good guide" will use it as a lesson by experience.

What if there IS a warning that entering a hex is bad for your health?

My response: If I was the guide, I would advise the noob of this (he should have gotten it too) and discuss it with him, maybe take him in to experience what death in PFO is like. At the very least, ensure he pays attention and looks for these signs so he doesn't wonder somewhere he doesn't want to be.

Again, just like with the SAD discussions, I grow board arguing the same points back and forth and I see the same thing here. 1 side thinks it should be one way, and the other side thinks another way. This isn't bad, except both sides are arguing using hypothetical data and ideas. we just don't know so voice your opinion and leave it alone. Stop making assumptions of the other side, and stop arguing over mechanics we don't know yet.

The ONLY things people should know coming from the UNC, and Aragon as a whole, are that we are PVP focused, we openly discuss our policies and expected actions for various situations, and that we do not wish to introduce toxic behavior, but will be playing the "bad guy" role and as such will rob/kill "you" several times over the course of your PFO experience (some more than others depending on your chosen role in PFO).

Next question please.

Carebear merchant with training in no weapons, not even training in a club :-)

To Craft fine armor and weapons will take training the respective skills and acquiring the materials. By making PvP the only input into advancing the available training, it selects for PvP. Your example of 1/2 party with 3 times as good gear, it does not match the parameters. To get the skills to make the better gear would require already being significantly larger than the opponent.

Its a king of the hill reward system, the process protects those on top and ensures they stay on top. Obviously, the large group wants better equipment sure. But, if the system ensures the smaller challenger can not get even equivalent equipment, then better equipment is not really necessary. "Rocks and sticks" WILL work if the opponent does not have them. (Not that it will be that bad, but the concept is valid)

It can not be said enough. You don't want to PVP, fine. Focus on crafting and make an alliance, or at least some agreement, with a PVP focused group where they protect you while you cap some towers, and you provide them with gear to make them better. Win Win for everyone.

Why is that so hard to see??

Guurzak wrote:

Cal B wrote:

200 person group. Each person puts an alt in several strategic spots.

But all of those alts are completely untrained. If a character with a couple of weeks of training isn't powerful enough to hold off dozens of day-0 noobs, then Ryan has failed to learn the lesson taught by Professor A Thousand Goons In Rifters.

Everyone is untrained on day 1 of EE.

Most small settlements will have to give up before they have time to train anything.

I disagree. First off, everyone can train up to X (Some level, lets say 5 out of 20) through a NPC settlement. Even if you choose not to train in a NPC settlement, I would think that basic skills, like lvl 1 or 2, can be trained without any towers under your control. So you will always be able to train skills, though basic, with or without towers. (No one has actually said this, it is all speculation based on how I would do it and what makes the most sense to me.)

Thought it was said that NPC settlements will offer training so I guess I was right that you can always get some training.

Anyway, the other thing to remember, day 1 of EE, most people will be running out to claim the towers right next to their respective settlements, something like first 6 people, 1 to each tower. Since, as of right now, there is no talk of any guards or monsters there to prevent 1 person from claiming the tower, this is the most feasible plan I think. From there, people will spread and try to claim towers for their settlement, but that is when we start to "fight" over them.

Over time, maybe a week or two, depending on how bold and aggressive people are, settlements will settle with what they can comfortably hold. Even big membership settlements like TEO will "Cap out" somewhere. Sure they will have more towers than smaller settlements, but everyone will have some number of towers. I highly doubt that ANY of the 33 EE settlements will end up with 0 towers. If you can't hold a single tower, then your not big/strong enough to have the settlement IMHO. Settlements are not meant to be held by 5 people. Maybe 10 companies of 5 people each, but that makes a 50 person settlement.

Cold hard truth = if you have no interest in joining with other companies to form a settlement and can't get more than say 30 members on your own, then stay in an NPC settlement and ignore the settlement portion of the game. This is my opinion and just my thoughts on it. This is a MMO, meaning "play with other people" and the game mechanics and Devs are supporting that concept. If you want to solo, then solo that is fine. Just stay in an NPC town and you will be limited. You can't play this game without risks, and those risks come from working with others and residing in a PC settlement and the perks that come with it.

I am not going to apologize for my tone as I am a bit frustrated. Read what people are saying, and what the Devs are saying and you will see that this is the game working as intended. This is a competitive territorial PVP game. If you don't want to participate in that, either work around it (by staying with a NPC town and not complaining when you can't get skills to any respectable level) or maybe this isn't the game for you. Give it a chance and talk with other people and work together. How do you think TEO, T7V, PAX, UNC, and others have gotten so big? We talked with others, share a common goal, and are going to reap the benefits of our agreements. We are also taking the risks that come with it, including losing any towers we control, eventually losing our settlement is a possibility, and the risk of feuds and war from other settlements.

"The Goodfellow" wrote:

Taking the 6 towers around your settlement is designed to be "easy" as it is right there and minimal travel is required. But the further out you go, the more likely you are the NOT be able to hold the tower, even if you have the numbers to do so. Also, since it is by company and not settlement, you could just gather 10 companies into your 1 settlement, each hold 1 tower, and that settlement has 10 towers to power their training facilities. Even if you only have like 5 members in each company, there is still a fair amount to hold 1 tower for the time your window is open.

Not all cases are those hexes easy. The most pathological case is -08.06 which is next to T, but because of elevation is 10 travel hexes away (including 3 only 1 travel hex from W (Golgotha). What are the odds that W will take that before T even gets there?

And that is a factor into your settlement location choice. I know we are Aragon took things like that, even before this tower business, into account for where we wanted to be. There is always a give and take for choices. Some are better than others. Maybe who ever is at T should talk with Golgotha (assuming they stay at W) and work out a deal or arrangement? That how I would handle it. That whole concept of working together and forming alliances and agreements, often referred to as "Pacts" :-)

My thoughts on the "character zerg" tactic to capture towers. You might take a tower or 2, or several towers, but there will come a point where you over extend and either people just cap them back (because at this point you will be a 24 open window) or you are so spread out keeping what you took that you can't expand any more.

Remember that this is a placeholder mechanic that is not intended to make it to OE. I don't think F2P accounts will be in before OE so EVERYONE in EE will be $100+ accounts, meaning to zerg, will cost a lot of money. Even TEO with their massive 200 people could prolly only hold like 10 towers effectively.

I see towers changing hands fairly often, at least until people learn what they can hold with their numbers. If they grow members, but taking in another company or 2, then they take more towers. If they lose companies, they lose towers. That is how I see it going within EE.

Also, addressing the thing people are asking about with PVEers:

1) There will be a window where the towers are PVP open, I am sure GW will implement so sort of message or indicator so people are aware and you can leave and go around to avoid it. Mind you EVERY MAJOR ROAD IS SAFE as there are no towers on them. Might be a longer path, but will be safer. Not to mention the NPC guards on there.

2) There will still be PVE content. Escalations, harvesting/crafting, Emerald Spire (at least once it gets implemented and such) so avoid the tower hexes and go mine some skymetal. Besides, most the PVPers will be in the tower hexes so you should be saferish in the other hexes. Also, we will need gear and such from you PVEers to replace what we lose claiming towers for our settlements.

Basically, it is my opinion that too many people are reading too much into this, or not looking at the big picture. Just my thoughts, not attempting to be hostile to anyone.

FMS Quietus wrote:

Cal B wrote:

This is going to seriously disadvantage the smaller groups. Especially if they have to hold their surrounding towers. Some groups will be hard-pressed to put a person in each immediate hex if even a single player or two aren't online.

They said small groups were never intended to hold a settlement. They mentioned in a post mentioning hundreds. This definitely will play into that.

As I said elsewhere, they also said we'd have months to get to that number. Now we don't. If we don't have dozens of members on day one of EE, we will not be able to hold any towers, thus shutting down our settlement's ability to support training on day one of EE.

Keep in mind, only 33 settlements will be in game day 1 of EE. There are 155 (ATM) companies out there vying for one of those slots. Even though several of those 155 are under 5 members, still, if you gathered them up into 1 settlement, you would have several decent sized companies. Yes, companies like TEO and PAX have the members to hold several towers, but I think that people are blowing this out of proportion.

Taking the 6 towers around your settlement is designed to be "easy" as it is right there and minimal travel is required. But the further out you go, the more likely you are the NOT be able to hold the tower, even if you have the numbers to do so. Also, since it is by company and not settlement, you could just gather 10 companies into your 1 settlement, each hold 1 tower, and that settlement has 10 towers to power their training facilities. Even if you only have like 5 members in each company, there is still a fair amount to hold 1 tower for the time your window is open.

Last thing to remember, any persons sent out to attack and claim another tower is 1 less person at home defending. Because of this, UNC might send people out to raid a tower, but then someone else could raid ours and we trade rather than gain/loss a tower.

A few questions, most have already been asked above but I haven't seen an answer yet so I will echo them (Though I understand much is TBD right now, but any info would be great. Even if is it speculative like the very early blogs):

More info concerning the towers' effect on training. How does gaining another tower or losing one affect training in the settlement.

What exactly do you mean by "can train 2 class/roles but support them all." Does that mean we can train fighters and rogues, but only have spells for sale without the training to use them?

Great blog and I am glad to see basic territorial combat being done so early in EE. Kudos!!

Lastly, just like to say:

I CALLED IT. I was the first to post my speculation of settlement warfare coming earlier than expected. WOOT WOOT LOL

This is mainly directed at The Goodfellow because he is a good fellow from what I've heard. :P

In effort to not further derail FMS's post...

You mentioned NC's NAP. I'm assuming UNC has agreed to this. I also assume NAP stands for Non-Aggression Pact. If those are true my ultimate question is did UNC require all the members of the NC to sign a contract with them to not SAD or otherwise be aggressive toward them?

Was wondering how that part was worked out. I don't frequent these forums much preferring to stay in my own little corner of the PFO world.

NAP = Non-Aggression-Pact

We did not form a contract per se, as this is more of a "grand scale" agreement along the same lines as one would sign an alliance or declare a full out war. The UNC deal more with smaller, or lower level and more intimate affairs. The NAP was agreed to by the settlement of Aragon, as well as all of its members, including the UNC, with the idea of "Not crapping where we sleep." In the NC thread, there is some more details, but as far as the UNC is concerned for this NC membership, we won't actively pursue NC members as our targets for any of our activities. We won't raid them, we won't SAD them, we won't ambush them.

It is important to note, as I think it was stated in the NC thread, that if a 3rd party owns a caravan and is ambushed by the UNC, while it is being guarded by a NC member, that would not violate the NAP for that combat to occur as the guards are considered members of the 3rd party while they are employed by them.

To clarify:

PAX is hired to guard a TEO caravan. UNC ambushes that caravan. PAX guards and UNC fight, and go about their respective day's. No violation of the NAP has occurred.

If PAX is guarding a PAX caravan and UNC ambushes it, BAD UNC!!!! :-)

Personally, I feel that separating out RA members on maps like this at ALL is counterproductive. It's basically people who've said "Hey, positive gameplay I see as a valuable goal" though people have varying opinions about what all that entails.

That does not imply any kind of alliance or allegiance of any sort, or that any RA member is suddenly not independent. At most it signifies people who are likely to be cooperative in general. Not just to each other, but to anyone who wishes for cooperation.
Some people who do know better about the RA have what I would call misperceptions, and people who DON'T know about the RA in any kind of detail are going to be handheld down a path of faulty assumptions when they look at a map and see RA members grouped like this.

Sorry that this is where these thoughts are coming out in, it could really be any of several threads where I've had these thoughts.

I have a problem with the above bolded part. This was the idea the UNC had of the RA when we offered to join its membership, but was quickly informed that membership in the RA is more than simply stating "we support positive gameplay." Each of the members have ALSO agreed to only have mutually beneficial interactions between themselves, and that is the reason the UNC was not welcome to join, as our playstyle isn't mutually beneficial to our targets.

If what you say is true, that the RA are simply a group of like minded players showing support for a positive gameplay experience of the various players in PFO, then I don't see a problem with anyone wanting the same to be allowed to join your membership, including the UNC. We support positive gameplay and supporting a healthy gaming environment within PFO.

I am asking everyone to not use this post as a means to derail this thread, I was simply pointing out an issue I had with the quoted post. To get this back on topic, I think that BECAUSE of the mutually beneficial "clause" within the RA charter, I think that qualifies it as a "faction" (For lack of better term) just as the NC's NAP does the same, so the map is just fine the way it is in that regard. This is my opinion and thoughts on the matter.

Side note: Great job on the map. Looks great!!

Also, keep in mind that alpha is NOT NDAed so people can stream and post video's and such so the world can see PFO pre-EE. Granted they can't play for themselves, but they get to see what is being delivered and can begin to build an expectation for EE.

At least that is my take on this.

Earned the "title" first is cool, but maintaining it longer is better :-) One can rush to fame, but legends take time and last forever.

LOL I love how this turned into a "new guy, lets fight over him" thread.

Seriously though, welcome to the forums, lots of good info here and as others above have said, there seam to be a large gathering of mature players here. Granted, we only can account for those posting on these threads, individual companies could possibly add those on their respective VOIP. I would suggest taking some time to consider the questions posted above, concerning the role you would be interested in playing in PFO and find a suitable company to join based on that. A mature group is something I would use to narrow the list down after you make that first choice.

And yes, the UNC (Unnamed Company) and the settlement or Aragon are a bunch of mature and vocal players who understand and wish to bring a viable and meaningful "Bad guy" to PFO. If you wish to learn more about UNC and/or the settlement Aragon (we have several companies with different views and goals) feel free to PM me and as. Xeen and Bluddwolf are also available if you don't feel safe talking to me, I am a renowned assassin after all. :-)

Aragon is looking for refiners and crafters who desire to work with the finest and rarest of materials to be found within the River Kingdoms.

Your skills for refinement, repair and manufacture of martial equipment will be supported at the highest levels. You will be busy, having a steady flow of repair, replacement and new item manufacture orders.

You will have access to the same combat training that our three PvP oriented divisions will have. Because you will also have a certain level of combat readiness, you will never have to feel that you are a second class citizen of Aragon.

Who will be the first handful of individuals looking to become our exclusive crafters? What company will step forward and join us in Aragon to secure that role for their entire company?

Come claim your exclusive place and help make Aragon a thriving home for us all!

Vote for Aragon.

Remember, being a crafter in Aragon will GUARANTEE plenty of paying customers and work to be had. You won't go hungry as a crafter in Aragon. Apply today!!

KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:

Trying too hard right now man, I'm sorry. You've probably been up for a while haven't ya?

I won't judge if he is trying to catch me into saying something I don't intend. That would prove to be pretty hard actually, I am often too honest for my own good, and I speak what I believe.

I will answer the question he may have on his mind.....

Will the UNC raid Pax owned outposts, POIs and caravans? Yes, we will and we have said that to Pax leadership on multiple occasions. They understand it, they get it, they understand us, they know PFO is an Open World PvP MMO that will be very competitive.

We are not looking to play FarmVille / Sim City River Kingdoms edition. We (UNC) are thinking "PvP 9/10". The other 10% of the time I'm on a bio break or grabbing a sandwich or mixing me a Captains and Ginger Ale!

To prevent any miscommunications: "PAX" can be replaced with ANY COMPANY in PFO. The UNC will target anyone at any time we are paid to. Only companies safe will be members of Aragon, or that we already have a contract to protect. (and even that has an expiration date.)

"The Goodfellow" wrote:

This is mainly the reason Aragon was put up as a settlement and by that name, rather than as UNC. This way people know they are voting for Aragon the settlement, not UNC the company. If everyone did this, I think there would be less confusion. But that is just me.

If the majority of players read the forums, or had a halfway decent explanation of what it was they were voting on and what it did and did not mean for their own group. Yes.

In my opinion, based only on the blog info concerning the land rush 2, if everyone posted as their desired settlement names and description as such, instead of as guilds/companies, I think there would be less confusion over what is being voted on, and why guilds are getting fighting over settlements when it should be proposed settlements fighting over spots, with 1 or more guilds/companies supporting each settlement.

Maybe in the description of the settlement, a list of supporting guilds/companies would be put, but the board should have settlements, not guilds. This way, without reading the forums (and I know quite a few that don't, but do read/watch the blogs to keep up with the game news) you can be aware of what is going on and what is being voted on.

Again, this is my POV and what I think would had been better. Either way, the majority of voters (I think) are aware, or are being informed by others, so things should be ok. Just posting my thoughts.

This is mainly the reason Aragon was put up as a settlement and by that name, rather than as UNC. This way people know they are voting for Aragon the settlement, not UNC the company. If everyone did this, I think there would be less confusion. But that is just me.

Basically, it is mostly speculation at this point because NO ONE knows the ins and outs of alignment at this point, at least not to the level they will be in game. We have assumptions based on what ryan and others have said concerning it, specifically towards CE, but still nothing is for sure.

It is our goal to place CE, and do it in a meaningful mannor that isn't Chaotic stupid and not at -rep. If that isn't possible within game mechanics, then this division will likely be dropped. Until such time, here we are.

As for being each other's content, I think the main reason ryan was saying "being CE is being other people's content" is because the most common way to gain and maintain this alignment is to do things that also lower rep and cause PVP flags, making you vulnerable to other people at their leisure. In that manner, yes we will be other people's content. But in the grander picture, we will all be each other's content in one for or another.

And in the darkness...Rob them

Just wanted to pop in and say "Awesome job Goblins!!!" I am glad to see real effort and dedication in getting things up and running. Us here at the UNC appreciate the work you all do, though I am sure we are not alone.

Also, thanks for being as transparent as you can be. It is nice to "be in the loop" a bit for a change. It gets frustrating when we are waiting and don't know why.

Golgotha and UNC are the most outspoken about either being evil or having evil elements. I don't doubt there will be a lack of evil, but I have a feeling, especially those who frequent the forums, see the amount of crap UNC deals with on a daily basis defending the "evil" way of life and decide to remain quiet and in the shadows as to not draw attention to themselves.

If that is the case, I would ask that, if they want to remain silent, then do so, but still vote for one of us (Golgotha or Aragon) in the land rush to ensure you have a "home."

Remember, voting for a settlement in land rush 2 has NO BEARING on any loyalties or membership once the game goes live, it is simply to see who has the most support and would then make the "best" choices for settlements.

Even some of you "good guys" are welcome to support us with your votes to ensure you have a settlement to war against and a place to hunt bad guys in their lands, as opposed to just defending your own lands.

"The Lamenting Woman"

Bludd and xeen have each had their tantrums on these forums in various forms. Granted, not all focused on 1 set "topic" as our "newest member" (that isn't accurate anymore BTW we had some join yesterday) but still. I think im the only one in UNC to not throw one, I guess Im due. Or I am gathering it all, saving it, and will go nutz in game. guess we have to wait and see.

And I don't mind all the talk in our recruitment thread. Free bumps for us WOOT WOOT!!

@BLudd, just make sure to post the OP once every 10ish posts so people don't forget what this thread is.

@Avari, not sure about bludd and xeen as it never came up in conversation, but I am perfectly capable of wiping my own, but thanx for the offer. :-)

This sounds like the type of accord that the UNC can stand behind. As I am sure it is well known, at least to those who frequent these forums, the UNC (while bad/evil IC) have every intention of minimizing our negative impact on the community, while still having fun in our chosen role. As a meta accord, we pledge our support and wish to sign up as members. Hopefully there isn't any "hidden requirements" that we are unaware of, and if it turns out to have some, and we find ourselves unable to meet them, we will simply remove our application.

That being said, as members or not, I would like to put our 2 coppers into the pot concerning promoting a happy and overall positive gameplay experience for all. I hope that everyone will take our eagerness to join both this and, formerly, the roseblood accord as a sign of our dedication to the PFO gaming community and our absolute desire to provide meaningful and exciting and positive gameplay for all who play it. We will be bad guys IC, but OOC we are still gamers like everyone else and that is what is important, at least to us at the UNC.

As for a name, I will do some research but as of now I have no submissions.

I also agree that keeping this accord broad and open will allow it to remain valid throughout the years to come without needing constant "revisiting" as the game evolves.

As for controversial cases, this is always a "touchy" subject due to the varied ranged of situations that fall into this category. For now, I will post what is the general opinion of the UNC for those you listed and just in general.

standing outside noobtown ganking day old characters, our view is if you are also day old, it is ok, however, standing there "farming" noobees for fun is not cool. This applies to anyone anywhere, though it varies a lot based on how we can tell each other's "level." If all we can see if gear worn, or the "size" of your pack, then it will have to be assumed that the better gear and bigger pack, the less "noob" the character is. This will have to be a "learned" instance as the game develops and how GW determines what, if anything, we can know by seeing our opponents.

The 3am call to siege a settlement, in the UNC opinion and mine as a player, is a 100% valid tactic. Either those attackers will have to deal with the NPC guards (closed pvp window time frame) or the settlement has an open PVP window and it is there responsibility to defend it. after all, in RL, if you can convince the army to leave the town, by means of a distraction attack or something, then attack the town while it is less defended, that is called tactics. I would expect such tactics to be used regularly.

Killing the same character over and over, most cases, no this is bad. However, there are times when this WILL happen. Such as a battle/war at a settlement, defenders and attackers are both dying over and over and that is to be expected and perfectly fine. Corpse camping in the middle of the woods somewhere, that is bad. If you are harvesting a sky metal hex and the same "solo bandit" is determined to stop you, and you keep killing him, that is fine, he is the one instigating it, not the harvester. flip side of same coin, if a bandit is "patrolling" a sky metal hex and you (harvester) go in there, die, and go back and die again, it is your fault and that is fine. Bring friends or train some better combat skills and better gear, then come back. Same for the bandit.

I hope I have added to this thread with this post. It was a bit longer than I meant to but that happens. Great concept and I hope others see that and join up as well.

@Randomwalker Just wanting to say: While we have withdrawn our application to join this accord, this by no means changes our stance on what we feel is positive and meaningful gameplay and will continue to do as we have declared is our intent.

Calling us "honorable bandits" is a fair description of our intended playstyle. And very much indeed, if you (or anyone) feel you are being targeted and/or harassed by members of the UNC, we ask you to notify those in command of the UNC so that it can be researched and corrected. It isn't our intent to do such action as it violates OUR view of positive gameplay experience.

We will rob you and we will kill you and we do it as part of the game and for our own enjoyment, but not with the intent of costing you your enjoyment. Being killed and robbed is part of the game and we hope that it is interpreted as such, and not anything negative.

In an attempt to not post yet another massive post, I will end there. Hopefully I got my message across without offending anyone or starting another "discussion" of how us robbing and killing is "bad and not fun."

I would like to also add that, while the UNC are founding this settlement, all companies that join will have representation on the ruling council. Whether in game or meta, depending on leadership mechanics in game.

Settlement Name: Aragon
Settlement Philosophies: The River Freedoms
Government Type: Oligarchy (Council)
Alignment of Settlement Managers: CN
Alignment of Citizens: CG, CN, CE and N
Alignment of Visitors: ALL

Inspiring Concept:

Aragon: in United States Army training, a fictional opposing force "Aragon Liberation Front" is described by the US Army Ranger Handbook[2] as engaged in "ambushes" and "offensive operations". A placeholder entity for training exercises, the fictional Aragon appears to have no tie to various real places in Spain and elsewhere with the same or similar name.

What Aragon is meant to be:

This settlement is meant to be a place where you can exercise your freedoms, but not to the point of full blown anarchy. You can practice whatever arts you like, say whatever you like, buy and sell whatever you like (except for Slaves), plus dabble in or go all out in any of the vices you care to indulge yourself in.

The settlement’s governance is based on the River Freedoms. If you can adhere to them, you are welcomed as either a visitor, a citizen or charter company.

Focus of Services:

Aragon will be providing focused training in Chaos and Neutral based skills and feats, with lesser emphasis on skills based on Good, or Evil alignments. (with the exception of an Assassin's Faction Hall which will be a focus)

Aragon makes no difference between citizen or visitor in fees charged for skill training. However, training slots are prioritized towards citizens.

Aragon plans on providing a market to trade and facilities to craft, at the same or better capacity than any NPC settlement can provide.

Aragon plans on being open to all races, roles and alignments provided its visitors adhere to its few but severely punished laws.

Reputation:

It is the goal for the settlement leadership (managers) to have a high reputation.

The military of Aragon will be comprised of Fighters, Barbarians, The Clergy and Rangers. They will uphold high standards of reputation and function only within the confines of law enforcement, self defense, feuds and wars.

Assassins should have impeccable reputation, not allowing reputation to be a factor in granting them access anywhere, where they may be needed.

Merchants should have a high reputation.

Outlaws (Bandits) and Raiders (Barbarians) should maintain a moderate level of reputation and would be expected to show respect towards those they engage in combat with. They are expected to respect settlement standings placed on all parties, domestic or foreign.

Necromancers and other very twisted, individuals, will be accepted even if lower reputation, but they must have a certain flare in being so.

The settlement of Aragon is always in preparation for war. All citizens are expected to have basic combat skills (merchants and crafters included). Its military will drill, skirmish (feud) or wage war frequently. Its outlaws (Bandits) will be active in both bringing in money to fill our coffers and in honing their ambush and combat skills as well. Assassins and Bounty Hunters will be busy; honing and testing their talents often.

Proposed Laws of Aragon:

The River Freedoms are the basis of our laws. However, here are a few other considerations.

It will be legal to issue SADs within our lands. However, these stops are for the sole purpose of interdicting contraband (Slaves or other Banned Items). Liberated slaves will be “freed” (mechanically destroyed, unless another option is available).

Outside parties SADing within our lands are encouraged to “Have What You Hold”, so they should be prepared to defend themselves against other roving bands.

Raiding Outposts or POIs in our settlement will not be made illegal. It is the responsibility of the owners of those structures to "Have What They Hold", this includes settlement held structures.

Bounty Hunting will be made a crime within our territory. Feuding or War Parties of other settlements or companies will be marked as trespassers (both pursuer and refuge seeker) and will be attacked.

New Player Training:

Aragon is a center for training in the arts of: Small Gang PVP, Ambush, Outpost and POI Raiding, Defending POIs and Settlements, Caravan Raiding and Escort Duties.

Its settlement structures will be dedicated to training these, as well as Assassination. Religious structures that will be supported are: Besmara, Gorum and Callistria.

Ok, well seeing as I think this thread has gone way away from the OP and design for this thread, we at the UNC will simply withdraw our request to join you. There has been mixed reviews and difference questions and answers stated and I think it is best for everyone if we just be with you in spirit, but not on paper.

We wish you the best and, even though we are not accepted, we still respect and honor what you stand for. Good luck and good day.

@darcnes, As wexel has said, since he seams to have a good understanding of what the UNC stands for and desires, we as players want to promote positive game play and also meaningful game play. However, since this accord has 2 "requirements" to join and the other being mutual success, the ONLY way I see that working with our in-game characters would be a contract where we get paid to work for you. In that case, it would be mutually beneficial as we get paid and you get both protection and immunity from our attacks for a while. However, this would never be done on a constant bases, though contracts could be renewed if they are still beneficial to both parties.

If this is acceptable, then we think we can still hold a place within this accord. If this is not acceptable, then perhaps we share a common goal, but have different views as to how to reach it. If this is the case, we remain in our same mindset as before, we hold no grudge and no reserve towards anyone, group or individual. We still will promote positive game play and will enjoy being your content as much as you will be ours.

@wexel, I don't recognize your name so you have either been quiet or are relatively new to the forums and I welcome you either way. I would also like to thank you for wording exactly what our intent has been since Bludd first posted on this thread, actually even before that. Maybe coming from someone not associated with UNC will make it more clear or easier to understand.

What he said in that long post is a very good interpretation of what we at the UNC have in mind and are trying to do, from the beginning mind you. From our first post, this is what our intent was. To be the bad guy and be the content for everyone else, while making everyone our content. However, this wasn't a decision we made over night or on a whim. We wanted to still be members of the community, a Positive role model for any and everyone that wanted to follow our lead in being other people's content on purpose.

The whole reason we looked into the treaty of ravagog, and now this accord, is with that same mentality and those same intentions. We want to help the community be great and a place where people come and stay and enjoy themselves. We want everyone to have fun and have epic stories to add to the "great experiences" thread and so on.

Coming from one of your own, I hope it is received better than posts from us. It is the same message. Even in other threads, the message is the same. We argue and fight for things we feel will help us, or you, to make the game more enjoyable and fun for the greatest number of people. The SAD mechanic is designed to be an alternative to only being able to kill to gain loot and inflict loss on our opposition.

I could go on but I'm tired and ready for bed. The point is that Wexel isn't the only non-UNC member to see what we are trying to do and what we stand for. If more could see that we are not the "enemy" and just the other side of the same community coin, maybe we can stop the bickering and hostilities between us and achieve this goal we all want.

I was talking with some people and wanted to get a clarification on something.

When we setup our company on the GW site, and people join them, is it the company they are joining, or the settlement?

When the "guild master" (For lack of better terms) posts for people to join the land rush, do they create using settlement name, or create using company name?

"The Goodfellow" wrote:

Also, the accord keeps referring to "the mutual success" and I am curious. Are you referring to only the members of this accord, or are you referring to all players in PFO? Is everyone's success important, or just the members that sign up here?

It very clearly states the mutual success of our players. It also very clearly states that we believe promoting positive game play is good for the entire community.

I reread it and see the part I missed. Thank you. However, now that that has been corrected and reread, I have an issue with this.

Am I wrong in reading it that you intend to promote a positive gameplay experience for you and your own (within the accord) but don't care about anyone else's experience? It becomes a "us and them" scenario? I don't think that is healthy for the game as a whole if this is true.

No, it says positive game play and it should say positive game play. Nowhere, anywhere , in the announcement has it been said that we are not trying to "win the game". Quite the opposite, we mean for our membership to be successful in PFO and that will often mean stepping over other groups and players.

What we have said is that we are going to play by the rules and try to abide by the intent of GW's game design. There is no deception. This is not an organization pretending to be non political . We are a political entity with a meta game goal of positive game play.

The bold part is my question's reference.

Are you saying this as T7V or as the Accord?

If it is the Accord, this is the first I have heard it like this. Maybe it is for the same reason people still think the UNC are/will be griefers and "toxic" players. Maybe the wording has played a big part in this misunderstanding.

Also, the accord keeps referring to "the mutual success" and I am curious. Are you referring to only the members of this accord, or are you referring to all players in PFO? Is everyone's success important, or just the members that sign up here?

I wanted to expand on what bludd said and reissue the UNC's offer to join the accord. In the beginning, this was discussed, not as an alliance of good aligned settlements and companies, but as a meta-game concept, or pledge if you will, to promote positive game play in PFO. It is my understanding that "Positive gameplay" does not exclude conflict and losses, but rather enjoyment and learning in game. It is my belief, and that of the UNC, that enjoyment of the game CAN be had while being on the receiving end of a SAD or ambush.

Not don't get me wrong, I fully understand that NOONE likes to be robbed and/or killed and lose potentially hours of work and effort. However, I believe that it can still remain a contribution to the "Positive gameplay" that this accord is founded on. Learning to work with others, as opposed to working solo (this is a MMO after all), or even learning to defend yourself or how to "negotiate" with bandits, will help to give a more enjoyable and worthwhile experience in PFO.

As mentioned in other threads, with the lack of an in depth PVE content package, it falls to us, the various players, to provide the enjoyment and meaningful interactions in the game. We at the UNC have chosen to be the "bad guys" of this equation, a necessary part of the meaningful interaction equation. Most of us actually came to the game with the intent of being a "good guy" (of varying degrees), including myself. But I digress from the point.

I state again the intent of the UNC to join this accord and our desire to promote positive game play within PFO. We do not agree with the idea that "you can't promote positive gameplay by playing the bad guy." And since this is an accord and not an alliance, or some other sort of "club for cool kids," (at least that is my understanding from reading this whole thread) I don't see why our declaration of intent isn't enough to be considered members of this accord.

Is there a Pathfinder Society of Divorce Lawyers?

Ok, maybe that was a little negative, but no more so then the dissolution of the Pax UNC contract. At least our separation was amicable and in accordance with the terms of the contract.

That was solely because no kids were involved. Kids complicate EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!

It wasn't an epic victory, but a victory in 1v1 after being the victim of what would be considered a gank by my definition, namely an unaware victim and the attacker seams to "come out of nowhere". I told this story briefly in another thread but it fits here too.

I was a gnome frost mage, complete 61 (I think was the talent point number at the time level 70 BC expansion) point frost build. A build I used to raid in and was quite competent in it's use. I was in netherstorm farming scryer rep when out of the blue an orc shaman jumps me. Enhancement by the look, it was a tough fight. Luckily I had all of my CDs available to me at the time and I used nearly everyone. Pet was already out so that helped.

It was an intense and exciting fight and in the end, I defeated him with not much left in terms of health and mana. Just then, he used his "anhk" ability (called resurrection for those not familiar. it is a self rez once per hour or so.) He resed with only 30% life and a small amount of mana himself, but was hoping to catch me off guard and finish me. Using Ice block (makes me immune but I can't do anything) immediately negated his first few attacks, while he ignored my water elemental (to his demise.) Using the water elementals ability to frost nova (to freeze him) I then spammed ice lance (instant attack that does X4 damage to frozen targets) and killed him again before he was able to finish me.

After my victory, I went back to my farming of rep and a few mins later, after a rather large pull of mobs were killed, I sat down to eat and drink (recover health and mana quickly over time) I looked over and saw the orc I had fought earlier standing there full health and mana. Startled, I stood up knowing I was an easy kill, but figured I would make him work a bit for it. He simply waved, then bowed, then walked off and left me to my farming.

The experience, which anyone who plays or played WOW, especially on a PVP server, will tell you this was a very rare event. I played for nearly 6 years, most of which was on a PVP server and this was the only instance I saw this, or even heard of it for that matter. It made me feel good and have great respect for the player who played the shaman. He showed my respect by not taking the easy revenge kill. I don't remember his name, but I will always remember our encounter.

It is my intent to bring, and promote, that same respect I was shown that day to PFO. I hope I won't be alone in this venture.

Lone_Wolf wrote:

Excellent advice Valkenr!

And I have said this before on other posts, but I will repeat it here: If you are adverse to PvP but are attacked and killed by someone in PFO (and this is likely if you're going to venture out of the protected areas), remember that that is part of the game, don't get overly upset about it, and by all means reach out to the player who killed you and ask the why's and wherefors. You will likely find that those PvPers are more than willing to provide you advice on how to better protect yourself in the future.

And that will make the game more fun for everyone!

You're living in a dream world. I've played MMO's for years now, and I've PvP-d in all of them. Reaching out to the person that killed you will typically get you the response "L2P Noob. lololol"

Yes this will happen as not all people in the real world are nice and respectable, and they bring that into the game world as well. However, it is the hope of GW and the community that this behavior is kept at a minimum. I know I have encountered "good behavior" in MMO's before. A short example is in WOW PVP server, got jumped by a shaman and I was a frost mage. Was able to defeat him twice since he anhked to try to finish me. A few mins later as I was still in the area farming rep, I was nearly dead and just sat down to eat/drink. Looked over and saw him standing there. he bowed and ran off. I took it as a sign of respect because I had defeated him fairly when he had the advantage of the ambush.

He could had easily killed me as retaliation but chose not to. if we could get more of that sort of player, then PFO will be a fun and enjoyable place to play. I consider myself that sort of player, since I don't corpse camp and don't go out of my way to kill people and ruin people's experience as some others do. In PFO, I would do the same. If I killed someone and they /w me asking what they did wrong or why I attacked them, I would OOC explain it to them with no issue. IC im a ruthless murder who does not believe in spirits returning to life once I have ended theirs.

Anyway, I just wanted to comment on your reply concerning the "L2P noob"

Let me ask this, and try and take this whole conversation another direction, for those opposing us in this discussion concerning banditry and random killing and such, how would you play a bandit? What would you want in game to ensure your playstyle (as a bandit) is fun and exciting and provides meaningful interactions and a positive effect on the community? If what way would you wish for bandits to exist, perform their role, be successful, and not ruin another player's gaming experience in PFO?

I am not being a smart a$$, I am asking an honest question. We have stated our views on this as we intend to play bandits. It is my belief that we all want the same thing, but we are arguing over how to get there. Maybe if you guys post your view (not criticizing ours, but "your the dev, you make bandits" style of post) of how this would be done, we can compare them and move forward with this discussion.

Granted this might not be the "best" thread for it, but at the same time, seeing as the UNC will be bandits, this applies to our policies as such. Please, again I am asking a serious set of questions.

This is good advice. Well done. I hope people read this and understand that this are good rules to follow to increase survival and decrease loss in PFO.

I would add this:

Traveling in groups will also help. 1) this is a MMO, so play with others, and 2) there is safety in numbers.

Take it from a known bandit. The more people traveling together, the greater the risk. The greater the risk, the less likely we are to engage. Even if you are all not combat focused, GW has stated before that the power curve won't be themepark bad. Meaning someone combat focused =lvl 20 character won't be 1 shotting all lvl 5 combat skilled players. So if you have a group of 6 and all are crafters with minor combat skills, and you get attacked by 2 combat skilled characters, you at least will be inflicting damage and stand a chance of winning vs taking no combat skills and just sitting there or trying to run.

My thoughts on the idea of the "feelings" of the players behind the characters that are robbed and killed by anyone, UNC included, is this:

Using the analogy that was used in the forums a few times by at least 1 of the devs, though I forget which one.

"Saying PFO is all about PVP or a PVP game is like saying football is a game about tackling. Basically:

PVP -> PFO as Tackling -> Football

Using that idea I see it as follows:

To allow people to complain about dying or being robed as result of a PVP experience in PFO is the same as saying players can cry and complain about being tackled in football.

No matter the intentions or causes of ANY PVP action, the result is the same. The winner of the event is happy and gets loot (unless they choose not to loot) and the loser is upset and loses gear/durability. Regardless of if it was a warranted PVP (like war targets or opposing factions) or a RPK, if the attacker wins the defender is upset, if the defender wins the attacker is upset.

Moral of the story: weather this is a PVP game, or a game with PVP, the fact that PVP exists, no matter in what capacity, means that logging in and creating a character and playing said character implies that you accept the FACT that you MAY (though very likely depending on your playstyle) die on a fairly regular basis. If you don't want to die, don't play. Even a character that never leaves an NPC settlement COULD be the target of a bounty or Assassination contract, and therefore hunted and killed. (most likely at the expense of the killer dying as well to NPC guards)

Playing the game means you accept the risk that you could be killed at any moment for any reason and lose any non-threaded gear/loot you are carrying. You don't want the risk, don't play.