Monty Wolf's page

Valkenr wrote:

One thing I would consider adding is a limit to how much you can attack a non-war target. I get this idea from killing Decius 50 times (when he was red!) at the Sotterhill spawn point. At 40 kills I was fine, then sometime after that my rep tanked. It would be nice to see a penalty for over-targeting a player or organization, outside of War or amicable PvP agreements.

I expect attacks on Morale will not be quantifiable by the systems.

If they're 'red' is that griefing? Is Valkenr pro-griefing?

Bluddwolf wrote:

I don't see what the problem with this is? Some players want to PvP, and until they have systems in place to do it, they are going to do it any way they can.

Yep, we get it, you're pro-Griefer.

If the character spawning has a low reputation and someone attacks them, is that also griefing? The game now has NPCs that do this afterall.

Okay, so feats aside I should be able to train fighter and rogue lines that most likely apply to a ranger or barb and not have to duplicate anything when those classes are released. Good stuff!

Feats aside, what happens when newer classes get introduced? Will I need to train the light armor line all over again for my Ranger, or the bow line? Will my barb need to train the hitpoint line or the fortitude save line all over again?

Anakin Skywalker was the chosen one that brought balance to the force.

Just sayin...

Guurzak my question then goes to you too. To what purpose is it in a game that hasn't been tested yet to request changes to the game mechanics?

This question goes to everyone continuing to support this idea.

It's called crowdforging. Some companies even support it.

If you have issues with people suggesting ideas to GW, you best raise a suggestion on ideascale for them to stop raising suggestions and ideas.

Only certain evil actions invoke the Heinous flag. Slavery, Raising Dead, etc. Being an evil dick isn't enough. You have to do the kind of evil things that even many evil people find heinous.

Like stealing a loaf of bread. An act that everyone finds horrific! Meanwhile, burning a settlement to the ground, killing anyone inside that settlement or those that dare defend their hearth is fine and dandy.

I'm interested to see if the same people in this thread that tell us PvP is so bad, fight as hard to lessen the impacts of the criminal and heinous flags.

Personally I would far prefer that rather than making starmetal hexes FFA that they actually increase the rep and alignment penalties for PVP my at least 2 or 3 fold maybe even more

This would serve to promote the reputation mechanic and highlight how naughty it is of people to kill those not flagged for PvP to you. Surely a good thing for all.

Of course, it would make rogues using the SAD mechanic a much desired commodity also.

Urman wrote:

Why would they want to be NN?

You asked an easy one: T7V and Phaeros are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, which can, in our estimation, have no alignment of its own. All knowledge is worthy of pursuit, investigation, and understanding, and we can't afford limited human understandings like alignment to get in the way.

Except alignment in Golarian is not a limited human thing. It is a deity thing. There is also a school of thought that says TN is another side unto itself, and not just belonging to those that don't want to be burdened by law or chaos, good or evil. A long and hard road when you have four 'enemies' rather than just the usual diametrically opposed alignment enemy.

Put a six second cooldown on stealth generally, or when using an attack from stealth. Permastealth issues go away then.

Since this is a plea for Oceanic players, I'll point out that Aragon has five Oceanic players and soon to be several more.

If you want to join a Chaotic settlement, head on over!

Landrush link
Company website

I'm going to train running.. Good luck newbies!

Shooting them in the leg with a barbed arrow works just as well.

Crash_00 wrote:

Ignoring what people state does not make those statements sloppy, it simply shows that you can't follow everything being said.

Ignoring the difference between fact and hypothesis is intellectually sloppy.

Careful labeling something 'intellectually sloppy'. That's like calling an idea stupid and may be construed as you attacking the individual rather than the idea itself.

The Roseblood Accord is a group of sovereign player organizations united not under central authority, but in our agreement to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members. It is our belief that positive gameplay improves everyone’s experience, and we are dedicated to providing a place in Pathfinder Online where players who seek such an experience can find it. Towards that end, we have come together to announce our intentions to the community, and to invite all who share these goals to join us.

If individuals that have signed up to the Roseblood accord label other individuals and entire gaming groups as cheaters without any basis in fact, what will happen to them?

Members of Taur-im-Duinath, Hammerfall, Forgeholm, Dagedai Alliance, Magistry, Keepers of the Circle, The Seventh Veil and The Empyrean Order, what will you do about Nihimon and Decius who continually label all Pax members as cheaters using statements that have repeatedly been shown to either be incorrect or lies?

Toombstone has already labeled me once as a troll for asking a similar question, and I am sure others will for daring to raise this in a thread specifically about the Roseblood accord, but I think it worth asking this anyway.

Monty Wolf wrote:

Kakafika wrote:

The RA doesn't have any way of issuing a wardec.

There is no 'government' of the RA. The RA exists only insomuch as the members/leaders continue to talk to eachother on teamspeak.

We don't even have an 'Emprah!'

Members are not required to come to eachother's aid. Members are not required not to war with eachother (as far as I know, at least).

In my estimation, having never listened in on the TS chats or spoken to anybody in the RA, the only requirements are that members engage in PvP and other behaviors that are regarded as 'positive gameplay,' the general definition of which we share, and to help other members realize this goal.

That's not to say that our shared goals haven't formed strong bonds of friendship. Each individual guild will decide for themselves which other individual guilds they will support in wartime and under what circumstances.

So if one member of the accord decides another settlement has 'cheated' and not engaged in positive gameplay, would they ask the other members to engage them in war or take sanctions against them?

I don't see how that question makes any sense based on what you quoted from me. Nobody has any control over what Roseblood Accord members do. There is no governing body.

Also, I haven't seen any evidence that any Roseblood Accord member group believes that theirs is the only valid opinion of what 'positive gameplay' is; they simply share the same general idea of what it means.

Again, if a group within the Roseblood Accord wants to go to war, it's up to other individual groups to decide if they will join them. Is there something ambiguous about this that I can clarify?

Fair enough. I had assumed since the leaders talked to one another, options might be discussed and a decision might be made about doing something against groups that do not abide by positive gameplay. It would seem that is not the case.

What if members of the accord do not abide by positive gameplay. Like labeling other groups cheaters without a basis in fact for example?

Monty Wolf wrote:

Since this is posted by the op of this thread and this is the official Roseblood accord thread, I take it Pax is being called out as not playing to the standards required by the accord?

Ok. My apologies if you are being genuine, you did not deserve to be called a troll if that is the case.

Unfortunately I can't answer your question, since I'm not Nihimon. I am fairly confident however that his post has nothing to do with the Accord, and even if it did, no one else in the Accord has any obligation to agree with him or support his opinion. Like I said, I do not agree with everything he said, and I do not think he will cast me down as the enemy for saying so.
Edit: However your continued 1-liner smartass comments don't help your claim that you aren't a troll.

Thanks. I am being genuine. While I am an UNC member, I (and others in the UNC) promote positive gameplay, especially no griefing. We are unable to sign up to the accord because of the 'no preying on members' caveat that inhibits the bandit style of play. I am however interested to see what the results are of all this.

Still waiting for that whole put up or shut up thing.

Careful, you might be labeled a troll for asking questions.

Monty Wolf wrote:

Once again, labels based on lies. Positive gameplay at its finest.

I asked a question in the thread about the Roseblood Accord that the OP made. I see there is also another Roseblood thread no up. Since Nihimon was the OP in that also, maybe I'll go there and ask.

I already answered your question. You also said basically the same thing in the Pax thread, though I had the discipline to ignore you there. Now instead of engaging me here, you'd rather run to a 3rd thread.

You said you're NOT a troll, right?

I answered your question. Nihimon doesn't speak for me or the Accord. I don't agree with everything he said and I would not have made that post. What further questions do you have?

You didn't answer my question. You called me a troll. Here is the question again:

Since this is posted by the op of this thread and this is the official Roseblood accord thread, I take it Pax is being called out as not playing to the standards required by the accord?

The RA doesn't have any way of issuing a wardec.

There is no 'government' of the RA. The RA exists only insomuch as the members/leaders continue to talk to eachother on teamspeak.

We don't even have an 'Emprah!'

Members are not required to come to eachother's aid. Members are not required not to war with eachother (as far as I know, at least).

In my estimation, having never listened in on the TS chats or spoken to anybody in the RA, the only requirements are that members engage in PvP and other behaviors that are regarded as 'positive gameplay,' the general definition of which we share, and to help other members realize this goal.

That's not to say that our shared goals haven't formed strong bonds of friendship. Each individual guild will decide for themselves which other individual guilds they will support in wartime and under what circumstances.

So if one member of the accord decides another settlement has 'cheated' and not engaged in positive gameplay, would they ask the other members to engage them in war or take sanctions against them?

Once again, labels based on lies. Positive gameplay at its finest.

I asked a question in the thread about the Roseblood Accord that the OP made. I see there is also another Roseblood thread no up. Since Nihimon was the OP in that also, maybe I'll go there and ask.

For those not in the know, this is what KC is getting at.

Monty Wolf wrote:

<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:

Monty Wolf wrote:

Since this is posted by the op of this thread and this is the official Roseblood accord thread, I take it Pax is being called out as not playing to the standards required by the accord?

This is obviously ridiculous and I think you are smart enough to know that, which means stop trolling. Nihimon doesn't speak for me or anyone else.

Then why post it here, in this thread dedicated to the accord? Why did the op post it and not PM people like he said in the Pax thread he would? Why even post unless he was wanting to rub salt into the wounds?

I don't know, ask him. I think he was responding to what someone from TEO said in this thread, so he responded in this thread. I don't think being the OP in a thread makes you lord and master over all who enter, though.

So you have no idea why he posted or what his thoughts are and you 'think' he was responding to someone else, yet you leaped to his defense and labeled me a troll. Interesting indications of positive gameplay at work.

As Nihimon stated in the Pax thread, he made a mistake last time he did something like this publicly and should have done it via PM. I guess two days makes you forget those ideals.

spam

Is delicious.

Monty Wolf wrote:

Since this is posted by the op of this thread and this is the official Roseblood accord thread, I take it Pax is being called out as not playing to the standards required by the accord?

This is obviously ridiculous and I think you are smart enough to know that, which means stop trolling. Nihimon doesn't speak for me or anyone else.

hmm, and labeling someone a troll for asking questions isn't very positive. You best unsubscribe from the accord.

Monty Wolf wrote:

Since this is posted by the op of this thread and this is the official Roseblood accord thread, I take it Pax is being called out as not playing to the standards required by the accord?

This is obviously ridiculous and I think you are smart enough to know that, which means stop trolling. Nihimon doesn't speak for me or anyone else.

Then why post it here, in this thread dedicated to the accord? Why did the op post it and not PM people like he said in the Pax thread he would? Why even post unless he was wanting to rub salt into the wounds?

Lifedragn wrote:

Quote:

the Pax/UNC position that it's okay to do anything we can get away with as long as there's not an explicit rule against it that's clearly defined by Goblinworks.

Nihimon, I think it may be a little premature to claim that this is an actual position of their whole group. We've had a single instance so far that exists in that gray area. It does not seem to be enough to make a trend. If you feel they have acted as such in this event, you have every right to speak up as you have been for this one event, but I think it would only be appropriate to allow a bit more time to pass and more examples of behavior to make a judgement call on their company-wide policy. They may not come out spotless, but they may look better than you see them to be at the moment in this one issue.

A prominent member of Pax Gaming and of this community for whom I have a lot of respect - especially because of the extremely civil tone he used in his Private Message to me - asked me about this same thing. Being who I am, I wanted to make sure I was remembering correctly, and could back up what I'm about to say with proof before I said anything.

Ryan placed three restrictions on us:
1. If you, as a Guild, won a Settlement in LR1, don't create a second entry for LR2;
2. If you, as a Player, voted for a Guild that won a Settlement in LR1, don't vote for a different Guild in LR2; and
3. If you, as a Player, intend to play as part of a Guild that won a Setttlement in LR1, don't vote for a different Guild in LR2.

Pax Gaming violated ALL THREE of those requests.

I understand folks might look at any one violation and say there were special circumstances, or it was an honest mistake. But when all three are violated, I think it's clearly a matter of policy. I won't rehash requests 1 or 3, but I think some folks may be under the impression that Pax Gaming didn't violate the 2nd request. In fact, they did....

Since this is posted by the op of this thread and this is the official Roseblood accord thread, I take it Pax is being called out as not playing to the standards required by the accord?

Is that the smoke of war I smell?

Very nice work

Ah yes, like a staircase going ever downward, it represents my descent into madness.

Chaos is a ladder...

I can't believe people are posting proclamations of revenge, and keeping lists of names of the people who disagreed with them on a pre-alpha message board, so 2 years later when settlement pvp is in they can remember who to be mad at.

Maybe they are part of a metagame group that enforces 'positive forum play' and decided others broke that accord.

Quote:

If you want to be a wolf, don't learn from the sheep. You need to run with the wolves.

So vicious, wow.

Many wolf

3scary5me

Combine all three to get awesomeness!

Bluddwolf wrote:

You need to research that a bit better. HINT: Linnorm Kingdoms

Well I did actually, but if raids still happen sometimes, from what I gathered, the Linnorm Kingdoms are mostly settled now. I could be mistaken, but I don't think I am.

Baba Yaga conquered part of the Linnorm Kingdoms a thousand years ago. That land is now know as Irrisen.

The current Lands of the Linnorm Kings, while not detailed on the wiki, are most definitely ravaged by raiding. Pathfinder chronicle 'PZO9238 Lands of the Linnorm Kings' goes into this more.

I shall pray to the stars, for our fellow Golarions, hoping they do not come to Phaeros seeking neither war nor death nor coin. For my my wrath is fierce and swift and hath no mercy for those tainted by shadow, beware.

Since TSV is neutral I assume this wrath will be visited upon those bathed in the light also?

Monty Wolf wrote:

People keep saying banditry is bad. Banditry is toxic. Banditry is griefing. Banditry will drive people from the game.

BS

More griefing from TSV against people giving opinions.

Monty Wolf wrote:

People keep saying banditry is bad. Banditry is toxic. Banditry is griefing. Banditry will drive people from the game.

Can you quote this, or is it just what you imagine ? No one criticised banditry.

Maybe this guy

Several posts down he mocked Bluddwolf for saying UNC were a NBRI company...you know a bandit company.

I'm too lazy to look up other quotes but there are lots of people who think banditry is the most horrible thing that could happen to them in PFO. I guess they will avoid wars and feuds by either logging out or not joining a company, but banditry scares them because they cannot use those tactics to avoid it. They actually need to be proactive and make friends and use other people to help them.

Audoucet wrote:

I don't really see the point of this last post...

It would seem Bluddwolf wants to bluster about how tough and experienced he is while pretending that others are naive fools who will curl up and cry and maybe even quit when their Settlement is destroyed.

Or he might be trying to show Audoucet how bad war will be but at the same time highlight how it is odd that people say banditry might make people leave the game.

People keep saying banditry is bad. Banditry is toxic. Banditry is griefing. Banditry will drive people from the game. But when war is mentioned they all just say We'll pick ourselves up!

Ryan Dancey (Affiliation with a settlement) wrote:

Groups that have a strong sense of purpose, and are resilient and able to admit mistakes and move forward without tearing themselves apart at the seams can recover from losses.

That's how we'll respond when we lose our Settlement.

Which should be how people react to being robbed.

Uh-oh. Poking the dragon...that's always an effective ploy :-).

And given the thread it was done in could perhaps be considered griefing and may drive people away from the game. Oh noes! Better report TSV to a GM.

I think it would be really helpful if you, Bluddwolf, would stop pretending that not wanting to get killed randomly all the time is the same thing as not wanting to ever get killed.

There are a lot of folks who are willing to embrace a game with non-consensual PvP, but they're very concerned about it degenerating into a random gank-fest. I'd like to engage those folks, try to present as honest and realistic picture of PFO as I can, and encourage them to give Goblinworks their money.

Telling them how you found happiness in a random gank-fest, and how they can find happiness in random gank-fests too, isn't going to do much good.

So from this page of the thread alone: No random killing. No commonplace killing. Nothing that isn't fun. Nothing that isn't bothersome. Nothing that isn't gruelling. Nothing that isn't meaningful. Nothing that isn't interesting. Nothing that isn't significant.

Anything else?

They can still attack them if they are in an opposite faction or they take a reputation hit. I'm just not sure having 90% of the server population being able to attack you anywhere is going to be very positive. I'm fine if they are criminals, but slotting the skill means they haven't broken any laws yet and may never have in their lives.

Its an interesting idea though. Do we do this with factions or with skills? Can all evil characters attack a paladin that has their smite good skill slotted or should it only be a faction? We already know necomancers will be fair game to everyone for using their skills. Why not the lawful or good characters?

Tyncale wrote:

Wouldn't those goods arrive at the market anyway, but now through the hands of bandits?

25% of them will be destroyed (I think) if the Merchant is killed.

Also, as I just said elsewhere, the key to making sure full-time Bandits don't get out of hand is to ensure they face a significant risk from Bandit Hunters, which means they need to be flagged to those Bandit Hunters (faction works just fine) even when they're not actively engaged in Banditry.

Which reminds me of an idea I had a while ago. What if after a rejected SAD the amount of goods destroyed was greater, say 50%. Would that make bandits more likely to offer better SAD deals and not move to combat so much?

Hi Nihimon. Hi Nihimon. I don't disagree that banditry has a place in PFO. I'm glad it does. My only point has been it shouldn't be easy, and should have significant challenges and consequences. Especially at first, it should be a serious challenge because I think enabling "bad" behavior too much has the potential to sabotage the success of the game more so than erring on the side of caution and then adding more functionality for bandits later, if needed.

It'll get real interesting when wars start and characters from a settlement get killed again and again and again and then their city razed so they have nowhere to train or live and have to go back to an NPC city.

A group of six bandits mugging a single merchant is going to look pretty soft then. That will be regarded as good behavior by the game also.

Well let's see... Some more dang speculation here. IF there has to be an S&D mechanic, and it could be only available through the "bandit faction", they would be flagged up vs. (at least) the "merchant faction" at all times and all others when S&D is slotted.

To me, that seems like a fair compromise of "risk".

I could see this working if some hexes like badlands were exempted. If the bandits get a criminal flag they're open to attack, but it doesn't make much sense to me to allow everyone to attack them in the lawless hexes just for being there. They would still obviously be at risk from other factions though.

Where there is no measurable motive then it was griefing.

Is faith a measurable motive? Gunna be lots of Rovagug worshippers if so.

Let's be clear, anyone who has experience in MMOs knows exactly what Nihimon means when using the term "corpse camping." Again, this isn't complicated and there is no need to get into semantics. Just don't corpse camp a dude's corpse for the lolz, what's so hard to understand about this Bluddwolf?

Why are we fighting these clearly-defined issues?

Because like griefing there is nothing clearly defined. Everybody has a different idea of what these are and taking it to the GMs is just a waste of their time and effort.

Bringslite wrote:

Monty Wolf wrote:

Gunna make for interesting siege warfare when the GMs have to talk sternly to everyone corpse camping.

"Don't fire your ballista at the naked mage at the base of your city wall! He is only retrieving his gear"

Why do you feel it is corpse camping to be "near" a corpse in a battlefield situation?

I don't think that anyone else does, when they examine the situational aspects.

If someone has to blatantly misrepresent your point in order to even attempt to counter it, you know you're winning the argument.

So war is exempted from corpse camping, ok. I assume feuds and faction battles also then? Raids on POIs? The vast majority of PVP?

I guess it would be better to send everything through to the GMs and get them to figure if out.

Thats my point. If corpse camping is made against the rules then the GMs are going to have to deal with hundreds of complaints a month that are just like my example. Wasted time over something that should be obvious to the players.

Either don't go back to your corpse OR go back to your corpse and put yourself at risk.

Gunna make for interesting siege warfare when the GMs have to talk sternly to everyone corpse camping.

"Don't fire your ballista at the naked mage at the base of your city wall! He is only retrieving his gear"

Bluddwolf wrote:

Nevy wrote:

You had the choice to involve yourself in the merchants life, he didn't. That's an advantage to you, his advantage is his friends can defend him against your unwanted attacks. The war system should be fair, the bandit system should not be completely fair to bandits. I'm done repeating the same thing - meditate on it.

The game designers do not want unhindered resource gathering and trade. So rather than arbitrarily and artificially turning resource nodes on and off, they want there to be a human interaction to help regulate the player economy.

You will not just have bandits to contend with, but rival settlements who will Lilly not bother SADing you, but just killing you.

Your outposts and POIs will be raided. Your caravans will be attacked. Your harvesters will be attacked in the fields where they attempt to gather.

It will be fine by us to just feud your company and kill, or attempt to, in order to take what will no longer be rightfully yours.

You keep on saying, "our hard work" or "what we earned". In the River Kingdoms, you have what you hold. You have no right to anything you can't defend.

Welcome to non consensual, open world PvP, where logging in is opting in.

You are never safe
Don't carry what you can't afford to lose
It's nothing personal, it's all about the coin

Never wanted to be completely safe, that doesn't mean the life of a bandit should be easy though. Bandits are not victims, they are a victimizers.

So? Same can be said for war decs or feud decs. The game has to have antagonists.

Monty Wolf wrote:

I'm not sure what your saying here. Are you saying the forums is a place where people can express their in game issues at other characters? That is, because a bandit is bad in the game people can react to them that way here?

Fallacy or not that seems pretty stupid to me. In fact that brings up a good point. If I decide someone is stupid because of their posts on these forums, can I attack them personally like I would in the game?
Didn't think so.

Your ability to understand has little bearing on my intelligence. You weren't confident of your reading yet based upon that poor understanding you decided to pass judgment and call me stupid, which is pretty damn stupid of you.

You are posting as yourself. When you play a game online you are also playing as yourself. You are not magically something else when playing the game, you are just as real and the behavior you exhibit is real as well. There is no dichotomy between what is in the game and reality. The consequences of what you do in the game are different from what they would be if you did those things in 'real' life, but your behavior as a player making your character do things in-game is every bit as real behavior as what you do in meatspace. If you do an evil thing you have still done an evil thing.
Is that clear enough for you or do I also need to teach you to read?

Please quote where I called you stupid and I'll apologize. The only thing I labelled as stupid is the bolded above which are my words and not yours.

Why consider giving it a rest? Because the way that the back and forth has been done (for more than a year) has solved nothing. Absolutely nothing is accomplished, although I suspect that all parties believe there is a score card or something incredibly valuable to gain or lose.

To me, you all just look silly. To me, I feel silly for ever taking part in either side.

It is just a bit of advice. If you really must, don't let me keep you from carrying on.

Your right on the point scoring.

Bludd wins an award!

@ Monty Wolf

You can't control what other's say and do. You can only control what you say and do. Right now (IMO), you are just making yourself and the UNC look bad.

Consider giving it a rest. ;)

Why?

You think it is fine if jerk Nihimon attacks people and calls them liars and jerks, but when others present similar evidence against his allies it makes the messenger appear bad?

Does it make TEO look bad when Andius lies?
Does it make the seventh veil look bad when labeling people jerks and liars and being passive aggressive.

Take issue with their posts if that is what you think.

If you outright label someone a liar and a jerk expect some response especially when the person so often talks about taking the high moral ground.

Don't forum wars form the middle ground between game and meatspace?

As a matter of fact it is arguably a conceptual fallacy to distinguish 'real life' behavior from online behavior. What we do online is every bit as real as meatspace 'doing', given the nature of each.

Is it unintelligent in your estimation to consider behavior real behavior, regardless of milieu and regardless of anonymity?

What makes you think it is smart to maintain an illusory dichotomy like that? Is truth a matter of convenience for you?

~~~~~~~~~~
Federally Mandated Advisory: The denizen herein can drone on for hours about atypical and uncomfortable things using obscure language as if it were his natural environment.

I'm not sure what your saying here. Are you saying the forums is a place where people can express their in game issues at other characters? That is, because a bandit is bad in the game people can react to them that way here?

Fallacy or not that seems pretty stupid to me. In fact that brings up a good point. If I decide someone is stupid because of their posts on these forums, can I attack them personally like I would in the game?

Didn't think so.