Pax Rawn's page

That's very similar to AV tower caps, Nihimon. I would agree with you, that's how it should be. They could even justify it as a demo or test for the Hall capture mechanic.

I always enjoyed the tower capture mechanic in Alterac Valley in WoW, back when it took hours to play the BG rather than 6 minutes.

On my phone or I'd elaborate, maybe I'll come back by in a bit when I'm on my PC.

Central Coalition?

Central Coalition of Committed Communities Circumventing Combat?

Circumventing Combat? Courting Combat =)

Yes, it did. Watching you continue to get all riled up is amusing, too.

The official interpretation is apparently that Golgotha has done no wrong, else they wouldn't be in the Landrush.

Does that amuse you?

you misunderstand me. I'm not upset. I'm amused.

Pax Rawn wrote:

...Golgotha alone has thousands of dollars tied up in early enrollment, why would they not want to vote for their settlement? that entire thread was completely worthless.

YOU make think it was worthless, but many don't share that opinion.

MANY guilds have 'thousands of dollars' tied up in EE, but STILL CHOSE to abide by the spirit of the game and the rules.

you guys can feel free to continue debating what pax guilds should do and what pax guild shouldn't do or what golgotha should ornshouldnt do, but its not going to change what we're going to do. Have fun with your worthless debate.

the rule stated that if you voted for a landrush 1 Guild that one, do not vote. No members of pax aeternum landrush one voted for anybody other guild than aeternum in land rush two. Fact. No rules we're broken.

-Aet- Björn Renshai wrote:

Nihimon... are you listening?

Of course I am. I've been here for well over two years. I've had this kind of abuse directed at me before - although it's never felt as coordinated - and I'll gladly Stand Tall in the face of it again and again, just as I've gladly stood up to the bullies who try to ridicule and silence new posters who come here to express these kinds of concerns:

Pathfinder Online - Features wrote:

Some players are very concerned that this kind of system leads inexorably to what we call a "murder simulator" - a game that degenerates into endless ganking, griefing, and harassment that ruins the experience for everyone.

Goblinworks is committed to the idea that we can re-introduce PvP as a meaningful part of the ways players interact without allowing the game to degenerate in that fashion.

I've been conscious of the fact that I'm writing to the people who read the forums - a much larger community than those who post here - for most of the time I've been here. I think anyone who looks at the situation objectively realizes that, for the purpose of this Land Rush, Pax Gaming is one Guild. That Pax Gaming has chosen to ignore Ryan's requests and viciously attack and threaten me for trying to hold them to a higher standard has not gone unnoticed.

I have to ask, did you think I would go running with my tail between my legs when Ryan "clarified" Goblinworks' position - the one that's been consistent since before this thread was started? I realize Pax Gaming thinks it's a huge victory, hell every division is celebrating their great "victory" all over these forums. But it's a hollow victory. You managed to show the community that you could care less about any restrictions that can't be enforced, and that all of Pax Gaming is a coordinated force that will viciously attack the character of anyone who disagrees with them.

no coordination required. Just people that are sick of listening to you. You crap all over us for a week and you don't think we're going to be pissed?you can try to wrap it up in what's best for the community and what you feel is right all you want.

Xeen wrote:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

To me, the question that confronts the community is not the question of moving votes from one group to another. The question should be "is Pax one guild, or several?"

If it is one guild, then no member of Pax, regardless of the history or timeline of that membership should vote for any guild but Pax Aeturnum.

If it is several guilds, then there's no meaningful problem except in the case of people who voted for Pax Aeturnum in Phase I and subsequently shifted their votes in Phase II. It would be scrupulous for Pax Aterunum to clearly tell its members not to vote for anyone but Pax Aeturnum, but that's just optics.

And frankly, I don't necessarily think Pax' opinion about their structure is the defining one. Perception will be the reality in this case.

Hmmm, Nowhere did he allude to a judgement you say?

Perceptions and all...

If he is going to pose things like this to conversations, then he needs to be clear that this is just a discussion topic and not a judgement.

Absolutely not.

People on both sides interpreted that wrongly, not Ryans fault. I saw and still see it very clearly as Ryan trying to push the debate into relevance. As long as we are debating relevant topics, they are going to let us have at it.

the debate was never relevant. The reason I quoted the PM from Ryan to begin with with a show that he told us that he wouldn't remove Golgotha from the land rush.

after discussing the rest of the contents of that PM (which I did not take out of context) the golgothans decided that they did not share Ryan's concerns about big shadowy organizations coming into the game and that they would not remove themselves from the land rush. That was deacon and the rest of his leadership call to leave them there. Nobody elses. Golgotha alone has thousands of dollars tied up in early enrollment, why would they not want to vote for their settlement? that entire thread was completely worthless. It might have given a few people the opportunity to get up on her high horse and espouse the virtues of the community they want to create, but it had absolutely no relevance to Golgotha's place on the land rush, because that had already been decided. And then the question of whether pax is to deal with her more than one guild one guild or whatever, that is also not relevant. Thats not this community's call to make. How pax gaming this defines guild and how everybody else defines guild is clearly different (at least when it suits people here). We are not going to change our definitions to make people here happy. We already have long standing, clear, and concise definitions for things and we don't leave things wrapped up in platitudes and vagaries like other people do.

forgive misspellings and grammar errors, typing from a phone sucks.

Nihimon wrote:

DeciusBrutus wrote:

I don't think that Hobs or Keovar were officers in either Pax Gaming or Aeternum. Am I wrong on that point of objective fact?

Of course, that just pushes the question of fact slightly elsewhere; what authority does the Emprah of Xeilias have?

"Emprah" is an in house joke. Hobs is the Ambassador of Xeilias. Xeilias has no actual emperor.

Pax Rawn wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

If Pax Gaming is instructing all of their members to vote for Pax Golgotha as long as they haven't already voted for TEO, Pax Aeternum, or T7V in the first Land Rush, then I think it's very clear that Pax is a single Guild and I would emphatically withdraw my support for Pax Golgotha even being in this phase of the Land Rush.

Pax Gaming has made no such directive to the members of Pax Aeternum, Pax Golgotha, or Pax Fidelis, nor would it. Nor would it be within the rights of the Inner Sanctum make such a directive, if it wanted to, as it would be considered a Divisional matter rather than a Community matter.

If anyone in a position of authority over any members of Pax Aeternum or Pax Golgotha is so instructing those members to vote for Pax Golgotha despite a clearly expressed desire to be a member of Pax Aeternum, then my objections remain.

Being clearly asked by Ryan to - on your honor - not vote for another Settlement if you don't plan to live there, and then voting for another Settlement even though you don't plan to live there sends a very clear signal.

Nobody has a position of authority over Aeternum, Golgotha, or Fidelis, since each of those three guilds has a member sitting on the Inner Sanctum. And, like I said before, the IS has not and can not direct the members of those guilds to vote for other guilds. The IS exists to maintain the Community, not the Guilds (as was pointed out somewhat earlier in this thread). So, nobody in a position of authority over the three Pax Gaming PFO Divisions has instructed anyone to do anything.

If Pax Gaming is instructing all of their members to vote for Pax Golgotha as long as they haven't already voted for TEO, Pax Aeternum, or T7V in the first Land Rush, then I think it's very clear that Pax is a single Guild and I would emphatically withdraw my support for Pax Golgotha even being in this phase of the Land Rush.

Pax Gaming has made no such directive to the members of Pax Aeternum, Pax Golgotha, or Pax Fidelis, nor would it. Nor would it be within the rights of the Inner Sanctum make such a directive, if it wanted to, as it would be considered a Divisional matter rather than a Community matter.

Rawn: Can you provide a concrete example of a case where the Inner Sanctum overrode a decision made my a Guild Master, and why they did it?

And I'm sure it has come up: What happens if a division decides that it doesn't want to be a part of Pax Gaming anymore?

1. We've never had to use it, actually. It's there to cover our butts.

2. They leave. It's happened three times over the past 14 years. Two out of the three times they name changed the guilds so we could keep our Pax names if we ever wanted to make new guilds in said games. Some members stay with Pax, some members go with, some members stick with both.

Lifedragn wrote:

I do not know the Pax infrastructure well enough to know if this is indeed the case. But many do hold this perception.

It's in their charter:

Pax Charter Article 1 Section 1.6 wrote:

All individuals are members of the Community first and of a specific Guild or Division second. Pax keeps membership on the individual person and not on the avatars used in various games

Along with a lot of other things regarding how the Pax "Inner Sanctum" has ultimate control over its member guilds. Including the authority to overrule guild leaders' decisions, how the Inner Sanctum must select or approve of guild leader selections, and so on. For example:

Section 3.10 wrote:

The Inner Sanctum has the right to veto any and all decisions made by Divisional leadership. The Inner Sanctum also has the right to overturn any decision previously made by divisional leadership.

Now I'm not saying how this should influence anyone's opinion regarding Pax getting 2 settlements, but it does seem arguments like "They're just like TEO/T7V!" just aren't accurate.

Keep reading, the GM's run the guilds, the IS runs the Community. Guilds (we call them Divisions) are autonomous unless an issue comes up that affects the entire Pax Gaming Community. Inner Sanctum members can't just roll in and say "Hey guys, do this", that's not how we work.

4.5 GUILD MASTER AND COMMUNITY LEADER (Purple Security Level): A Guild Master is both responsible for their Inner Sanctum duties as defined by this Charter as well as responsible for all aspects of running a Gaming Division. Guild Masters of a division have a vote on all Inner Sanctum resolutions. A Division may have co-Guild Masters, but they must be approved by the Inner Sanctum and they will only receive one vote between the two of them in the Inner Sanctum. Community Leaders are members of the Inner Sanctum charged with carrying out the day to day operations of the greater Community outside of the individual Divisions and Guilds.

▬ ARTICLE V ▬​

EXCLUSIVE GUILD AND DIVISION POWERS​
​
5.1 LEADERSHIP: Each Division can appoint officers and develop their own leadership structure with the exception of the Guild Master, who must be appointed or approved by the Inner Sanctum. Internal organization and nomenclature is left to the Division. A Guild Master and his officers must be fully dedicated to their game; therefore, one can only serve as a leader for one Division at a time. A certain allowance is made for Commons Guilds, wherein a leader may serve in multiple capacities, within reason, as allowed by the Inner Sanctum. Community Team leadership positions are treated just like Divisional leadership positions. Anyone wishing to fill both a Divisional and Community Team leadership role will need the approval of both their Divisional leadership and the Community Team leadership.​

5.2 ORGANIZATION: Each Division may organize their guild internally as they see fit including the creation of multiple sub-guilds within a game. A Divisional leadership may decide to subdivide the Division into separate guilds such as for roleplaying, factional purposes, or to protect non-PVP members.​
​
5.3 GUILD AND DIVISION NAMES: Each Guild or Division may select their own name. The name must include Pax as a prefix to a single word, usually Latin, that best identifies and describes the nature of the Division, such as “Pax XXXX”. Pre-existing guilds that were acquired or merged into the Pax Community may have their name grandfathered, such that the old pre-Pax name is their divisional name. Divisions do have the right to change their name, but their new name must be approved by the Inner Sanctum.​
​
5.4 GUILD AND DIVISION NOMENCLATURE: Each Guild or Division may determine their own internal organization and nomenclature including the titles used for all members and officers in accordance with the roleplaying genre, story of their guild, and mechanics of their game.​
​
5.5 DISCIPLINE: Each Guild or Division is responsible for the internal discipline of their members and officers for violations of this Charter in accordance with the Gamer’s Rights. The Inner Sanctum has the right to oversee and supersede any decisions made in regards to member discipline. In the case of Commons Guilds, who do not always have leadership councils or Inner Sanctum members as Guild Masters, any disciplinary actions that need to be taken will escalate through the Pax Gaming Community Team leadership chain.​
​
5.6 RECRUITMENT: Every Guild or Division is responsible for their own game-specific recruitment within a specific game and where possible should support other Divisions in the recruitment of new members. Each Division should designate a recruitment officer, traditionally called a Rector, to actively recruit new members and oversee their assimilation into Pax culture and to manage the recruit application process. Each Division should also designate a Divisional Lead Rector, whose duties and responsibilities include but are not limited to the supervision of the Rectors in their respective Divisions, as well as creating and maintaining a Pax recruitment thread in the official game-specific forums associated with their Division, if applicable. The Inner Sanctum shall appoint a Lead Rector of Pax Gaming. The Lead Rector of Pax Gaming will be part of at least the Outer Council and will oversee and report to the Inner Sanctum on all matters pertaining to recruitment. Additionally, the Lead Rector of Pax Gaming will be responsible for refining the recruiting procedures as well as implementing new procedures as they see fit, with the approval of the Inner Sanctum.​

Article 3.10 is in the Charter in relation to matters that affect the Pax Gaming Community *only* not in game matters. If Golgotha and Aeternum wanted to war with one another, we wouldn't stop them.

So Pax absorbed Golgotha to win the first land rush and now they are funneling votes to set Golgotha up as a Pax settlement? Is that the result of a secret deal Golgotha made when they joined Pax , that Pax would help you later to get your own settlement , it sure looks that way because that is what you are doing. Good thing you are left to police your own ethics , so you can get away with it.

No, the Golgothans did not vote for Aeternum, they're already on the landrush as Maelstrom and The Bloody Hand. You an see their votes on the original poll.

EDIT: I was mistaken, TBH wasn't on the first Landrush. but, at any rate, none of them voted for Aeternum the first go around. Nobody who voted Aeternum on the first landrush can vote for anything other than Aeternum on this landrush. That's in the rules. Anyone who is voting Golgotha is someone who did not vote Aeternum and who spent $100 just like everyone else and can vote for whoever they want.

I have no role in Aeternum or Golgotha as it relates to PFO. I'm just the leader of Pax gaming itself. Charlie George is the leader of Aeternum, Deacon is the leader of Golgotha, they run the guilds themselves and sit on the Pax gaming Inner Sanctum, sort of a board of directors for the overall Pax gaming Community.

Pax gaming isn't one guild, we're several guilds joined together under a common Community Charter: http://www.paxgaming.com/index.php?wiki/pax-gaming-charter/

Each GM is responsible for running his or her own guild, outside of the Community level affairs.

At this point, I've had my say. I've made my position known and request that the developers take a close look at what has happened. I trust they will make whatever decision they feel best for the success of their game.

We've already talked with the developers about this exact thing. Ask Ryan. He and I PM'd about it two weeks ago. So did he and Charlie George. Ryan said, and I quote:

"I'm not going to tell you that Golgatha can't be on the leaderboard. I can't and won't put myself into the position of trying to untangle the various organizational structures of the 3rd parties that are going to be a part of our community."

I hesitate to even post that much of our discussion and I hope he doesn't mind.

31 for a few more months.

Only if you bow before Emprah Hobs

Bless the Maker and all His Water. Bless the coming and going of Him, May His passing cleanse the world. May He keep the world for his people.

I think I remember the "Murder Herd" from Age of Conan, I forget which PVP server I was on back then when it first launched.

They were on Cimmeria. I know this because I led Pax Astraea at the time and had to give up many pants to the Herd.

Excellent post Falx. Although I feel a part of this discussion on alignment was aimed at my question.

I was simply bringing it up because Deacon set a qualifier early, stating that LN, LE, and NE would be admitted.

That is on account of settlement alignments.

Welcome, to all the new KotC faces!

I just assumed people here knew me well enough to assume that I would never suggest people should be allowed to opt-out of PvP entirely. lol

To be fair, sometimes I can't tell if you're serious or making statements for the lulz ^_^

Pax Rawn wrote:

Qallz wrote:

Pax Rawn wrote:

That's what happened in SWG. Terrible idea that's already been done.

How does the current iteration of the system with the NPC-factions do to improve the down-sides here? Or the previous iteration of the PvP-flagging system?

I really don't see how one single PvP flag is a game ruiner, whereas adding in multiple flags, or NPC factions works so well.

Rawn; Are you just opposed to an Opt-In PvP system in general?

Pretty much, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed SWG for what it was, and I was one of the people that stayed flagged for PVP all the time. There were all sorts of problems that stemmed from that, though, not least of which was people *unflagging* for PVP when faced by a superior force. Or people just... not... flagging... at all. And then all you have left is a social city building game with no other real purpose. At all.

Again, i want to stress. I loved SWG. But, SWG would have been better if there was no toggleable PVP.

Is the GW system the answer? I have no clue. I won't know until I've played it. On paper I like it, though. But, I can say that I don't want toggle PVP with 100% certainty. Either make it FFA with various flags that give you consequences (what they're doing), or make it FFA, or don't have PVP at all.

OK, I get it. People are getting confused because of the word "Opt-In". The system I am proposing is IN ADDITION to the system of reputation already in place.

The people who don't "Opt-In" will still be just as vulnerable to PvP, but, will simply be LESS likely to be attacked simply because the attacker would lose Reputation. I AM NOT SAYING that people should be allowed to "Opt-out" of PvP entirely.

The Opt-Ins would be no different from anyone else, except that they could attack eachother without Reputation losses or Alignment shifts.

Oh, yep, I definitely didn't understand that bit.

In that case, I'll plus one this.

+1

Pax Rawn wrote:

That's what happened in SWG. Terrible idea that's already been done.

How does the current iteration of the system with the NPC-factions do to improve the down-sides here? Or the previous iteration of the PvP-flagging system?

I really don't see how one single PvP flag is a game ruiner, whereas adding in multiple flags, or NPC factions works so well.

Rawn; Are you just opposed to an Opt-In PvP system in general?

Pretty much, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed SWG for what it was, and I was one of the people that stayed flagged for PVP all the time. There were all sorts of problems that stemmed from that, though, not least of which was people *unflagging* for PVP when faced by a superior force. Or people just... not... flagging... at all. And then all you have left is a social city building game with no other real purpose. At all.

Again, i want to stress. I loved SWG. But, SWG would have been better if there was no toggleable PVP.

Is the GW system the answer? I have no clue. I won't know until I've played it. On paper I like it, though. But, I can say that I don't want toggle PVP with 100% certainty. Either make it FFA with various flags that give you consequences (what they're doing), or make it FFA, or don't have PVP at all.

That's what happened in SWG. Terrible idea that's already been done.

For me it's highly dependent on the type of game I am playing. In a tabletop RPG I really like the roleplay aspect. I've played entire campaigns where we only fought a single battle, and I tend to like a character that is as useful out combat as they are inside it.

In am MMO I play a role much more than I "roleplay". Don't get me wrong, I'll have a backstory and go to occasional RP events, but it is not nearly as easy to stay constantly in character as it is in a tabletop RPG. I focus a lot more on the role I'm filling in the community than constantly doing everything fully in-character.

This +1. I'm the exact same way.

I am starting to think this is a joke. Is this a joke?

Is this real life?

Is this just fantasy?

Only if Goblinworks provides us with a clear and concise definition of what they consider griefing to be within the confines of their game.

For the Emprah!

If a 'good' settlement whacks everyone and his dog during their vulnerability window, people will end up not going to that settlement. This might be their intention, or it might be kill happy murderhobos living in the settlement. Either way, the settlement will deal with it.

If an 'evil' settlement whack everyone and his dog...well, they're a hive of scum and villainy that people will avoid.

So much truthiness. You're my new favorite stabby short guy with a Disney name.

Ryan, for clarification, when the window is open is it *only* the settlement owners that are allowed to do the attacking? I'm discussing this with some folks and there seems to be some confusion as to whether *anyone* can waltz into the settlement hex during the window and basically have a rep-free free-for-all.

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

I have the same offer on the table for The Seventh Veil. Now that our channels are open.

Sorry, after discussion any such agreement would have to include restrictions on the actions of UNC that we don't think you would comply with, specifically including a both an understanding regarding what targets are and are not 'fair game' and a blanket prohibition against violating the spirit of the agreement while complying with the letter thereof.

Personal Opinion and forward-looking statement:

If your actions in-game cause us to believe that we were mistaken about your intentions, the remote possibility of a reevaluation exists. It would be very surprising to me if your in-game actions differed that much from what I have come to expect.

I may piss off Pax with this but I must make this clear.....

The alliance contract with Pax was dissolved, not because any aspect of the agreement was not being met by the UNC. Any request that they had made was received, reviewed and accepted. Any clarification of our policy was made in public, allowed for debate and even modified.

The whole trade off of our agreement was based on two obligations on Pax Aeternum's part. They would provide the UNC with training facilities. Secondly, they would provide us with plenty of opportunities to ply our trade outside of Pax's settlement hexes, and against rival interests of Pax. It was on both of these accounts that Pax felt it could not meet its obligations to the UNC.

The UNC are mercenary bandits, we were founded on this concept. We adhere to our contracts, to such an extent that our original intended company alignment was Lawful Neutral.

No one will ever be given cause to question if we did not do our very best to meet all contractual obligations. Nor would we ever allow dissolution to be an option rather than make a few minor details to be modified even after an agreement was struck.

I have no doubt our actions in-game will mirror...

Doesn't piss me off, that's an accurate accounting =)

Pax Areks wrote:

avari3 wrote:

Pax Areks wrote:

Qallz wrote:

All that and not one day in-game. lol

We've been in game for over two years now... since Wednesday, December 7, 2011.

It's not the regular season yet, that would be OE. It's not even the preseason, that would be EE. It's the offseason, at best. And you guys just cut your 2nd rd draft pick before the 1st day of spring training because you think they MIGHT not fit the defense you're running.

Congratulations Pax.

"Oh my GAWD I can't believe UNC ALLIED WITH PAX!!!"

"Oh my GAWD I can't believe PAX UNALLIED WITH UNC!!"

Avari, you really are precious when you try hard.

LOL. Don't be a sour puss. You guys deserve a minor ribbing for this and I'm giving it to you. Not predicting the end of Pax Gaming here ;p

If it makes you feel better you're still the preseason paper champs!

Don't listen to Areks, Avari. You're still my hero. Even if you didn't know it. You are. And yeah, we figured some folks would rib us about it.

I want to stress, though, that while Aeternum and UNC have dissolved their terms of alliance, our personal relationship with the folks in UNC are unchanged. Even if we end up poking each other with sharp objects in game.

Removed some posts. Be civil to other posters, thank you.

<3

As giddy as the idea of free kills in an entire zone every day is making people I suggest you review the intent of that post.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

There are a few obviously degenerate cases of abuse, like bum rushing Settlements that have lax standards for security and ganking everyone in sight "just for the lulz". So we'll evolve some rules or policies against those things.

The intent is to allow military conflicts over settlements to be fought without having to tolerate neutrals getting in the way for fear of rep/alignment conflicts.

If siege engines are required to take a settlement I see no reason to start treating it as a warzone unless siege engines are on the field.

Have fun with that. A warzone is a warzone regardless of what weapons are on the field.

Asking questions, even legitimate ones, does not make any answer mandatory.

I don't disagree. but answers like "Yes" and "lots" don't serve any purpose other than to frustrate the asker. Something like "We're not 100% sure" or "We're still working this out before we give any concrete answers" or ever what Ryan actually ended up posting are better. Especially when the person asking is a potential customer (with the possibility of bringing in even more paying customers) and the person answering is the CEO of the company that stands to make money from those customers.

I think we've covered this before, but I will restate.

There are three things that create problems with lag.

Client lag. This is usually a factor related to video card processing power. The common way to address this is a sliding ladder of level of detail (LOD). As the load on the card goes up, the failure mode is dropped frames. At some point every card will reach a point where even at the lowest LOD too many frames are being dropped to make for a satisfying play experience. I think that this point will not happen under most scenarios for people with reasonably good cards. The biggest problems happen with people with laptops and some small computers with integrated video systems. So of you're a person who wants to fight in huge battles, get good video cards.

Server lag : database. This is usually a factor of the number of read/write operations needed to keep the server state current with the game state. This used to be a pretty big problem for MMOs but it has mostly been addressed by faster processors, faster disk systems, and new kinds of database implementations (NoSQL being the biggest change). At very high densities this will remain a problem, but we think that we can minimize the effects by using the formation system, which has the effect of concentrating numerous player actions into segmented groups inside the input/update loop. If we find that we need even more traction we'll consider things like the time dilation system used by EVE.

Server lag : network. This is the unfixable problem for all MMOs. At some point, the N^2 growth of network traffic will degrade the game performance. We can push that point off by minimizing the amount of data that has to transmit between the server and the clients and by intelligently dropping packets, but because the problem is exponential and the solutions are not eventually we will hit roadblocks. If the happen beyond the horizon of most large combat environments, we'll be ok. Since it's impossible to test for this until the game is...

:brofist:

Thanks Ryan =)

I would interpenetrate "Yes" to mean that they are envisioning everything from 1 vs. 1 up to the thousands on thousands you see in EVE. That there should never be a point in Pathfinder Online where your forces are too large or too small to go out and engage in some form of PvP.

The lot's just means there are going to be many approaches to it. I think the big one we've heard about so far is formations, but there are probably some approaches they are taking on the technical end that you won't get much out of hearing about unless you are also a game programmer.

I'd rather get actual answers as opposed to having to "interpret" one word to mean what I want it to mean. Part of the problem with people on this forum is all of the interpreting of vague answers that goes on. If actual answers were given, then people might not be so damned combative and argumentative.

Why can't people on this forum be the better person and not be total ***clowns to people that have a different opinion or say things in a way that might maybe piss someone else off?

I don't understand why everyone is giving Steelwing such a hard time. He's asking perfectly reasonable and legitimate questions and you all are treating him like a blight on civilization.

How dare people have different priorities when it comes to this game...

Backend infrastructure to handle the sort of massive PVP that GW has proposed is something I've been concerned about as well. I'd love to see GW assuage those concerns with actual real answers (that said, I've already thrown my money at it, anyway).

One idea to get the ball rolling, is a Goblinworks-run Settlement at the beginning that becomes the "1st-BigTown". They could even have one of the pathfinder deities in mortal form as the de-facto leader/ruler/director of the settlement already Level 21 in all the available skills (!).

Steelwings warning shot aside, that's what we're trying to create with the Empire of Xeilias. We already came into PFO with the intent to be a major player and looking at PFO as having the same potential EVE had. Pax dropped the ball on EVE and went all in on SWG back in 2003. This time we wanted to set ourselves up in a position for success from teh get go, rather than success over the years. That said, Pax Gaming as a whole, and not just the leadership of Pax Aeternum and Pax Golgotha, are reaching out both within Pax Gaming and to our friends in other games (especially PVP oriented games) to see if there is interest among them to join us in the Empire of Xeilias in EE and OE. So far, so good, but a lot of people are still in "wait and see" mode. Folks want to see more solidified game mechanics, more gameplay videos (even at this early stage), etc before they commit. Still, that leaves me in a happy place, but I won't be comfortable until we're in game with at least one settlement and comfortable enough in numbers that we can support and defend it. But, I am very proud of all the owrk my leaders in Aeternum have been doing and I'm very happy to have the leaders of Golgotha along now, as well. They've added a great dynamic to an already diverse group of leadership. love my Paxians.

Like Krows says "it's a marathon, not a sprint".

The reason not to mention the group I am part of is that we are a corporation in an Eve null sec alliance. There are other Eve players here and we prefer to not necessarily start off the game with emnities from Eve being carried over.

If and it is a big if we come to this game we prefer to play it from the point of view of the interactions here rather than being automatically at odds with someone else because we kicked their butt in Curse at some point

+1 for truthiness

I've actually had people join Pax and end up leaving once they realized we played EVE on the opposite side of a war. Sucks because we've lost a few good people over the years, because of it, but it makes 100% total sense.

I vote nay. Steelwing is not cool enough to hang out on our D&D video game that's not out yet message boards. This isn't just any 'ol club here, we have standards.

<3

And @Steelwing words real definitions have no meaning here.

Why Can't We Be Friends!?

I accept Steelwings unwritten application to join the dysfunctional community that is the PFO posters at Paizo.com. Because I've said it, then it must now be a universally accepted community norm that Steelwing is a part of this community. Also, I'll put some more words here to further muddle what exactly it is that I'm trying to say, which even I'm not sure of (help... me...).

At any rate, as a "community" we suck, so I'm not sure why anyone would even want to be accepted by us. Steelwing speaks many things that I agree with, though, so I at least, would like to welcome him with open arms, hi-5's, and many of da beers.

I like Steelwing. Can we keep him?

It's like a voice of fresh air =D

Booo! Hobs! You traitorous hypocrite. Just kidding. :P

Hope you have fun with Pax and are able to better promote the 'good' aspects of Pax.

From T7V with luv... :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvxqnQmahTA

Purchased and next in line after I finish "At All Costs". Looking forward to it and grats man!

I plan on playing both.

I didn't read everything, yet (time limited today) but I did a brief ctrl+f search and didn't see it; LOTRO's music system is *amazing*. Just saying.