Sennajin's page

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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".

I like Steelwing. Can we keep him?

It's like a voice of fresh air =D

God I loved Birthright. So few people know about it these days (at least among the people I talk to).

So far I have not see any but positive things written about crafters, gatherers, escalation management specialists, etc... by people that are actually planning to manage settlements.

Is that just to lure us in, get us drunk, and then clamp the chains on? :)

I know in my experience in leading guilds in sandboxes or PVP games, we were far more successful when we go the PVPers, PVEers, Crafters, and social folks to all work together.

I like to refer to it like this.

A successful sandbox guild, IMO, is a core of crafters and social gamers, wrapped in a nice chocolatey shell of PVPers and hardcore gamers who actually give a damn about their social/rpers and crafters. In a way you have to find hardcore gamers and PVPers who actually like to stop and socialize a bit (not RP, but be social) on occasion with teh folks who make their awesome gear and handle the logistics. Someones got to take care of the crafters so the crafters can take care of the PVPers gear.

That's what's worked best for us in teh past and that's what we're shooting for here.

Also, we'll get you drunk, but that was happening regardless.

Batman stops murderers and thieves all the time.

He's still a vigilante outlaw.

My hopes and dreams for web based guild management are crushed by the fact that GW doesn't have their own forums for PfO, yet, and we're still just attached onto the Paizo boards.

Granted GW is busy making PfO, but I've never run into an MMO developer that had their forums setup like this.

Posting this at the request of the Paxians (both Aeternum and Golgothan).

The name "Xeilias" that we are using for the Empire has a lot of meaning for us. Pagan put it like this "a war memorial is meaningless if you don't tell people what war you're memorializing." So, I'm going to share with you all the origin of the name "Xeilias".

As you all know, Pax Gaming has been around for a good long while, now. We were founded in 2001 as a PA for SWG. Our roots are in the sandbox genre of MMO's. Some of our players got so hooked on the sandbox that they couldn't find any fun in the theme park games. One in particular, Ktara Xeilias, was one of our biggest "we need to play more sandbox game" advocates.

She played SWG until the servers shut down. She dabbled in EVE (her significant other played EVE a lot more), and was let down everytime a new MMO released and *wasn't* a sandbox. She pointed us at The Repopulation last year and I think she would have really loved PfO.

Ktara's surname in most games was Xeilias.

Pathfinder Online is one of the best looking sandboxes on the "upcoming" list of MMO's. It's one where Pax Gaming is putting all of our cards on the table (or, at least, we'll put all the cards on the table closer to EE). We want to leave our make, in a big way, a positive way, in a Paxian way and naming our Alliance/Kingdom/Empire after her is our tribute to her memory.

We lost her to cancer this past summer. We weren't even aware she had it. We miss her dearly and for those of us who have been in Pax for more than a few years, we'll have a noticeable void in the membership because she won't be in PFO with us.

Areks wrote:

Good to hear. I like Andius, couldn't see it going any other way either.

Something tells me you missed a comma...

I lol'd

I personally see no reason the collective 'we' can't grief the griefers-as long as this, even, has some cost to us.

Because by griefing anyone, even a griefer, you become a griefer, and griefing is not cool. Any members found to have been griefing in my organization, even if it's griefers they're griefing, they get das boot from my organization.

Nihimon and Andius, it takes a big person to admit fault, and I won't lie, we're had our fair share on the pax side, as well, and I'll apologize, as well, for any instances where I've stepped across that line.

I know we don't always see eye to eye on what we think are good ideas, but i assure you, we want the best possible game and the best possible community to game with in PfO.

Pax will never support anything that would be detrimental to PfO or the PfO Community as a whole. So, while we may have different views on how to get there, I promise you, the end goal (great game and a great gaming community to play it with) are the same.

Bringslite wrote:

... proclaimed it's self as anti-griefer. Repeatedly.

Andius is about as rabidly anti-griefer as anyone could imagine. And yet, when he started talking about using griefer tactics against griefers - specifically by his definition, not by Goblinworks' - then I spoke out just as adamantly against that.

If you claim to be "anti-griefer", and then turn around and clearly support all manner of things that most people understand is "griefing" and make specious arguments about how they're not "really" griefing or how they don't match your definition of griefing, then what does it really mean?

Reputation is a measure of how much of a griefer you are. That's its intended purpose. Those who are vocally stating that they won't care if they're Low Reputation or if they associate with Low Reputation people are manifestly pro-griefer.

I'm sorry if you don't like my definitions, but I think they're a lot more in line with Goblinworks' than are UNC's or Pax's.

I don't know how much more in line with GW Pax's definition can get, since the Pax definition includes strict adherence to the EULA and any definitions of griefing GW itself publishes.

Let me be clear, I ban people from Pax Gaming yearly for griefing and exploiting, we are zero tolerance with it. But, what you describe as griefing is not griefing by even GW's definition.

Banditry and gank tactics *are not* griefing. What Bluddwulf says he and UNC intend to do (use the crap out of SAD's) *is not griefing*.

It's time for your misrepresentation of Pax Gaming's intent and what Pax Gaming does or does not support to stop.

You don't know us. You've never taken interest in getting to know us. You can not speak for us, because you are not one of us.

Right below this post box: "The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place."

There's a Paizo rule for you there. You talk about people not sticking to GW's definitions, that Paizo one is pretty clear, you should maybe think about following it.

Nightdrifter just blew my mind....

Lifedragn wrote:

Do we need to hijack yet another thread with this fight? Come on folks, this thread is about what causes players to earn points towards Law/Chaos/Good/Evil. I would imagine frequently assaulting/killing other players is a tilt towards evil, but let's take the reputation talk and comparisons to Eve, which has no alignment system to my knowledge, to more appropriate threads.

I think what the problem is is trying to tie an alignment system, which is role playing, to a point system which is game mechanics. Then there is the "soft demand" that players will role play their alignments, and at the same time favoring certain alignments over others.

My contention is that the Open World PVP community will not conform to that.

In PFO you will have a zerg company of 1500+ members named "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" led by a Necromancing - Paladin named "Luke Skywalker" living in a settlement named "Barbie Princess's Crystal Palace".

This is what you get from the Open World PVP culture. I personally would rather have a little bit of RP remain sacred, but I've learned to accept the realities of this genre of gaming.

So if there is a system that has you earn points towards one alignment or another, what is GW's response if a vast majority of the server population ends up being Chaotic Evil (for example)?

Here's hoping that GW puts out a naming policy for characters, companies, settlements, etc and sticks to it, at least.

Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:

The Serenity references made me extremely happy.

Quote:

[Sheriff Bourne has caught Mal returning stolen medicine to a plague-stricken town]

Sheriff Bourne: You were truthful back in town. These are tough times. A man can get a job. He might not look too close at what that job is. But a man learns all the details of a situation like ours... well... then he has a choice.
Mal: I don't believe he does.

And that is why Malcolm Reynolds stands next to Batman in the pantheon of American Heroes.

We disagree more than not, it seems, but when we do agree... man, do we agree =)

Harad Navar wrote:

Can't take the light.

Can't stop the signal.

Guy killed me with a sword...

Like I said on TS, Deacon, anytime you guys want to pow-wow, the doors of Pax Gaming are wide open. I've been a leader in Pax for 11 years and I've been the "top dog" for about 5, now, and it warms the heart to see other gaming communities cropping up with similar ethics. Professionalism, exceptional-ism, and just plain ol' having fun with friends.

I wish you guys all the best and I will always have a PM box open. Looking forward to many years of enjoying your guys company.

This. In EE most of the players seem pretty dedicated to the PnP aspect of RPing and that is amazing.

Eh... maybe the more vocal posters on these boards, sure. Most of the people I know that are intending to play this game (of which there are many, and most of them don't post here, and they will all be in EE)could give two craps about alignment as it relates to an in character persona. Alignment is a means to an end and that end is to be successful in whatever it is they want to pursue in the game, be it PVE, PVP, Crafting, Trading, etc.

I think you'll be surprised how many people in the EE play the game first and RP second. A lot of folks on these boards have it the other way around, they think people are going to be RPing first and gaming the game second. I think that is a mistaken line of thought.

Nothing Ryan has stated in the past 24 hours has come as a surprise to me or the rest of my leadership team. PFO will be a brutal game and if people don't want that, they ought to look or something else.

That isn't my vision for PFO, and I don't think that's a culture that is going to keep around many of the people who are here to give Open World PVP another chance because they were told it will be different this time.

Well, then it's a good thing that you don't get to decide the vision for the game...

Anywho, here's a chart that should tell you that the devs should take notes from CCP and EVE:

Pretty Chart Look for the Blue Circles