Goblin Squad Member
|
M is an evil letter. I figured we would skip it since this organization is good aligned. Do you really want to unleash the horrors of M upon this topic?
Fine is you insist...
Madness- This is blasphemy! This is MADNESS!!! An organization that doesn't use it's power to further their own selfish means, but instead protects those in need?! HOW DARE WE!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And I'll bet I can find a wide variety of both cookies and muffins at Tony's.
My backstabberry muffins are almost as good as my gingers (cookies).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Seeing as "O" has been drifting out there for a few days without any takers...
Oasis. It is my hope that TEO succeeds in creating an oasis within the hostile River Kingdoms to provide good-aligned players, espcially good-aligned newbie players, a place to find refuge, comfort, and relative safety before setting back out into the wild. Knowing the membership and leadership of the Seraphic Commission for whom public outreach is a primary calling, I have no doubt such an oasis will be artfully created and maintained.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Feedback helps.
We talked about some possibilities, and I know you also prefer to be free to let inspiration guide you, but if you're still looking for themes I'd like to suggest equal parts Divination and Determination. The Seventh Veil is thematically centered around the quest for knowledge and sharing that knowledge with the world at large.
I hope that helps.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given recent events in the community I think it is time I make clear my current plans with how TEO will approach the issue of using banditry. TEO's own members, as well as groups in our employ may be authorized to steal trade goods. However no TEO members, nor any groups in TEO's employ will be authorized to attack neutral targets.
As with the act of killing itself, all actions of TEO must be prompted by "just cause." We leave the definement of that term to ourselves but the take away for a neutral trader should be that they are under no threat of violence or robbery from our forces unless they have given us reason to consider them hostile.
It should also be noted that TEO soldiers will defend neutral parties we believe are being robbed or attacked without just cause within TEO controlled territory, unclaimed territory, hostile territory, and any territory we have been authorized to do so in. So basically any time we are not expressly forbidden to do so within the rightful territory of a neutral or friendly party.
No group will be allowed to make deals with TEO in which they receive immunity from TEO attack while pursuing aggressive actions against neutral or friendly parties who have not provoked their aggression.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So....if I claim he stole from me and I am just getting my coin back, that won't fly as a reason to attack a "neutral" party?
That may. Especially if you can provide evidence to back your claim. Likely, in this scenario we will review the evidence presented and then make an assessment based on that evidence, and our knowledge of the parties involved, and how trustworthy they are. That is all likely to be done if you appeal for reparations. While it's actually happening we're just going to react to what we feel is happening.
What if I SAD him politely and he refused? I said "please"....
That is not considered just cause by our standards. It may stop us from taking more severe actions we would reserve for toxic organizations, but it's not going to stop us from putting our blade through you if we are there when it happens. We are a good aligned organization who are lawful enough to object to killing someone for their possessions, and chaotic enough that I don't give a damn what the River Freedoms say.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another point that I'd like to bring up is what I perceive "griefing" and "toxic" behavior to be.
These are my definitions, and the ones that I will go by when advocating programs and policies within TEO.
Griefing- When an individual does something with their main intent being to anger, frustrate, or make the game less enjoyable for others.
Toxic- Any action which has a negative effect on the community, not outweighed by an equal or greater positive effect.
PFO is a game that relies upon PvP to generate content. What that really requires is some factions acting in a rationally self-interested manner without calculating in the well-being of others, and some factions who take up for the well being of others. TEO is a group that takes up for the well being of others.
Those who I oppose in-character, but feel are essential to the game, are groups that go out and fight for motivations such as greed and power. I feel that the positive content those groups provide outweighs the negative destruction they cause, making them overall non-toxic groups.
I feel that those who go out and kill people who aren't desiring PvP simply for the sake of killing itself, or because of a roleplay designed to justify that behavior are toxic. They may not be griefers, but they provide no more content than those who fight for greed and power, and significantly higher negatives. As such I will be targeting them much more aggressively, and advocating for programs that do as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PFO is a game that relies upon PvP to generate content. What that really requires is some factions acting in a rationally self-interested manner without calculating in the well-being of others, and some factions who take up for the well being of others. TEO is a group that takes up for the well being of others.
On this point I agree. The game would be pretty dull if the crusader / good types were absent. I hope TEO continues to build towards that end and that it remains fruitful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given recent events in the community I think it is time I make clear my current plans with how TEO will approach the issue of using banditry. TEO's own members, as well as groups in our employ may be authorized to steal trade goods. However no TEO members, nor any groups in TEO's employ will be authorized to attack neutral targets.
By neutral, you mean neutral as it relates to standing with TEO or neutral as it relates to alignment?
As with the act of killing itself, all actions of TEO must be prompted by "just cause." We leave the definement of that term to ourselves but the take away for a neutral trader should be that they are under no threat of violence or robbery from our forces unless they have given us reason to consider them hostile.
I have no questions concerning this. A bit too ambiguous to prompt one.
It should also be noted that TEO soldiers will defend neutral parties we believe are being robbed or attacked without just cause within TEO controlled territory, unclaimed territory, hostile territory, and any territory we have been authorized to do so in. So basically any time we are not expressly forbidden to do so within the rightful territory of a neutral or friendly party.
So basically, you will interfere with any conflict you see; choose a side; and then demand that the opposing side justifies their actions to TEO; in any territory you wish; unless expressly forbidden to do so; even in their own lands.
No group will be allowed to make deals with TEO in which they receive immunity from TEO attack while pursuing aggressive actions against neutral or friendly parties who have not provoked their aggression.
So, again, you will interfere in any conflict that is being fought over access to resources (A major focus of the core PVP in PFO).
I'm I to gather that TEO and its allies will never strike up a conflict over resources, but if they do, any neutral party has a similar right to interfere and choose your opposition's side, without your holding them any ill will for their interference?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Griefing- When an individual does something with their main intent being to anger, frustrate, or make the game less enjoyable for others.
To be honest, the threshold for this definition is set too low. This could easily be argued as being one occasion of being robbed or killed in PVP.
This is why the usual definitions, and largely accepted, require the added qualifiers of "repeated" (frequency), "in a certain zone" (ie starter zones)or against a certain category of player (ie noobs or RP'ers).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come now, Bluddwolf, you're obfuscating perfectly clear points. While I agree with you that the definition of 'Griefing' is a bit too general, the policy statements were perfectly clear.
TEO will join the side of any party they feel is being wronged, they will never make a deal that will prevent them from joining a side they feel is being wronged, and if you have a problem with that then you are free to petition for the justness of your own cause and request a cessation of hostilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It should also be noted that TEO soldiers will defend neutral parties we believe are being robbed or attacked without just cause within TEO controlled territory, unclaimed territory, hostile territory, and any territory we have been authorized to do so in. So basically any time we are not expressly forbidden to do so within the rightful territory of a neutral or friendly party.So basically, you will interfere with any conflict you see; choose a side; and then demand that the opposing side justifies their actions to TEO; in any territory you wish; unless expressly forbidden to do so; even in their own lands.
They only need to justify themselves if they seek reparations. Yes, we will engage our enemies in their own territory if we feel they are unjustly aggressing someone... or really if we notice them drawing breath. No we will not aggress neutrals attacking someone in their own territory, unless we are prepared to start a war. It's kind of assumed they have forbidden us from involving themselves in conflicts against them.
Also this does not equate to us jumping into every conflict we see. This equates to us jumping into conflicts where we believe one side is targeting the other without just cause. This will be determined by what we witness, where we witness it happen, and our knowledge of the parties involved.
No group will be allowed to make deals with TEO in which they receive immunity from TEO attack while pursuing aggressive actions against neutral or friendly parties who have not provoked their aggression.So, again, you will interfere in any conflict that is being fought over access to resources (A major focus of the core PVP in PFO).
I'm I to gather that TEO and its allies will never strike up a conflict over resources, but if they do, any neutral party has a similar right to...
You are correct in presuming we will never strike up a conflict where resources is our driving motivation unless have a solid claim over those resources, and that if one of our members does, the correct response would be to kill him and report his actions to our leadership.
Before you ask, a solid claim would me it in territory officially controlled by TEO or a group who's given us rights over those resources, or it's within our possession. If there is some solid mechanical method for staking claims in unclaimed territory it will cover that as well. We will recognize other group's rightful claims to resources in the same fashion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Griefing- When an individual does something with their main intent being to anger, frustrate, or make the game less enjoyable for others.To be honest, the threshold for this definition is set too low. This could easily be argued as being one occasion of being robbed or killed in PVP.
This is why the usual definitions, and largely accepted, require the added qualifiers of "repeated" (frequency), "in a certain zone" (ie starter zones)or against a certain category of player (ie noobs or RP'ers).
I'm simply giving the definition I go by, not the method for determining if it's actually griefing or not.
The method I will go by is likely prolonged observation of the group/individual in question as well as statements made by that individual. If that prolonged observation or the statements they make leads me to believe their main intent is to ruin other people's days, then I'll decry them as a griefer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...without your holding them any ill will for their interference?
Well, to be fair he never said people aren't allowed to hold ill will against him when he picks a side in a conflict. He just said he plans to pick sides sometimes. I have no doubt those that Andius (or TEO) decide are in the wrong during a particular conflict will harbor animosity toward him/them for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So....if I claim he stole from me and I am just getting my coin back, that won't fly as a reason to attack a "neutral" party?That may. Especially if you can provide evidence to back your claim. Likely, in this scenario we will review the evidence presented and then make an assessment based on that evidence, and our knowledge of the parties involved, and how trustworthy they are. That is all likely to be done if you appeal for reparations.
Made me think of this comic.
Of course the following suggests that this will not be the case for TEO:
While it's actually happening we're just going to react to what we feel is happening.
(Disclaimer: I'm not trying to imply anything about TEO from the comic, I just thought of it and I find it amusing. I hold Andius and TEO in high regard.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
LOL awesome comic. That was something of the first thoughts I had also when Andius originally stated he was going to do when encountering 2 parties locked in confict. I was thinking "Hold up guys, lets check the list to see who is who and allied with who. Quick, someone tell me their company tags...." meanwhile the conflict is resolved, bodies are looted and the victors leave the area. :-)
But alas, Andius has corrected this view and now it makes more sense. Though I would had laughed if it was that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The key take away is that at the end of the day, we seek to either play the heroes or the less-aggressive support cast that allows the heroes to do their jobs, depending on how much conflict any given member wishes to subject themselves to. From the glorious crusader to the dedicated craftsman, TEO intends to create a light in the darkness and safe haven from the greed and maliciousness that will certainly be found in plenty outside of wherever we end up calling home.
@Feros, I look forward to future business arrangements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So....if I claim he stole from me and I am just getting my coin back, that won't fly as a reason to attack a "neutral" party?That may. Especially if you can provide evidence to back your claim. Likely, in this scenario we will review the evidence presented and then make an assessment based on that evidence, and our knowledge of the parties involved, and how trustworthy they are. That is all likely to be done if you appeal for reparations.Made me think of this comic.
Of course the following suggests that this will not be the case for TEO:
While it's actually happening we're just going to react to what we feel is happening.(Disclaimer: I'm not trying to imply anything about TEO from the comic, I just thought of it and I find it amusing. I hold Andius and TEO in high regard.)
I actually read a great deal of that comic. In many ways "clichequest" is a lot like what I want PFO to be. Obviously there are some parts we don't want, and some parts that would be impossible with modern technology, but the overall feel of a living breathing world where the players are the storyline and PvPers inhabit the same space as PvEers, granting a sense of danger but not "Everyone I see will likely try to kill me!" is the same feel I hope to get from PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Observant- Keenly aware of our surroundings, both in a physical sense, and in the context of the actions and politics of the people we interact with
Philanthropic - TEO should be a positive force in the world. We should be willing to lend our aid and resources to others in need. You cannot breed Good simply through destroying Evil. You need to demonstrate the benefits of Good such that others can see the benefits of following the path. While our warriors defend the innocent and our hunters track evil to the ends of the realm so too shall members be found offering education to the uninformed, equipment to the naked, and friendship to the lonely regardless of their affiliation.
Back on track now. Good luck with Q >.>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In many ways "clichequest" is a lot like what I want PFO to be. Obviously there are some parts we don't want, and some parts that would be impossible with modern technology, but the overall feel of a living breathing world where the players are the storyline and PvPers inhabit the same space as PvEers, granting a sense of danger but not "Everyone I see will likely try to kill me!" is the same feel I hope to get from PFO.
This last point is where I believe we part ways the most. I'm not sure which is correct or wrong, your understanding of Open World PVP, my impression of your understanding, my understanding of what Open World PVP is or we are both wrong?
I see your statement as contradictory, because you can not have the sense of danger without having the possibility of being attacked anytime, anywhere and by anyone.
There is also a big difference between, "Everyone I see will likely try to kill me" and "I will be wary of everyone unless I know they are not a threat."
I enjoy playing Open World PVP MMOs because when I am flagged or when I enter a low sec zone, I can be attacked and killed at any moment. It is a thrill to be on edge, and to learn to play at a highly competitive level. I enjoy it almost as much when I lose, as when I win. This is what I believe Open World PVP means.
That is the culture of the game that I'm looking for, and that is the culture that I look to support in PFO.
When you see me, and perhaps I speak for all of the UNC, your can expect :
1. I'm wary of you, and ready to fight at the drop of a hat (green of course).
2. You should expect to be SAD'd or Attacked by me and or my band, unless you are blue to UNC.
3. You can expect to be Attacked if you are red to UNC.
4. You should feel lucky if we let you go about your business, unmolested by our SADs or Ambush.
All of this can be done without griefing, it is not generating a toxic atmosphere, unless your tolerance for danger is too low for an Open World PVP game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't argue who's vision in better in terms of how fun the game will be, because that's purely a matter of opinion. What I can argue is who's has a chance of being successful. What you want is less an Open World PvP MMO, and more what I would call a "Hardcore PvP MMO."
There are two reasons that I feel strongly that what you want PFO to be isn't even a marketable game.
1. All evidence says otherwise.
If you look at EVE, the most successful non-faction open world PvP MMO in the current market, the vast majority of it's players live in high-sec. A place where it's fairly uncommon for someone to try to kill you. Even of the players living in null sec, a large portion of them are ratters and miners who will warp to POS the second anyone who isn't allied pops into system, and only engage in PvP on occasions where they pull out a PvP ship along with a bunch of other players from their alliance to go roam or camp a gate. In short, while EVE has some hardcore PvP aspects, I would not consider it a hardcore PvP MMO.
Darkfall and Mortal, I would both classify as hardcore PvP MMO's, with Darkfall being the more hardcore of the two outside the safezones. I would give them those classifications because the safezones are small and do not support veteran players, and outside those safezones you can attack anyone, anywhere, for any reason, as much as you want as a viable style of play. I'm sure you are aware of Darkfall's population as I've seen Xeen complaining about it. Mortal's isn't any better.
Really the last argument I could see people resorting to is Ultima Online. All I can say is this: How much competition was there in the MMO industry at the time it ran successfully as (from what I understand) a hardcore PvP MMO? Which server did all the players go to as soon as the separated the PvP and PvE servers? PFO will be one server, but there are a lot of other MMO choices on the market now.
2. It's not the WoW part that sucks about WoW clones. It's the clone part.
Name any WoW clone that's been anywhere near as successful as WoW long-term. I can't either, of the scores of clones that are out there. I can show you how many of them have cool features that are quite a bit different in a game that's otherwise a carbon copy of WoW, but even the ones which I feel are actually better games than WoW (Minus the sheer quantity of content WoW has built up over the years) are not anywhere near it's success level.
PFO uses a training system based off EVE. It's crafting and gathering systems draw heavy inspiration from EVE. It's market systems are based off EVE. It's CEO used to work for CCP. It's questing system, is supposed to be like missions from EVE. That's just the most obvious things I could come up with in about a minute. PFO as a hardcore PvP MMO is just a clone of EVE with a tiny high-sec, a whole ton of null-sec or worm hole space, and a few gimmicks / a new theme. So it's a clone of some of the least successful areas of a game with only a fraction of WoW's population. Add in some more high-sec, and it becomes just a straight up EVE clone. I hope I am correct in stating that GW's longterm goal is not to be a little EVE clone with a fraction of EVE's population. EVE has had a decade to build more content and polish their systems. PFO cannot compete as a clone. It can only compete is an original title.
How I believe PFO can be successful.
There is not one non-faction based Open World PvP MMO on the market that forces all the players into the PvP area, but then provides enough consequences to prevent total anarchy. It's an original concept, though DF, and MO have made halfhearted attempts PFO is the only game I've seen that has made their alignment/reputation system a serious development focus. It's unique, and a large enough aspect of the game that it makes PFO seriously different than the other games being offered.
What PFO is set to provide us at this point is a game that provides the freedom of a hardcore PvP MMO, but does so in a manner that isn't going to drive off the vast majority of players, or keep them cowering inside massive safezones like in EVE.
The absolute most important aspect of this system working is that players are not constantly subjected to non-consensual PvP unless they are somehow provoking it, and that the actions that provoke it are very clear. IE: Rejecting SADs, moving wagons/carts of goods, going into certain areas, flying certain flags etc.
That when you're out exploring or fighting escalations unless you see that the player coming at you has a criminal flag, is of an enemy faction/group, or has a low reputation that you're initial response will be "care to join me?" instead of fight or flight. People crave that social aspect. The ability to extend some trust to people you don't know, as well as the ability to not constantly be abused.
Quite simply, if this game excludes everyone who's "tolerance for danger is too low for Open World PvP MMO's" it's going to be a 1000-5000 player game like DF and MO. Not just in EE. Long-term.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also concur that that was pretty solid.
The difference here is really about "Anybody here could attack me" versus "Everybody here is likely to attack me".
The first is a reasonable and realistic element of the game. It puts you on edge and makes you wary. That heavily armored guy rushing up behind you on a mount can be heart-pounding. And then that sense of silly relief when he just passes by without molesting you. You get tense when strangers are around. You do not necessarily have to fight or flee, but you should keep alert because maybe that next guy will decide to stop and shake you down to see if you have any nice treats in your pockets. Most people will act like people, social animals that are happy to get by without molesting you if you don't molest them. But any moment one of them may reveal themselves as a monster.
The latter is just annoying. "I just want to collect some lumber, but I can't move 20 feet outside the safe zone without someone trying to fight me! It isn't even high level lumber!" Most people are anti-social monsters and behave in ways that have no realism in the provided world and environmental settings. No thank you. If I wanted this, I'd go play Battlefield.
"Attack me at any time. But don't attack me just because you can."