Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
During the lull in the blogs, and with reference to Ryan's recent "wake up call" (see below), it might be a good time to take stock and pull together our current resources and start forming a plan. We know community is going to be a big deal in PFO and it's also an area we can start well ahead of time on forming, particularly during EE and even before then. Without further ado: Ryan's bombshells:
In this way, BigTown has enforced security across a huge territory. To displace them, you have to break Guardsman's defenses. You can't do that solo. You need AnotherBigTown.
This is the problem everyone will face. These groups are ALREADY OUT THERE, and they'll come to our game as soon as we prove we're not another doomed to fail tiny MMO. They're good. They're well trained. They're cohesive. And they want your land.
The way you defeat BigTown is by making AnotherBigTown. It's the reason there won't be a bunch of small boutique Settlements with NRDS security policies. They'll be rolled up by the first wave of organized external Guilds when they show up.
Namely: A big cross-section of the community by OE are going to be going for the jugular: War has already started for these groups and they've done the preliminary work to be ready for it:
1. Size
2. Organisation
3. Experience
4. Little or no resistance!
2 Responses:
1st: We need to understand these groups more.
##ACTION POINT## Compile a Dossier on these organisations!! How many, what their tactics are, when they might turn up in PFO, how to identify them, what their motivation will be etc. This is probably a good step as any negotiation and compromise in forming agreements will need to demonstrate strong necessity.
2nd: We need to form a suitable strategy of resistance:
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Appropriate and workable response to above.
SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: Promote diversity of the PFO community and expansion of players into niches of their preference.
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE > SECONDARY OBJECTIVE = [Meta] A Confederation of Communities
A confederation (or confederacy), is a permanent union of political units for common action in relation to other units. Usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution, confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues (such as defense, foreign affairs, or a common currency), with the central government being required to provide support for all members.
The nature of the relationship among the states constituting a confederation varies considerably. Likewise, the relationship between the member states, the central government, and the distribution of powers among them is highly variable. Some looser confederations are similar to intergovernmental organizations and even may permit secession from the confederation. Other confederations with stricter rules may resemble federations. A unitary state or federation may decentralize powers to regional or local entities in a confederal form.
Let's take stock first:
- 58 Chartered Companies are listed on Nihimon's count
- 166 CCs are listed on the experimental "Land Rush!" register.
- 696 "votes" were counted
- The Top 10 most votes counted CCs for indication of main support:
The Empyrean Order...........114
Pax Aeternum..................67
The Seventh Veil..............49
Keepers of the Circle.........36
Knights of the Crusader Road..24
Les Compagnons................22
Inconnu.......................12
Mystical Awakening............12
Peace Through Vigilance.......12
Taur-im-Duinath...............12
58 gave a count of 0. So the take-home is that this is not a full list of responses, but it does suggest a lot of the CC's here could do with forming a confederation to form a settlement.
##ACTION POINT### We need to start building up compatible communities via communicating intentions to align with a general strategy considering all the above. Starting with the larger CC's that can fully-form (functional) settlements from the get-go.
Total scope of KS backers who could be included in this initiative is according to KS (+/- various measures)
----------
= ~9,000
----------
##ACTION POINT## We might need as many of those as possible.
- From the forum thread: "Where are you in meatspace": Another criteria we need to think about collecting for our general strategy: West-East in descending order:
USA/CAN (1) = 60
EU/UK (8) = 23
RUS = 1
ME = 1
TAI = 2
AUS/NZ (2) = 8
As this will likely dictate PvP Windows and hence Growth of settlements.
- A quick brief of the Alignment CCs (x58) Indicates a lot of diversity and personal preferences and visions for CCs.
##ACTION POINT## Will need to identify the challenges to assorting different CC's with compatible other CC's to form early workable (& fun) Settlements and negotiation and compromise until PRIMARY OBJECTIVE can be achieved.
What we currently know about EE is that at least 15 Settlement Hexes will be available. If we stick to our rationale we'll need to consider how to maximize both our PRIMARY and SECONDARY objectives with a view towards the coming Tsunami of OE.
##ACTION POINT## We need to form the core governance of any Confederation during EE and use that powerbase to determine how power is shared amongst our diverse (potential future) members.
TL;DR: This is just some paizo forums whiteboard drawing up a response from Ryan's early warning to us. On the downside, we're already at war. On the upside: It was coming... and it's a great catalyst towards crowdforging the community. First step might be to write up something a bit more standardized and agreed on, and start liasing with the early catchment pool of kickstarter backers?
As usual please share your thoughts and opinions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
AvenaOats,
One of my alts has been working on some diplomatic outreach this past week and here's what I found so far on the top 16 companies in the Land Rush poll (that's as far as I have gotten):
(I couldn't find a better spacer than the periods. Links should work, but I cannot vouch for the activity. Both of the PFS forums are somewhat active, but there isn't much activity I could find regarding PFO)
Company/Kingdom Name........Votes........Alignment(s)........Website
The Empyrean Order...................114............Good.................... The Empyrean Order
Pax Aeternum............................67..............LN..................... ..The Kingdon of Aeternum
The Seventh Veil........................49..............N............................The Seventh Veil
Keepers of the Circle..................36..............NG..........................Keepers of the Circle
Knights of the Crusader Road......24...............LG..........................Website inactive
Les Compagnons........................22.............LN........................ ..Undetermined-French speaking company
Inconnu.....................................12..............LE............. ............Undetermined-French speaking company
Mystical Awakening.....................12...............NG.........................Mystical Awakening
Peace Through Vigilance...............12..............LG..........................Peace Through Vigilance
Taur-im-Duinath.........................12...............CG................ ........Undetermined
Georgia PFS..............................11..........Unknown....................... .Georgia PFS
Dragon Blade Mercenaries............11..........Unknown.....................Undetermined
Aseveljet...................................10..........Unknown............ ...........Undetermined-Finnish speaking company
Lost Legion................................10..........Unknown.................. .....Undetermined
Magical Advancement & Growth Initiative...9..........N.........................Undetermined
The Community of Shadow Haven...9..............Evil.............................Undetermined
Excelsior.....................................8..........Unknown........... ..............Excelsior/Michigan PFS
Nicely thought out thesis on what we must do to survive. Maybe this was Ryan's intent...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hardin Steele: That's useful information AND a good place to begin:
These potentially larger guilds would be a good place to start as they're indicative of:
1. Size -> will prioritize x15 Hex allocation in EE.
2. Already organized -> Formal channels of communication can (have) already be(en) set up.
3. Experienced.
4. I'm a member of Mystical Awakening; though a dormant (new) member (no doubt about to be activated!), so I'll attempt to start discussion there.
5. The top 3 are already noticeably active on the forums and certainly a good place to start with. The Empyrean Order, Pax Aeternum, The Seventh Veil. Those guilds, with websites likely next.
6. Those Alignments might be useful in considering mixing & matching for settlement creation, apart from other criteria.
7. The Confederation Governance Structure needs to be worked out. Possibly using some real-world models to achieve this? Certainly we'll have to start communication to see how many are interested in signing up and negotiating terms.
=
Some positives:
1. We have time! +12 months until EE. :)
2. Community is a resource we actually can crowdforge/utilize before then. Eg a central website etc, utilize some of the skills people can bring. Work out the sort of parameters of running successful settlements as new info comes in. Eg some guilds will have a preference for pvp and hence would be suitable as an assignment for military, militia guards, tasks forces etc. As will identifying the appropriate proportions for other positions eg crafters, planners/builders and many many more.
3. [I'll save for discussion later].
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Although not part of the land rush, which is going to be redone anyway, and no aspirations of having a settlement of our own, The UnNamed Company will take part in any endeavor against identified hackers.
The UnNamed Company will be focusing all of our training into the areas of combat, stealth (ambush, assassinations, etc).
Our Outlaws and Assassins are open to committing any act(s) needed by this Confederation, regardless of the impact of alignment or reputation. This service will be done to support the EE community and it will be done at cost.....
"Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap".... If that isn't the name of the Banditry Blog, I'll be very disappointed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd: That's great to hear. One of the things we'll no-doubt need to thrash out is to what extent such an organization can remain "meta" and co-exist with the "in-game" diversity and "in-game" competition between members (eg bandits doing what bandits do when business is as usual) atst as responding to these meta-threats, adequately.
=
Update: I've posted this idea over to Mystical Awakening and set the ball rolling on discussion expanding.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
LOL bluddwolf I agree, that better be the name of banditry blog :D.
Myself and The Order of the Bloody Hand also will help support this cause for those of use who truly want to make PFO a great game. Enemies of "EE'ers" beware! An army of Assassins and cut throats are approaching!
"Come my brethren! May the shadows ever guard you from the light and your weapons earn the crimson stain!"
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I will gladly oppose, by any legal means, any player who expresses a goal of making the game less fun for other players.
I will note that I am probably including a much wider set of actions against a much smaller group than most others. For example, I make no commitments to oppose people who simply have different win conditions that cause unfun as a side effect; my characters will oppose the characters of players who want ton conquer the entire playfield, but I won't try pyscholgy against those players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I anticipate that those of us enrolled in the EE will be able to set the social tone and customs for the game.
If we can engineer a community where trade between settlements and an expectation of NRDS are the norm, then there is a much better chance for that standard to persist through OE and be able to withstand an onslaught of destructive players looking to ruin the metagame.
If the majority of settlements are in the LN-LG-CG range, playing the trading / diplomacy / efficient building game, then it will allow the few LE or CE settlements to be exciting, dangerous content for the warfare / spying / assassination game.
If everyone devolves so most settlements are isolated, paranoid LE-NE-CE islands, then evil will lose its distinctiveness, alignment will be meaningless and PFO will be just another squabble over territory, when it had the potential to be so much more.
To me, a realm that is mostly at peace, with pockets of wild frontier and dangerous rogue settlements sounds much more fun than universal, constant warfare among fortified city-states.
A core of powerful established "Good" settlements can always have upstart or rogue "Evil" settlements bubbling up at the edges, while a core of powerful established "Evil" settlements will simply choke out any potential for variety and stagnate.
As players, we need either a formalized council or confederacy as AvenaOats suggests, or if herding those cats is too hard, and no formal channels can be developed, then the EE players need to make sure our unspoken social customs favor cooperation and limited warfare.
As developers, please adjust the game mechanics to reward cooperation enough so that open NRDS settlements can reasonably expect to thrive and prosper.
I really like the idea of segregating and clumping vital resources, making it impossible for a settlement to be self-sufficient without trade or theft.
Having a LE settlement monopolize a rare material which forces the other settlements to either reach an accommodation with them, or hire the UNC to raid their gathering operations, etc sounds more exciting to me than each nation expanding just enough to be self-sufficient and then slamming its borders closed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-snip- As players, we need either a formalized council or confederacy as AvenaOats suggests, or if herding those cats is too hard, and no formal channels can be developed, then the EE players need to make sure our unspoken social customs favor cooperation and limited warfare.
It'll dig into looking at various possible structures of a confederation, that's something to look into. Possibly others can advise on that?
IE: What sort of representation could we have from members (ie a delegate per Guild or proportional representation including an executive council etc).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I said elsewhere, the implications of Ryan's "warning" have been weighing on my mind a lot lately - much like another "warning" he gave over a year ago:
It sounds like you're saying that creating a single Player Nation based on allied Settlements will likely prove difficult, and that we'll more likely form alliances of Settlements or Player Nations rather than officially combining under a common government.In EVE it became obvious that Alliances comprised of many different corporations with different leaders were fragile. Eventually there would be arguments about who was really "in charge" or disputes over diplomatic or economic policy ("Why does HE get a Titan and not me?"). These Alliances were also targeted by agents provocateur, and they were more effective at splitting apart independently minded corporations than they were at breaking up monolithic Alliances.
We may see a different dynamic in Pathfinder Online, and the situation in EVE took many years to evolve so it will likely change rapidly after launch. But long term, the most stable and effective structure seems to be a Player Nation/Alliance comprised of sub-units who all share a common allegiance and leadership.
I think we need to keep both warnings in mind as we discuss how to address these kinds of threats.
I also wonder (I'm not at all sure) if it would be appropriate to re-envision the Treaty of Rovagug as a mutual support pact opposing any NBSI Settlements that begin to gain power. Just a thought, like I said I'm not at all sure if this is appropriate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What sort of representation could we have from members (ie a delegate per Guild or proportional representation including an executive council etc).
The Seventh Veil already has the infrastructure to support a United Nations type of body. I think there is a lot of value in having a Security Council of sorts with a single representative from every Settlement and an additional representative from each Player Nation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd: Yes, that is true, but as a place to initiate it's usable. We have a good 12 months to let things gather momentum. But I notice the above 3 guilds/cc's are fairly well represented on the boards and hence communication can begin expediently. The priority is to identify the guilds/cc's that can fully run a settlement by themselves and get them onboard the "confederation council".
@Nihimon: Definitely, the 7th Veil seems to actually echo a lot of this already. We just need to scale that up to match the external group(s).
What Ryan effectively said is:
Scenario #1: The large guilds arrive much like how The Romans arrived in Britain and conquered the tribes that were all opposed and bickering with each other(iirc my history!).
Scenario #2: We have now to EE (12 months) + EE (18 months) to organize a suitable reaction to aggressive & organised "Romanus". Potentially with that amount of a headstart a super organization even as you describe above, has disadvantages, could still check such large group at least.
Scenario #3: This is perhaps bombshell and awaits further progress with #2.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We haven't yet discussed the problem as much as possible before proposing solutions. I will ask every to try to discuss as much as possible before proposing solutions.
What, exactly, is everyone's biggest fear, and what would have to happen for that to be realized.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lifedragn: Reading Ryan's quote (in the OP):
This is the problem everyone will face. These groups are ALREADY OUT THERE, and they'll come to our game as soon as we prove we're not another doomed to fail tiny MMO. They're good. They're well trained. They're cohesive. And they want your land.
So we have 58 CC's listed by Nihimon and 166 polling in the original Land Rush. I assume (correctly?) all of those wish some form of self-determination to express their collective vision and goals? There's also a wide diversity in how that is expressed from hardcore pvp to RP-emphasis etc.
Now take the efforts of all these minor groups going on 24 months aka 2 years when let's say a large and well known guild enters the game and within 6-10 months have destroyed most of the work in those settlements. I think that's a big part of what is at stake. And that's possibly describing the tip of the ice-berg?
@Decius: I think that is in part an answer to your astute question. A good place to start is to describe more exactly the (action pt. 1) mega guilds and their aims, methods, their membership and likely strategy in PFO. Eg if LE at 40% or more representation in the game results in a few viable Alignments and no room left for other alignments unless "AnotherBigTown" is already in place. I think that would be disappointing.
The current cc's/guilds will inherently be at a disadvantage in unity and purpose, except for the fact potentially building up an 18 month lead in power aggregation and robust social systems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am trying to decipher the exact goal here. Is this an attempt to organize the defense of Old Blood (EE-enrolled backers) from potentially aggressive New Blood (companies that come in after the game is ready to go)?
Ultimately, yes.
Framed another way, it's an attempt by "the community" to defend itself against the "anonymous a*!&*~%s of teh interwebz".
The community is the key to the whole venture. If it is allowed to become toxic, we'll be sunk. So protecting the integrity of the community is key to our long term plans.
Against that objective comes the anonymous a~#$%@&s of teh interwebz. Can we successfully ward our community from their misbehavior? I think we can. Our approach is multi-layered: game mechanics, game masters, community managers, and of course, our selective enforcement power to separate individuals from the game and the community if they prove to be unwilling or unable to be good citizens. There is no single magic bullet. All of these things must be deployed in parallel and in a mixture and matrix to fight the barbarians at our gates.
The Community will be its own best defense. If we develop standards of behavior generally intolerant of a@~%$$$rly, the number of such will be constrained.
What, exactly, is everyone's biggest fear...?
My biggest fear is that the community that has developed on these forums is completely brushed aside by incoming hordes of hardcore PvP'ers who manage to skirt just this side of getting banned and fundamentally transform PFO into something "toxic" that ultimately sinks the whole thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We haven't yet discussed the problem as much as possible before proposing solutions. I will ask every to try to discuss as much as possible before proposing solutions.
What, exactly, is everyone's biggest fear, and what would have to happen for that to be realized.
That we are lambs set up for the slaughter? I think it's time to admit my secret prediction which I am wasn't going to say because I am in truth committed to the 7th Veil.
I have always thought that within 6 months of OE, 75% of the players currently on this board would be under one banner. 7th Veil, Pax & EO, probably a LN nation with LG, LN, and N settlements.
Don't get me wrong, I expect EE to be lots of fun where we in-fight in the short term. But that is and always has been my expectation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just wanted to add that the Land Rush is a poor judge of size or activity of interested companies.
I think it would be a better idea to have forum members step up and state their desire to sit on this suggested committee. Any company, regardless of size, gets the same voice.
I don't agree with Bluddwolf often, but he is dead on here. As I was researching the groups in the Land Rush Poll versus who has active websites and communities in general, I noticed (and you will too) many of the groups that led the rush don't post here at all. Some are prolific on their own boards. There are two PFS groups (Georgia and Michigan) that have regular activity, mostly meeting physically to play TT games. The three "foreign" groups (two French and one Finnish)don't post here, but have a presence. Some finished the KS and have not been heard from since. (I also backed Shroud of the Avatar, and have only posted there 2-3 times.)
EVE is a great example of an international community residing in one place. The only county that has its own server for EVE is China. The rest of the world is on a server called "Tranquility" and for the many of us that played EVE before the international players make a large percentage of the total. Do not expect most to be active here.
There were almost 9,000 Kickstarter backers, and only about 100 of us post here regularly. Learn to use "Google Translate". As a matter of fact, I sent a greeting to "Les Compagnons" earlier this week. I guess I'll find out if Google Translate is any good!
Speaking now for Aeternum as ambassador this is Pax Aeternums official position
Whilst we in Pax Aeternum are in principle happy to cooperate with the rest of the community in the event that a threat to the integrity of the game becomes apparent we feel we cannot currently support any formal agreements of action at this time.
We will however be willing to discuss and agree appropriate courses of action to be taken against such threats as may become apparent at such a time as the nature of the threat can be assessed and an appropriate course of action to deal with the threat can be determined.
We will however endorse action only when it is being turned upon such guilds as are acting to deliberately undermine the game integrity by their action. We would not endorse action merely because the new guild is large and expansionist as we would see that as playing the game, albeit not as Aeternum plays it, but nonetheless a legitimate playstyle.
Hargun Thunderborn
Ambassador for the Nation of Aeternum
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hardin Steele: I've considered that's the likely reality. Sending out overtures on the subject is enough for now to elicit a response.
@ZenPagan: The subject has been aired and the fact it's been acknowledged is more than a good start. A cordial thank you to the Pax Aeternum.
To begin:
I'd be interested if we can learn more about these guilds that Ryan has alluded to?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Warning Confusion is about to follow:
So now we have no less than three and potentially four threads going on the subject of community response to the impending doom. So bear with me if I bring into this conversation something that came from elsewhere and not recalling which thread it came from.
I am also on IPhone and you all probably know my IPhone typos by now.
/End if Confusion
Some of these points are or could also be questions or requests for clarification. Ambiguity is sometimes my forte. These questions / statements are not being made in character.
Establish for the record:
1. The Unnamed Company is not affiliated with any settlement and is not represented in the Land Rush.
2. The UNC is one of the most vocal participants on these forums and not just specifically associated with issues of banditry.
3. The UNC is the most vocal proponent for PvP and from the perspective of CN or CE alignment concerns.
4. The UNC has an active / reserve membership that exceeds that of any of the Land Rush companies with less than 25 members, placing us in 5 place and at least 6th place if we were added to the land rush.
5. The UNC considers itself an equal EE community member, and we will seek equal treatment based on our presence within this community.
The Proposed Theory:
There seems to be a move towards creating a EE Community Council if who's membership will be drawn upon from the top three companies of the Land Rush.
These three sitting companies represent LG, LN, N, and NG settlements that they have plans for.
All other settlements or companies don't have a seat at the table.
The Issue:
Of these three companies decide that they will only offer those alignments, deny access to other EE companies based on alignment differences or on strict reputation levels, and then not provide a voice to those other interested, I have this question to ask:
What would you expect from the companies and settlements you have denied a voice, access and support, to do if these invaders do arrive?
If you think to not include in this committee the voice and representation of those that are not Lawful or Good, as well as deny us access to settlements within the EE Confederacy, then you will drive all of us into the arms of the "Invaders" out of necessity.
I'm not talking about hackers, I think they should be punished and banned if possible. But, if a Zerg group comes in from EvE, as is expected, and they offer the Chaotics and Evils the support that you have denied, what would you do if positions were reversed?
Support all EE companies / settlements equally or you will have done more than half of the fracturing of this community, for the invaders, before they even set foot here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do have to agree with Bluddwolf in that it would be wise to include other settlements and companies in the Community Council.
A divided or fractured community is one that is easier to conquer, as the zerg infestation will be buying off those you leave out.
@Bluddwolf
I am not sure where you see any part of the bit after "the proposed theory" except for a council has been proposed and a little discussion between the OP and some seventh veil members about it
Lifedragn for TEO has merely requested clarification of what the aim is and has otherwise been non commital
Pax has issued a pretty clear statement on where they stand in respect to this.
I see no discussion about freezing people out or any sort of alignment stitch up that you seem to be seeing
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I believe that only one of the 'big three' organizations has expressed any kind of proactive alignment restriction. One of them has expressed specifically that they will be open to characters of all alignments, despite risking mechanical disadvantage in doing so.
The entire land rush poll has fewer than 700 respondents. There are 1165 guild-level first-month EE slots used, and a metric ass-load of people in the first month of EE (Virtually all of the KS backers). If there were to be three representatives fairly selected from among the voters in the land rush poll, I would expect ONE of them to be from the 'big three'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All other settlements or companies don't have a seat at the table.
I think there is a lot of value in having a Security Council of sorts with a single representative from every Settlement and an additional representative from each Player Nation.
You're right that my particular proposal didn't include Companies, but you're wrong to suggest it didn't include other Settlements.
The reason it can't be open to Companies is because there will be more Companies than you can shake a stick at, and there's no objectively verifiable way to determine whether or not they deserve a place at the table.
The problem affects Settlements. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to me that a Security Council of every Settlement (that wants to participate) is the proper body to address it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I said, there are. I less than four threads going on This topic and confusion would follow.
I am merely trying to head off any idea of exclusion based on settlement or alignment from having an equal voice among the EE companies.
You can not expect those that are excluded to support someone else's community defense, against a power that might not exclude them.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I wouldn't expect any participant in any council-like body to concur with any decision that wasn't in their best interest.
I wouldn't expect any nonparticipant to dissent with any decision that was in their best interest.
The value of having a council is that actors acting unilaterally to oppose a powerful newcomer risk standing alone, and falling alone. A council that stands together falls as one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All other settlements or companies don't have a seat at the table.I think there is a lot of value in having a Security Council of sorts with a single representative from every Settlement and an additional representative from each Player Nation.You're right that my particular proposal didn't include Companies, but you're wrong to suggest it didn't include other Settlements.
The reason it can't be open to Companies is because there will be more Companies than you can shake a stick at, and there's no objectively verifiable way to determine whether or not they deserve a place at the table.
The problem affects Settlements. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to me that a Security Council of every Settlement (that wants to participate) is the proper body to address it.
I should have written settlements and or companies. I was another post from another thread that limited the scope of the member settlements to just the Lawfuls g and n and one n... Sorry IPhone short hand
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When it comes to EE, there's 2 main trends for player organizations considering "Land Rush!" (in whatever future form it takes):
1. Larger Guilds/CC's will be able to prioritize Hex plots and manage to run a settlement with their own members (at least to begin with).
2. Smaller Guilds/CC's have perhaps three options:
i. Amalgamate and use a suitable political structure of ownership/control as per the blog:
The political structure of a kingdom has the following options:
- Democracy: Every player character member of the player nation has an equal vote
- Executive: One settlement has all the votes
- Federation: Each settlement has one vote
- Star Chamber: A limited group of characters have votes as apportioned by the charter
- Security Council: A limited group of settlements have votes as apportioned by the charter
- Kingdom: One character has all the votes
ii. Stay as a CC sponsored and utilized by one of the major guilds already running a settlement above.
iii. Wait/Remain independentiv. Became subsumed by a bigger Guild.
The aim of a Confederation of Communities is to represent the diversity of ALL THE ABOVE:
1) All members (individuals) require representation.
2) The basic unit of the Confederation requires identification (Chartered Companies).
3) The Main Economic unit of the Confederation requires "Executive Council" representation ie a Federation style Council would be x1 delegate per Settlement.
4) Members as individuals require their own council, a "General Assembly"
5) The over-council that controls Strategic Control of security ie a Congress Council.
6) An auditor/judge who moderates the various bodies in discussion.
=
Yup it's complex but mainly the only requires sitting/in session if conditions are "bad" aka defcon level! The idea of the 6th position I'll have to disclose at a later date if the actual Confederation takes root.
This is a basic draft. The key is the dynamic between "in-game" and "meta-game" which the Confederation is operating at. So by that rationale all Alignments/players need representation for the full "in-game" snapshot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The River Kingdoms has an "Outlaw Council" and I see no reason why the community can't hijack that title and include the non-bandit groups/companies as a forum to discuss issues, concerns, the future of the River Kingdoms. Perhaps even becoming a sort of "Court of Last Resort" where the representatives would act as a jury. Whomever had a grievance that was accepted could present their case and the jurists would then pass down their decision (warning here tho, these groups have been taken over by hostile forces in RL on a regular basis).
Other groups represented could choose to take the recommended steps or not, but not doing so may be at their peril, particularly if the decision is close to unanimous.
An example of that may be a company, settlememt or kingdom is acting in a way that is simply not compatible with the Pathfinder Mythos and spirit and the decision is made to crush this organization (remember, it is in game, follows the rules, and used the tools that are already in-game). The jurist contingent then makes life miserable for the ne'er-do-wells until get their act together. If they do so, case closed. If not, obliteration.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The River Kingdoms has an "Outlaw Council" and I see no reason why the community can't hijack that title and include the non-bandit groups/companies as a forum to discuss issues, concerns, the future of the River Kingdoms. Perhaps even becoming a sort of "Court of Last Resort" where the representatives would act as a jury. Whomever had a grievance that was accepted could present their case and the jurists would then pass down their decision (warning here tho, these groups have been taken over by hostile forces in RL on a regular basis).
Other groups represented could choose to take the recommended steps or not, but not doing so may be at their peril, particularly if the decision is close to unanimous.
An example of that may be a company, settlememt or kingdom is acting in a way that is simply not compatible with the Pathfinder Mythos and spirit and the decision is made to crush this organization (remember, it is in game, follows the rules, and used the tools that are already in-game). The jurist contingent then makes life miserable for the ne'er-do-wells until get their act together. If they do so, case closed. If not, obliteration.
I'm trying to understand these three points you have made:
Set up an "Outlaw Council" that includes all companies except for bandit companies.
Make decisions that companies not allowed to participate in, binding for them or they pay a consequence.
Any company or kingdom not functioning within the Pathfinder Mythos of the River Kingdoms should be punished. But your first point is not consistent with the PF RK Mythos.
If this confederacy of the EE community is going to work it has to include all constituencies if the EE community. If you try to set it up as only certain alignments (Ryan Dancey made yet another comment that I'll get to) and certain companies or settlements, you are creating a fracture within the confederation of EE even before it takes root. You are strolling down the same path as the Treaty of Rovagug..... DOA.
Ryan Dancey has just added another post that said any cohesive grouping, in response to the pros able threat from EvE invaders, has to set aside concerns for alignment and even reputation. Those two system are subject to radical changes and to try to build policies around them or even considering them is not the best way to prepare for the threat that is coming.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's a lot of information to digest here. I'd rather meet up with you and discuss this on TS than go through the whole topic Avena.
But I'll get to the point very quickly. When the storm comes, I will be there with every soldier I can muster. This was the purpose for which The Empyrean Order was created. To hold back the tides of darkness lest they consume us all. To fight for your freedom is to join our cause.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite: Well there's several slippery slopes: The one that occurs when Goonswarm et al. arrive or the PFO community utilizing, ahead of time, ways in which to organize community and meta-game issues, such as "BigTown". First we do need to identify the problems that the above scenario Ryan mentioned leads to, Then the challenges of "herding cats" and if that is a realistic and adequate response to the first problem? Then if that response compromises "in-game" relations 'as they should be' ie settlements operating their own forms of politics in game, whether or not it's worth it from that point of view. It might not be. First we could do with detailing the problem more.
@Hardin Steele: To begin with, it's probably enough to identify and describe the major threat aka Goonswarm et al. and form the best solution to that as a community ie any organization/structure formed: What Ryan is calling "AnotherBigTown", in whatever shape that takes: Which would consist of any of the settlements and cc's in such a confederation. Certainly taking some of the current ethos and themes from the River Kingdoms would be a good addition. In general limiting the function of the body to the main identified threat limits it's scope of influence "in-game" which I'd be in favor of as a safe-guard.
@Andius: It's perhaps too much too soon, but I feel even if the presentation is somewhat flawed, the energy put into this discussion is a start. But we have an abundance of time on our sides to work out if this particular proposal is going to be adequate in matching the suggested problem or another solution needs to be found. I think "The Empyrean Order" and "The Seventh Veil" match a lot of what is suggested here, inherently, which is a good start, whether or not we need to think about taking THAT to a level above the game or not?
But I'll get to the point very quickly. When the storm comes, I will be there with every soldier I can muster. This was the purpose for which The Empyrean Order was created. To hold back the tides of darkness lest they consume us all. To fight for your freedom is to join our cause.
This is what we need to focus our attention on, first, more than political structures etc: What the challenge is and the problems that could lead to Eg annihilation of settlements and 2 years of community effort and cultural development.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@AvenaOats
With Mr. Dancey sharing his predictions, I can understand the concerns and the impetus to close diverse ranks and prepare for the Ravening Hordes. Certainly when the gates open, there will be a huge influx of eager, power seeking guilds and groups. Some percentage will be griefers, some hackers, and some just organized guilds that come to rock worlds in new games. There will also be a larger percentage of regular game players. Just average Joes and Janes. Channeling them into productive PfO community members will go a long way against the Big Bad Guys.
I am having a hard time getting all worked up about possible, unstoppable, undetectable hackers. The griefers, I have no worries over as the system is designed to deal with most and Ryan-n-Crew will get many more. Regular, Ravening (by the rules) Hordes I want to call content.
The term "slippery slope" is referring to some of the reactions and subsequent ideas for this "Grand Council". Not all, just some.
I guess that I really don't see how any of these worries (if they manifest) will make this game in any more peril than any other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't see how any of these worries (if they manifest) will make this game in any more peril than any other.
The map size of PFO is the main factor. In EvE there are thousands of star systems subject to player control. Even with Goonswarms 9000+ members, an Impossible task for them to conquer all. How many settled hexes will PFO have by OE? Minimum wl be the 15 EE settlement hexes. Maybe a couple dozen added by OE?
The point is, if the Goons come in full force, they are 100 times larger than the largest CC currently in the PfO forums now.
We can either herd cats, and do as Ryan suggested:
Build a community without regard to alignment and reputation
Becomes wolves, because we will be confronted by wolves
We better begin to realize, PFO with its settlement conquest feature, is primarily a PvP focused MMO. Those that try to hold onto that idea that we do not have to be constantly on a war footing, will be serving themselves up as sheep to the wolves.
I've said it before, these wolves want to "Win PFO" and that means conquer the board.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite
Perhaps what Ryan says is the best action: We could do with identifying the leaders of settlements who'll be key to growing them successfully and/or get some more experience in an environment where organization can be developed with our communities that will be applicable to PFO. And where communities/guilds do not have such, then start gaining them/joining them?
I still harbour good hopes that PFO will develop a Confederation over time. We may need to get the preliminary communities going first and see if the Confederation can then grow out of that start.
@Bludd: I think you have nailed it there, using the analogy and the sort of numbers difference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that I really don't see how any of these worries (if they manifest) will make this game in any more peril than any other.
It won't be. We are in no more peril than any other major Open World PVP title. Every single one of which is dominated by griefers, RPKers, NBSI mentalities, and other unsavory behaviors I have no desire to see gain the same control here.
Build a community without regard to alignment and reputation
In regards to alignment I agree. In terms of reputation I don't. This is not a fight of old vs. new.
TEO will not likely be joining any agreement that simply seeks to preserve the power of the good ol' boys club regardless of their actions and temperament toward the rest of the community.
While such a treaty would be in our benefit to sign, TEO doesn't make treaties based off the benefits they offer us.
In order to receive our support this treaty must benefit the PFO community as a whole. Old and new. I fail to see how a treaty protecting low reputation organizations from being overthrown simply because they are EE members would do so.
So I certainly would not vote in favor of signing such a proposal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@andius
I think when Ryan suggested not to consider reputation, he meant, not too much. If for instance you decided "No one unless they have a +1000 Rep", you would be turning away the more experienced pvp players, who may not have been griefers in anyway, but just very prolific pvpers.
I seriously doubt we will have any griefers to the point that you might be concerned about during EE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TEO will not likely be joining any agreement that simply seeks to preserve the power of the good ol' boys club regardless of their actions and temperament toward the rest of the community.
I also would like to see it actively seeking out and incorporating any new organizations that are good additions to the community.
I completely agree on both counts.
There are fairly specific systems that Ryan has proposed in order to keep PFO from becoming "toxic". I would suggest that accepting and promoting those systems should be the primary prerequisite for inclusion in the Security Council.
When the storm comes, I will be there with every soldier I can muster. This was the purpose for which The Empyrean Order was created. To hold back the tides of darkness lest they consume us all. To fight for your freedom is to join our cause.
The Seventh Veil is unlikely to be this community's BigTown. Although we have every intention of being militarily competent, our focus is on matters more... esoteric.
In Andius, we have a proven leader who is not only willing, but is actually driven to stand and fight against the very forces we are currently worried about.
I'm proud of the alliance between The Empyrean Order and The Seventh Veil. To my knowledge, it is the only formal alliance either of us has, and it is the only formal alliance between any of the Great Powers.
I'm also grateful for Andius's prior experience in running a major guild in an Open PvP MMO, for his willingness to take on this burden, and for his commitment to doing so in a noble manner. Not to mention the experience of a number of people close to him who have incredibly relevant experience from playing EVE at the highest levels.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
AvenaOats, How far ahead in time have you taken this idea, right now it sounds like we just need to organize so we are not crushed by a future group coming in. The future group wants to come in and dominate the world by conquest, the only real way to stop them is if you replace them as the ones who dominate the world by force. So, someone will be dominating the world, do you want it to be "us"? Better us than them, but what kind of world will it be?
I know it kind of sounds like organizing for self-defense now but that will not be how it works later. The only way to stop groups from destroying settlement after settlement is to 'outlaw' war and crush anyone who makes war. You can try to make a 'defense only' organization but as the map expands there will be room for groups that want to rule the world to develop. So are we going to rule the world and attract players who don't want all out world war to build new settlements?
The future of this game is in the hands of those who 'use ' war. To organize without a plan on how, when and why we will use war is to not plan for what is coming. If we start with a world where settlement conquest is banned by our organization , and enforced by going to war against those who make war , the world will grow into what we want, a world at peace. Or do we want to raze each others settlements for fun?
The only way to prevent a military takeover of the world is to outlaw war and crush anyone who goes to war. We can be a world at peace, or a world always at war somewhere . If there were no groups who would come in to take over, we could just let people fight it out as they will. But if it is a real threat then the only way to stop it is to crush anyone who makes war, that's politics.
Quote, Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.
Thomas Jefferson
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To add to the list, about how to prepare for the inevitable.....
Don't be a soft target. Recognize that you have to consider that there is pvp in this game and it can be visited upon you whether you want it or not.
The military will train you to be a mechanic or a lawyer, but everyone starts out as a soldier and has the basic skills to fight and to survive, and more importantly the mindset that you may have to kill or be killed.
If a settlement is made up of too many soft targets, the settlement is a soft target. If you put your RP concept ahead of the game mechanics, understand the pros and cons of that decision.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
T
To counter such behavior (imo) characters must be more valuable (combat-wise and otherwise) for their owners. Both training your character must be compelling and deleting your character must be something you won't do lightly.
Why not to charge $20 (number out of my head) for opening account and getting 1 month training time? Then payment will be $15 per month, after the 1st year it will be 14.... on the 3rd year it will be about $12 (this is EVE subscription cost with 6-months payment plan). Yes, I know this is not the usual “come here to watch now” approach, but if GW...
Good post. The PFO power curve has been described as 3 months to start being effective. If trial accounts (when they are instituted) last a month well there is one problem resolved right there.
I think RD has been pretty adamant about spreading the resources around so it will be very difficult to be self sufficient.