Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I were you, my whole approach now would be to create a community not to set policies. Gather together a large number of people who share common objectives and create a shared sense of purpose.
I want to thank Ryan again for taking the time to write out a very thorough and thoughtful response to my request for advice. Of all the things he said, I think the quote above is what had the most impact on me.
I think a lot of times it's easy to get bogged down trying to set policies : How will this body function? Who will have authority to do that? What actions will trigger this response? etc. I think this is what Ryan was suggesting we shouldn't worry about right now.
So, that leaves the common objectives, the shared sense of purpose.
As many of you already know, The Seventh Veil is deeply committed to principle of Individual Liberty. We want our Members to have the support they need to achieve their own personal goals, and we have a number of very dedicated individuals who are willing to put in a lot of hard work to make sure that happens.
But there's something else that's even more important, and that's defining and defending the standards of behavior that will keep this community from devolving into a toxic wasteland like most other Open PvP games.
The Community will be its own best defense.
... the attitude that causing pain to another person is acceptable won't be tolerated.
What I really want to see happen is that members of the community... will reach out to players who come in with that attitude and help influence them to have a better approach to our community.
Is that principle enough of a foundation to build a community around? Can that be our "shared sense of purpose"?
Some tougher news to hear:
You're probably going to build up some awesome stuff in Early Enrollment, and lose it in Open Enrollment. The first couple of years of this game are going to be like learning to ride a bicycle with training wheels. You may feel like you've mastered things and are operating effectively, but then one day the Big Guilds From Other Games will show up and you'll learn all the things you're doing wrong. The hard way.
Groups that have a strong sense of purpose, and are resilient and able to admit mistakes and move forward without tearing themselves apart at the seams can recover from losses. Some of the largest Alliances in EVE have lost EVERYTHING, and have been able to boostrap with whatever individual members were able to salvage, and return to be a force fairly quickly because they had that kind of resilience.
You're going to get your asses kicked. Your stuff is going to get torn down. People are going to say mean things about you. Even some of your characters may become unplayable. If your group has the ability to pick itself up, dust itself off, and get back in the fight, you'll be stronger for overcoming your setbacks. But if you think you can engineer perfect safety today, and you become brittle behind the belief that you have, you'll risk catastrophic disintegration when you face major setbacks.
So you should be talking about those setbacks in the context of "when", not "if".
Duly noted. I've reassessed my own interests, and what I think are reasonable short-term goals for The Seventh Veil.
If we're fortunate enough to be granted a Settlement during the Land Rush - and there's no guarantee of that for any of us right now, regardless of what the votes look like, because we just don't know about the organizations that never bothered to vote - I want it to have the best chance of surviving. That means we can't afford to be aloof and insular. That means we need to reach out to other like-minded folks who might have enough trust and confidence in our dedication to the game and these principles to make a commitment to helping us.
The Seventh Veil's short-term goal in Early Enrollment is to build a Neutral Settlement.
The Empyrean Order's similar goal is to build a Neutral Good Settlement.
I'd love to see a Lawful Good Settlement and a Chaotic Good Settlement join us in our commitment to this community and these principles. And I'd love to see all of the Chartered Companies who are currently in "wait and see" mode also come out in support of this.
You're going to get your asses kicked. Your stuff is going to get torn down. People are going to say mean things about you.
... you'll learn all the things you're doing wrong. The hard way.
When I first read that, it worried me. Now, it excites me. I want to learn those lessons. I want the opportunity to show my character. And most of all, I want the glory of overcoming those setbacks and succeeding - again and again.
I know I'm a flawed human being. I even know what some of those flaws are :)
But I hope I've proven myself to be dedicated to this community, and to be an honest broker. I'm quick to admit when I'm wrong, and I'll list Guild Recruitment posts and important threads even if the people who make them are at war with me.
I hope you'll seriously consider joining this alliance, and giving the community that has developed here on these forums - which by all accounts is one of the least toxic that most people have ever experienced - an opportunity to establish those same standards of behavior in-game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimom
Great points Sir Nihimon. It will be good for any VC or group, thinking about the future of the large OE influx, to be ready to close ranks and prepare for the content that is coming.
Honestly, I can't see that considering T7V, TEO, or Pax for those alliances will be bad choices on the face of it. They all look like they will be run adequately. I know that Pax Aeternum is and will be. Again, I suggest that anyone get to know the people behind these organizations. Participate on PfOfan teamspeak. Talk to them. Read their posts. Check out their guild sites.
If there is a Big Happenin after OE, the dust will eventually settle. It will be back to business then. Do a little research to make a good choice and minimize heartache/headache.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon, you'll be a very valuable asset to any settlement, it seems particularly in the area of "fresh meat"**! (I joke of course!) ;)
I can't find the quote but what Ryan possibly said about how different layers of social connections work in EVE Online:
1. Player + close friends (perhaps in RL or elsewhere)
2. Player + Guild (perhaps online community with shared history)
3. Player + Corporation (each player has a role in the organization and interacts with a sub-set most closely)
4. Player + Alliances (the highest level of many thousands of players).
It was something like that (can't find where I read that), but perhaps a good picture of how players. I think this might be reflected in:
Player > Party > CC > Settlement > Nation > Alliances (1,000s)
Somewhere in those levels out-of-game guilds from the CC upwards. Goons may very well be right in at Alliance level due to size/history etc *gulp*.
**Oops, may not have been clear: In terms of recruitment, a vital area for settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon,
You know my interest in helping to build a productive community. Also, I've stated several times that I do not intend to belong to any particular settlement other than that of a starter town, so I approach this topic from a different perspective than many posters.
That said, I've read this thread and your replies in other threads when asked about this one. Here is my question - what exactly do you mean "Building a Community"?
I know you plan to create a settlement, that you plan to ally yours with TEO's, but that you have also claimed in another thread that this is not a pitch to create a nation. What is it, then?
Again, you know I'm a very community oriented player (e.g. so far - the Guide Program and the "Playing Extras" initiative), so if this is something that would benefit the entire community, I'd like to get behind it, but I'm still unsure what exactly "it" is.
Thanks in advance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From watching the forum for the past several months, this community seems to act at its best - with shared goals, a sense of belonging, and a wish to see the game succeed - when we are acting as civil human beings. These topics tend to devolve into uncivil speech, and from my perspective they do the opposite of their stated purpose.
I would like to see more crowdforging of the game, and less sniping at each other's perceived flaws.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think a lot of times it's easy to get bogged down trying to set policies : How will this body function? Who will have authority to do that? What actions will trigger this response? etc. I think this is what Ryan was suggesting we shouldn't worry about right now.
Correction, this is what Ryan told us not to worry about, during EE:
Worrying about alignments, reputation, and security policies is not going to have much effect on your long term success at this juncture. Those are things that are still going to undergo a tremendous amount of crowdforging and will almost certainly change many times in Early Enrollment as we all seek good compromisesThe problem with your vision of supposed community building is that it is based on your vision, but you portrait it as if it has some kind of consensus and or it is what the Devs support.
Your plans, and that includes the TEO kingdom, gives no support towards the evil or in most cases the chaotic alignments, and yet you claim this to be community building.
I'm not saying that TSV and TEO cant develope your kingdom / settlement however you wish. What you can't do, without being challenged, is take ownership of representing the broader "community" standards, norms, views, beliefs or policies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I see it ,only a commitment to building a world at peace will give us the sense of purpose to unite and defeat an invasion of destroyers. All you mention is being polite and learning from watching our settlements be destroyed. If we fight each other how can we unite when we need to? The goon swarm will not fight amongst themselves , they are united in that way, that is what we need to learn to do. Our armies can train by having war games with each other. Is your alliance for defense only or conquest? It can't be for both. I would rather have a mean and rude neighbor who doesn't burn my house down than a polite one who does.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All you mention is being polite and learning from watching our settlements be destroyed.Who is this statement aimed at?
That would be @Nihimon, in this thread he talks about not having a toxic community and in another thread he only mentions rude type speech as an example of toxic, but conquest or burning down settlements is ok with him as I read it. The part about learning from watching all our settlements burn down is in the OP. I see any kingdom bent on conquest and destruction as toxic to the community. People that let other settlements exist are building a healthy player community. You can still go to war and teach them a lesson or two.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would be @Nihimon, in this thread he talks about not having a toxic community and in another thread he only mentions rude type speech as an example of toxic, but conquest or burning down settlements is ok with him as I read it. The part about learning from watching all our settlements burn down is in the OP. I see any kingdom bent on conquest and destruction as toxic to the community. People that let other settlements exist are building a healthy player community. You can still go to war and teach them a lesson or two.All you mention is being polite and learning from watching our settlements be destroyed.Who is this statement aimed at?
Ah, I misread you, sir; thanks for that; I should know better than to type when tired!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All you mention is being polite and learning from watching our settlements be destroyed.Who is this statement aimed at?I'm assuming me.
That was not at you.I'm all for being civil and polite, as you talked about, but it won't stop an invasion of settlement destroyers. I don't think it is civil to conquer your neighbors settlement even if you say have a nice day afterward. People will stay mad at each other if our characters destroy what others build.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That was not at you.I'm all for being civil and polite, as you talked about, but it won't stop an invasion of settlement destroyers. I don't think it is civil to conquer your neighbors settlement even if you say have a nice day afterward. People will stay mad at each other if our characters destroy what others build.
Careful, that talk will get you "This isn't the game for you."'d.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That was not at you.I'm all for being civil and polite, as you talked about, but it won't stop an invasion of settlement destroyers. I don't think it is civil to conquer your neighbors settlement even if you say have a nice day afterward. People will stay mad at each other if our characters destroy what others build.
Based on the activities encouraged by the game, it is not uncivil to burn your competition's settlement down, but when you do burn it down, you don't call them a bunch of losers and laugh in their faces. Humiliating them after killing them would be uncivil.
It is simply competition. Is it uncivil for one football team to beat its opponent in the game? Of course not. Settlement vs. Settlement is the most hoped for form of PvP in PFO, according to the Developers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see any kingdom bent on conquest and destruction as toxic to the community. People that let other settlements exist are building a healthy player community. You can still go to war and teach them a lesson or two.
That is the issue that we run into. Conquest if you are lawful evil can be viewed as a legitimate playstyle... completely fair game.
Destruction is right up Chaotic Evil's alley... again like Lawful Evil if they choose to play that way.
I am not saying all LE and CE will strive to do this... I'm simply saying in my eyes, if they do go for conquest and destruction... they are not doing anything wrong.
We need to go to war. We need to be destroyed. We need to learn to start from scratch. Those are the tough lessons that we need to learn. Practice makes perfect and hopefully we won't need too much practice to close the gap on perfect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was not at you.I'm all for being civil and polite, as you talked about, but it won't stop an invasion of settlement destroyers. I don't think it is civil to conquer your neighbors settlement even if you say have a nice day afterward. People will stay mad at each other if our characters destroy what others build.Based on the activities encouraged by the game, it is not uncivil to burn your competition's settlement down, but when you do burn it down, you don't call them a bunch of losers and laugh in their faces. Humiliating them after killing them would be uncivil.
It is simply competition. Is it uncivil for one football team to beat its opponent in the game? Of course not. Settlement vs. Settlement is the most hoped for form of PvP in PFO, according to the Developers.
You just want to argue ,don't you? bad idea....
The 'game' does not encourage conquest , 'you' do.
If it is civil to burn down one settlement then it is civil to burn them all down, one at a time of course, goonswarm policy?
You don't care what people do to you but only what they say afterwards ? It doesn't work that way in a game or in RL.
A war simulation has to be compared to real war , a sport can only be compared to a sports simulation , unless being close to the truth doesn't matter.
I believe it was the development of player unit combat that the Devs are excited about not that they drool over the idea of watching our settlements go up in flames.
/arguing off
I would rather hear your ideas about how the community can prepare for a mega invasion in the future than listen to you prove I am wrong about a subjective idea(what is civil).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see any kingdom bent on conquest and destruction as toxic to the community. People that let other settlements exist are building a healthy player community. You can still go to war and teach them a lesson or two.That is the issue that we run into. Conquest if you are lawful evil can be viewed as a legitimate playstyle... completely fair game.
Destruction is right up Chaotic Evil's alley... again like Lawful Evil if they choose to play that way.
I am not saying all LE and CE will strive to do this... I'm simply saying in my eyes, if they do go for conquest and destruction... they are not doing anything wrong.
We need to go to war. We need to be destroyed. We need to learn to start from scratch. Those are the tough lessons that we need to learn. Practice makes perfect and hopefully we won't need too much practice to close the gap on perfect.
My statement is based on the 'fear' of an overwhelming outside invasion at some point in the future. My ideas about community are based on preparing for that ,at the expense of being able to play the game like you say . I wish we could just play the game the way you talk about, but we will all be easy pickins if there is a huge organized invasion. Should we just prepare by being ready to lose it all? If that is the plan I will shut-up. Uniting all the kingdoms armies by agreeing not to conquer each other and training thru war games seems like it should work , but those who don't mind losing it all can fight it out from day one. Those who want security will look for a huge defensive alliance.
We just need something big enough to stop the biggest invading guild , not the entire world declared a conquest free zone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
***POD***
Short of all of us banding together in a happy little (or humongous) group and practicing until they get here, what preparation is there?
In the US Army we have a saying. Train as you fight. The best way to train for war is to replicate those conditions. Do you think the "wolves" won't burn your settlements to the ground? I bet they will. Already knowing how to start from scratch will be very useful then... but in order to do that, you have to get burnt to the ground first.
The point is, our community will be nice enough to let you pick up the pieces and learn from it. The "wolves" will probably rub salt in the wound until you walk away from the game.
In EE, feelings are going to get hurt. But as a community, we are each others content. We don't want to chase anyone away from the game. That's the difference between us and the so called "wolves". There is no way to prepare for an onslaught unless we test the systems they put in place, learn them, and get taught those hard lessons. Take what we learned, and when this supposed invasion happens, apply it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Areks, I would agree that there is time to do what you say and fight it out but someday we have to be able to unite as one military. I assume that there will be in game diplomacy tools at some point so we can form a defensive alliance when we need to, EE is 18 months long I think, so we don't have to do anything for a long time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
?If it is civil to burn down one settlement then it is civil to burn them all down, one at a time of course, goonswarm policy?
Short answer is "no". It is not uncivil for a group to look to conquer other settlements in a game that has as a feature settlement construction, control and conquest. Unless a group is using hacks to achieve some advantage, losing due to being outnumbered falls within the realm of fairness.
If this community wants to prevent one group from dominating the entire map, they will either have to resist that force with their own force or seek allies to create a larger force of their own.
Like Areks, I served in the military. In the U.S. Army, you could be trained in many different MOSs, but everyone has the same basic soldiering skills.
Here in PFO every character should be trained in basic survival and combat skills. If and when that invading army comes, they have at least minimal skill to resist.
To answer your central question, how does this community prepare for the invasion?
My answer is to be prepared to pick up arms and defend what you own. If you have allies, help defend what they own. You will win some fights, you will lose others. That is the nature of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is civil for one settlement to burn down all of the other ones.
This game is about competition. Its about aquiring rare resources (settlements) and reaping the benefits of them.
So is it civil for one group of people to take over yes.
However for that to happen either 1) there was some bad game design that allowed it or 2) Everyone else sucks.
I also dont think that taking over a settlement will be something that is done quickly (unless they have a spy who can hand it over) or easily.
I would imagine that taking over a settlement will require:
1) Disrupting their ability to equip their players. This can be done three ways. Destroy their ability to gather raw materials, disrupt lines of supply to/from other settlements, or both of those at the same time.
2) Being able to keep your players equiped with gear so that they can keep fighting. This means not allowing the defending settlement to do the above to you.
3) A large number of players attacking the other settlment (seiges) and/or players.
4) Preventing that settlement's allies from taking action somehow and helping. This could be through diplomacy or force (if you help them you are next)
5) Ability to cordinate large amount of players WITHOUT having your plans leak. You know there are going to be spys all over the place.
it should be a huge undertaking to take over another settlement. It should not be something where one day you go "hey lets take that guy over without planning".
I hope taking over a settlement is a lengthy process a month or more in game of effort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
I also dont think that taking over a settlement will be something that is done quickly (unless they have a spy who can hand it over) or easily...
Well, that brings up an issue.
History is replete with traitors and infiltrators who threw open the gates of the walled city letting the horde in to sack and pillage.
Should it be possible for a lone agent to run an 'inside job' and allow an invader to bypass fortifications?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Should it be possible for a lone agent to run an 'inside job' and allow an invader to bypass fortifications?
According to Ryan, No it shouldn't
Alliance dissolution is another. There is zero chance I'd tolerate the kind of shenanigans that allowed one person to disband Band of Brothers and Goonswarm's Alliances; partly those happened because the tools provided to players to manage those Alliances are incredibly hard to use, partly because there's no check or balance system in place to ensure that one person can't screw thousands, and mostly because CCP as a policy wouldn't step in and fix the damage done by one rogue individual. Hopefully we can fix the first and second problems by better design and never have to deal with the third, but if we did, I would not sit back and say "should've been more careful, yo!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) Disrupting their ability to equip their players.
They can also disrupt our ability to equip ourselves *with* players, by making things unpleasant enough folks stop playing. This doesn't need to include anything even close to griefing; it can be the erosion of a feeling of "accomplishment" through banditry, raids, ambushes, and such.
Add in the occasional razing of a small settlement, and some players, those who may not be attracted to joining a large settlement, or who can't afford the time it takes to play differently, might quietly take their money and go play something else.
That's a very meta-game method of conquest, but it's well within the portfolio of some of the groups Ryan and others have used as examples.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
I also dont think that taking over a settlement will be something that is done quickly (unless they have a spy who can hand it over) or easily...Well, that brings up an issue.
History is replete with traitors and infiltrators who threw open the gates of the walled city letting the horde in to sack and pillage.
Should it be possible for a lone agent to run an 'inside job' and allow an invader to bypass fortifications?
I think the formation combat is one place a traitor would have some impact. The impression I get (from GW blogs and from EVE) is that the leader has the big skill investment, subleaders much less, and the bulk of troopers would need next to no time invested, to participate.
I suggest all companies/settlements avoid letting 1 or 2 people be the only ones with the skills to command their formations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
I also dont think that taking over a settlement will be something that is done quickly (unless they have a spy who can hand it over) or easily...Well, that brings up an issue.
History is replete with traitors and infiltrators who threw open the gates of the walled city letting the horde in to sack and pillage.
Should it be possible for a lone agent to run an 'inside job' and allow an invader to bypass fortifications?
I'd say yes. If one bozo can crank open the city gates and let in a force strong enough (presumably camped outside the walls?) to take over then perhaps some community managers should be fired. Or at least written up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is civil for one settlement to burn down all of the other ones.
This game is about competition. Its about aquiring rare resources (settlements) and reaping the benefits of them.
So is it civil for one group of people to take over yes.
However for that to happen either 1) there was some bad game design that allowed it or 2) Everyone else sucks.
I also dont think that taking over a settlement will be something that is done quickly (unless they have a spy who can hand it over) or easily.
I would imagine that taking over a settlement will require:
First, your two enumerated points are not necessarily true.
The game design can allow for settlement conquest, and be a good game design. That can remain true even if one power takes over the whole world. It is not in the design that that situation has failed, but the response could affect the perception. If one power conquers the 15 EE settlements, GW can do several things to create a new possibility.
1. Expand the playing field, adding in more settlement hexes and hope the power will over extend.
2. Increase the training capacity of the NPC settlements, which will allow those players to launch a more powerful attack to retake some if the settlements lost.
3. Change the resource nodes and let temporary attrition weaken a settlement or two, giving others a chance to retake it.
4. Leave it be and let the player base figure it out themselves
Your guess that settlement conquest is no simple task is correct. It was best described in the Dev Blog and in a Gobbocast Podcast #9 I believe.
Back to the point if this thread. Thus is his to prepare in my opinion:
1. Know that you have to prepare for settlement conflict
2. Make sure that all of your characters have at least minimal survival / combat skills to at least last long enough to create a delay of the enemy's advance.
3. When creating a settlement or a nation, concern yourself more about leadership, growth and sustainability and less about alignment, reputation or policies. Ryan suggests that alignment and reputation will go through many changes, and should not be part if your long term thinking, especially during EE.
4. Expect that some EE settlements may fall, soon after OE, and it maybe yours. Plan ahead for that possibility and think, what do we do as a community if we are back in the NPC settlement? How do we bounce back? What should we do differently?
5. A player nation should provide for all aspects of the game. If a nation is not self sufficient, and that includes having training for all aligned "classes", then it will either do without those abilities or will have to be dependent on others for them. That us a weak position to be in.
Example: an all good / neutral aligned nation has no access to its own corps of assassins, and they play a significant and unique role in warfare.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is my question - what exactly do you mean "Building a Community"?
If I were you, my whole approach now would be to create a community not to set policies. Gather together a large number of people who share common objectives and create a shared sense of purpose....
But there's something else that's even more important, and that's defining and defending the standards of behavior that will keep this community from devolving into a toxic wasteland like most other Open PvP games.
...
Is that principle enough of a foundation to build a community around? Can that be our "shared sense of purpose"?...
I hope you'll seriously consider joining this alliance, and giving the community that has developed here on these forums - which by all accounts is one of the least toxic that most people have ever experienced - an opportunity to establish those same standards of behavior in-game.
Was my intent not clear?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My argument is that the past decade of history gives us the context we need to see how to avoid the problems that cause sandboxes to degenerate. And the NUMBER ONE thing is to build and nurture a culture in the community that is intolerant of a!~++!@s.
This leads to a very simple question.
What will it look like when "the community" is "intolerant of a@$&!*#s"?
I mentioned Sheep Dogs a while back. I guess some people thought that was funny. But the thing about Sheep Dogs is that, to Sheep*, they look like Wolves. They've got big scary teeth, and it's even scarier to see them using those teeth. But Sheep Dogs never attack the Sheep*.
So, again, what is it going to look like to be intolerant of a%*&#!#s?
I think it's going to look an awful lot like a Sheep Dog and a Wolf fighting, and it may be quite scary, especially if you're not good at telling the difference between a Sheep Dog and a Wolf.
* - Please don't pretend I'm saying that everyone who isn't a Sheep Dog or a Wolf is a "sheep". It's a metaphor. The only trait about Sheep that I'm attributing to any of the people on these forums is that they're "gentle souls", who would prefer not to see any fighting at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is my question - what exactly do you mean "Building a Community"?
Was my intent not clear?
I believe he wants further clarification of what you believe the end result of your effort to look like. Is the end result a kingdom? A meta-alliance? A treaty?
How exactly are you hoping to achieve your efforts?
When I read the OP is was asking myself the same thing... I kind of get what you are looking for but it's not terribly clear, if you get my meaning.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Areks
I think the essential question to ask of the OP is:
What does the ideal community look like according to your vision?
If that ideal includes considerations of alignment, what alignments are included or excluded from this ideal?
If reputation is to be considered, and reputation is in the range of - 7500 to + 7500, what range or average is considered ideal.
Is there a difference of affiliation, PC Settlement vs NPC Settlement, considered as part of the ideal.
Are any of the "Class" archtypes weighted higher or lower within the ideal?
Is there a dustinction made between KS1, KS2, EE or OE within this ideal?
Is this vision based on the desire to create one community as a giant cooperative, until OE, or is it to be 15 distinct settlements,a kningdom or two, or multiple kingdoms with few if any individual settlements?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only ambiguity I see is whether Ryan was suggesting for us to try "collectively" building a single community or to pool together as many like minded individuals into as few sub-communities as possible...each based entirely upon "common objectives and a shared sense of purpose."
I actually think he was advocating the latter. If not, I think heuristic pragmatism does.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Areks and @Bluddwolf, I'm not interested in trying to describe the "end result" or the "ideal community".
As I tried to make clear, repeatedly, my purpose is to rally the community around a principle - namely, to treat new posters with civility and respect, even if they start out by talking about their decision not to engage in PvP.
I have no idea what's going to happen after that, and I don't really care right now, because right now there's a battle going on for the soul of the community. I want the side that's "intolerant of a@$~%&%s" to win, because if we don't, it's going to suck.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only ambiguity I see is whether Ryan was suggesting for us to try "collectively" building a single community or to pool together as many like minded individuals into as few sub-communities as possible...each based entirely upon "common objectives and a shared sense of purpose."
I actually think he was advocating the latter. If not, I think heuristic pragmatism does.
So if two or three nations / kingdoms formed, the nation that is the most open to multiple alignments, reputation ranges, archtype classes, and the use if the various long term PvP flags will device the larger segment of the population and be better prepared to defend itself and its interests.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I tried to make clear, repeatedly, my purpose is to rally the community around a principle - namely, to treat new posters with civility and respect, even if they start out by talking about their decision not to engage in PvP.
I think I personally can get behind that. I don't think I've ever started bashing someone right out the gate.
I don't agree with people who think their will be a way to be complete free of PvP, but I don't ever recall bashing anyone for it. If I have I apologize, and while not in agreeance, I respect their right to that opinion.
New blood within the community is just about always good. I'm with you on this one Nihimon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So if two or three nations / kingdoms formed, the nation that is the most open to multiple alignments, reputation ranges, archtype classes, and the use if the various long term PvP flags will device the larger segment of the population and be better prepared to defend itself and its interests.The only ambiguity I see is whether Ryan was suggesting for us to try "collectively" building a single community or to pool together as many like minded individuals into as few sub-communities as possible...each based entirely upon "common objectives and a shared sense of purpose."
I actually think he was advocating the latter. If not, I think heuristic pragmatism does.
Only if you think size is all that matters in development and defense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I tried to make clear, repeatedly, my purpose is to rally the community around a principle - namely, to treat new posters with civility and respect, even if they start out by talking about their decision not to engage in PvP.
I think I personally can get behind that. I don't think I've ever started bashing someone right out the gate.
I don't agree with people who think their will be a way to be complete free of PvP, but I don't ever recall bashing anyone for it. If I have I apologize, and while not in agreeance, I respect their right to that opinion.
New blood within the community is just about always good. I'm with you on this one Nihimon.
I will also personally agree to the proposition as presented. Consider it signed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The community I would like to see is one based on two things: commitment to maintaining an atmosphere in the game and on the forums that makes people feel that they are welcome to participate, and a willingness from the individuals in the community to work together, despite their in-game and out-of-game differences, to eliminate any threats to the desired atmosphere.
In-game this could mean participating in activities such as forming up to curb-stomp disruptive forces, blockading the disruptive elements, boycotting goods supplied from those elements, or hunting down disruptive individuals. Out-of-game it's a bit more difficult but it boils down to 'Don't feed the trolls'. Diplomacy, tact, and communication are they key points here.
Race, role, class, settlement affiliation, alignment, history, reputation, etc should all be moot points in such an endeavor. This is an out-of-game community, a 'meta community', not anything that can be defined in game terms.
'Disruptive' is a bit of a nebulous term, I know. Much like 'griefing', many people will have as many opinions as to what it is. Communicate. Talk to people, voice your concerns, and see if there is a way to address it diplomatically. Be willing to help others see your point of view, but also be willing to see theirs. Generally if someone is purposefully being disruptive, if their goal is to ruin the game, it will quickly become obvious through conversation. At that point the beatings may commence.
I have no idea what's going to happen after that, and I don't really care right now, because right now there's a battle going on for the soul of the community. I want the side that's "intolerant of a+#%&*+s" to win, because if we don't, it's going to suck.
I look around the forums and I don't see anyone saying they are going to be tolerant of a+#%&*+s" as you put it. Could you identify these forces so we can battle against them?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon,
I replied to your question "Was my intent not clear?" but since I reread and tweak and reconsider wording before posting, the actual discussion had totally changed gears by the time I posted...so I've deleted it.
I will say that I took your OP to be talking about in-game community building, in-game standards of behavior, and in-game objectives. I did not read (though I'm always willing to admit I might have missed) anything in your OP to make it clear that this initiative was only, at this point, aimed at improving the treatment of new posters.
With that reading in mind, you may now understand why I desired clarification.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Am I wrong in thinking you're proposing the creation of the latter - a community within the community?
I would be most gratified if the entire community embraced these principles.
I've asked two questions in this thread that I think are very important. I would very much appreciate any response to these:
Is that principle enough of a foundation to build a community around? Can that be our "shared sense of purpose"?
What will it look like when "the community" is "intolerant of a@!$$@&s"?
*************************************
What are these objectives...?
What behaviors make up this standard and what behaviors are not accepted?
I tried to make clear at the beginning of my post that I was not going to get drawn into those kinds of questions, and why.
I think a lot of times it's easy to get bogged down trying to set policies : How will this body function? Who will have authority to do that? What actions will trigger this response? etc. I think this is what Ryan was suggesting we shouldn't worry about right now.
But if you absolutely must have some examples of what's not acceptable...
... you are best served to continue your search elsewhere.
People will be killed in the wilderness, and have no reason why... There may be a reason, it may be: "Can I do it?" Guess what, thats reason enough; so get over it.
PFO is not for you!!!
Nihimon, people like Realmwalker cannot handle it when they lose in combat.
Most people, and yeah I named someone and shouldnt have, will throw hissy fits and quit games when they lose one thing.
And yeah, Bluddwolf has a decent argument to make that he wasn't really being rude, but he used a single quote to justify his insistence that he was right in telling Realmwaker to take a hike.
Here's Bluddwolf's favorite quote:
Unless there is a way to flag or unflag PVP or at least set up "no PVP" servers then it is a deal breaker to me.
And here's the rest of the quote that immediately followed that:
Not every one enjoys PVP and most of the time I have played in mmo's that included it there were always griefers out there that kill players just for the sake of killing them, no matter what the level difference, no matter if it gained them nothing. Most of the time these types of players ruin the fun I have when in a mmo.
It's blindingly clear to anyone who was more interested in engaging a new poster than in telling him to get lost that there was a real opening for Realmwalker to be persuaded that PvP in PFO wouldn't be like the other games he referenced.
So yeah, I count Bluddwolf telling Realmwalker to continue his search elsewhere as unacceptable behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So if two or three nations / kingdoms formed, the nation that is the most open to multiple alignments, reputation ranges, archtype classes, and the use if the various long term PvP flags will attract a larger segment of the population and be better prepared to defend itself and its interests.Only if you think size is all that matters in development and defense.
Not just size, but versatility of alignment based skills, long term PvP flags, a greater mix of PvE and PvP focused players, etc.
As I mentioned earlier, if a nation has no access to its own assassins it will be at a great disadvantage in warfare versus a nation that does.
... I don't see anyone saying they are going to be tolerant of a+#%&*+s"...Sorry you missed it. It was pretty obvious a while back, and the repercussions are still being felt.
Well I have read pretty much every post on the forum and you are the master of quotes, maybe I missed this malign force. Care to name some? or provide a quote?