Goblin Squad Member
|
Keep in mind that we are the first ones to state that we will deal with bandits openly and guarantee your safety from them.That's more than a little disingenuous, Areks. You are only guaranteeing safety in your own lands when blue or on your own terms, ie those who are trading directly with PAX. You are also making it proportionately more dangerous for those who are not trading with PAX (whether permanently or just on this one deal).
Not only are you removing targets which the bandits of UNC might go after by guaranteeing this safe passage if on PAX business, thereby reducing the pool from which they choose their victims and thus raising the odds of being hit, you are also going to be training those bandits to boot. What you are effectively doing is saying trade with us or get hit. Oh and get hit all the harder because we've helped the bandits. This also means you have to make it public, or it won't work as a carrot and stick approach (people cannot be both reassured and frightened by something they don't know about), so I'm afraid I'll take your protestations of honesty as window dressing. Now, I am not complaining, because I think it's an interesting take on trying to establish market supremacy from the get go and it will be informative to see how it pans out through EE and into OE. It might work, it might not.
It is essentially armed coercion - trade with us or else. PAX has every right to take that line, as does the UNC. I think it will be beneficial for both companies - it will certainly be beneficial for PfO as it is already generating "player content". But it won't truly be beneficial for Bob from the Green Hat Trading Company; it attempts to curtail his markets and threatens to punish him if he decides to trade elsewhere. However many declarations of honesty and/or protection under very specific circumstances you make, you can't get around that fact.
I definitely see how you could come to the conclusions that you have Lhan. I respect that.
Forgive me if I disagree that I am saying, "Trade with us or else." That is clearly not our message. Our message is most definitely, "Trade with us and don't have to worry about UNC coming after you."
You still have the Bloody Hand to worry about. That is just who we know about. UNC is arguably the most prominent bandit organization out there. As an organization we could either:
1. Have our in house mercs charge for protection, or try and recruit another merc organization (which may still happen anyway) to defend those that do business with us. This is more cost expenditure for OUR customers. Anyone elses customers is really none of our concern.
2. Work a deal with a bandit organization that way our mercs have one less target to keep their eye on if they are hired out. Customers will not have to feel so inclined to buy protection, because the UNC is not something they have to worry about. The fact is the customers of Callambea are less likely to get attacked by bandits if a percentage of those bandits are governed by Callambean Law and their interests are tied to Callambea's success. That fact cannot be refuted.
All trading hubs should be doing everything they can to ensure they are as safe as possible for their customers to encourage a health economy. You are naive to think that deals will not be brokered between trade settlements and bandits. Armed Coercion is a far stretch from what our intentions are. Personally, Callambea unless conducting business with Bob does not find it is their business what Bob is doing unless Bob is smuggling our goods or working for our enemies.
We do what we do so Callambea can be as successful as possible and ANYONE who wants to frequent her can do so with the knowledge that they are that much safer. Is it self-interest? Yes. We do not and will never deny that, but it is also in the interest of our customers, who we do care a great deal about as they are key to our success!
Unless anyone else wants to foot the bill for keeping the doors of Callambea open, we will do what we can to ensure the safety of those that do pay the bills, our customers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think something a lot of you guys are failing to see if the very obvious.
UNC wants to work with Pax, and thus Callambea.
If UNC is popping every merchant *not* doing business with Pax, at the moment, that just happens to just just outside, or within a reasonable distance of Callambea, that's bad for business.
That's bad for Pax *and* UNC. For merchants *not* doing business with Pax, but in the general vicinity of Pax held hexes, I wouldn't stress too much about UNC.
We want folks coming to our city to trade, to have our ally running off the potential merchants we may not even know about, yet, is bad for business.
Not saying it won't happen, it may on occasion, but how is killing every merchant in the vicinity of Callambea, or other Pax cities, good for business? It won't be. You guys all have very valid concerns, but please, keep in mind, we *want* people to go to our cities to trade, UNC *wants* Callambea to be successful (for their own self interest), and Pax *wants* people to feel like they can come to our city to trade.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Safer for whom, Xeen?
It's safer for those who choose or are forced to trade with PAX, even though they might get a better price elsewhere. I don't need to refute Areks' bolded point above (which I can't, as he is correct in what he says) for that to be the case. Unfortunately for him, his point does not refute mine made above either.
It's also safer for you, which means you have a safe haven from which to raid the rest of the River Kingdoms. Are PAX guards going to protect you the moment you enter their territory, even if you are being chased by those that you have raided? I suspect they will.
With respect, you'll both have to forgive me for disagreeing with your conclusion as to what message I am receiving, even if it isn't the one you want to give out. As I said, it's a good move for both of you, but trying to dress it up as good for the rest of us is stretching things more than just a bit. It's pure self-interest, as Areks himself has said (and I respect him for saying it). Trying to present it as beneficial for others in all but a case by case incidental way is all smoke and mirrors.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Safer for whom, Xeen?
It's safer for those who choose or are forced to trade with PAX, even though they might get a better price elsewhere. I don't need to refute Areks' bolded point above (which I can't, as he is correct in what he says) for that to be the case. Unfortunately for him, his point does not refute mine made above either.
It's also safer for you, which means you have a safe haven from which to raid the rest of the River Kingdoms. Are PAX guards going to protect you the moment you enter their territory, even if you are being chased by those that you have raided? I suspect they will.
With respect, you'll both have to forgive me for disagreeing with your conclusion as to what message I am receiving, even if it isn't the one you want to give out. As I said, it's a good move for both of you, but trying to dress it up as good for the rest of us is stretching things more than just a bit. It's pure self-interest, as Areks himself has said (and I respect him for saying it). Trying to present it as beneficial for others in all but a case by case incidental way is all smoke and mirrors.
I see your logic, but disagree with. See my last post. Running merchants away from Callambea is bad for business. If Callambea isn't having merchants come in, we can't grow, if we can't grow, UNC gets no training, so on and so forth.
While we can only enforce laws inside our own hexes, I would think the hexes immediately in the vicinity of Pax hexes, for a reasonable distance, will be relatively safe from UNC bandits. I say relatively, because we can't dictate what they can and can't do, but again, if UNC is hurting the bottom line by running off potential business in the region where Callambea is, then that's not good for Pax *or* UNC.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Lhan,
Maybe I can try to explain the nature of the relationship from my perspective, and I hope it clears a few things up.
Honesty First....
I want the UNC to be the best damned bandits (and assassins) in all of the River Kingdoms. I want us to be the best trained, the most experienced and the most successful. If I didn't want that, WTF did I turn my computer on for?
I'm not even going to venture a guess, Pax Aeternum, wants the best trading settlement in all of the River Kingdoms. If they didn't..... well you know how this sentence ends.
I know you understand this, and I would put money on it that you agree. It is at the core of any competitive venture, and PFO is certainly an example of that (or at least they seem to be developing it that way).
Now to address some of your points:
"It's safer for those who choose or are forced to trade with PAX, even though they might get a better price elsewhere"
They are safer from UNC, but not from anyone else, least of all their rivals who may use or hire their own bandits. Even my occasional arrogance can not contemplate the possibility that the UNC will have under our banner, every bandit in the kingdoms.
"It's also safer for you, which means you have a safe haven from which to raid the rest of the River Kingdoms. Are PAX guards going to protect you the moment you enter their territory, even if you are being chased by those that you have raided? I suspect they will."{/quote]
I would certainly expect this to be the case. I'm not sure why this would be a surprise, especially if we are directing our efforts against a rival power.
But, even if we are freelancing our own targets out in the wilderness or raiding targets of opportunity elsewhere, should this come as a surprise?
I have stated in another tread, that we intend to have very few persons in our "Bad or Red Standing". Most would be in a "Neutral or Grey Standing", and as of now just Pax Aeternum will be in our "Good or Blue Standing."
Neutrals or Greys will almost always be SAD'd first. If our offer is accepted, it was reasonable. If it was not, one of us was unreasonable, and the coins will fall where they may.
"The Goodfellow" had stated it in the past, frequently, and most accurately. We will not deplete our resource (merchants) to the point of starvation. That is not good for our business, it is short sighted, and is quite honestly an example of "Chaotic Stupid."
On less frequent occasions we will forego the SAD offer, and just ambush a target. There will be a variety of reasons that we do this, and I won't discuss them further here. The primary motive will always be, "The Coin".
The alliance is as simple as mutual support to achieve both self interest and mutual interests. Nothing more complex than that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
People can choose not to agree with our line of thought, but the premise that we will attack any merchant not doing business with us is completely counter intuitive to what we are trying to accomplish. I say we, as in Pax *AND* UNC. Callambea being successful is key to Pax and UNC. As I have said multiple times before... mutually beneficial cannot be understated. If we aren't getting business, and I'll go so far as to say, being one of the most successful Trade Hubs in the River Kingdoms, then it's not worth it, but we plan on making it work and making it worth it, not only for ourselves but for our customers as well, that you can rest assured.[/b]
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bludd
They are safer from UNC, but not from anyone else
That's a total irrelevance. They were not safe from those bandits in the first place. And in fact, I believe you said this upthread:
If you prearrange your delivery to a Pax settlement, the UnNamed Company will even provide the service of warding off any other bandits and or escorting you to your destination, for a fee.
which would seem to imply that they will in fact be safer.
@Sennajin
Running merchants away from Callambea is bad for business. If Callambea isn't having merchants come in, we can't grow, if we can't grow, UNC gets no training, so on and so forth.
That's not what I have said. You are essentially running merchants away from other hubs of trade, not Callambea. Of course you want the area around your own hub to be safe. But by providing the UNC a haven you are effectively making other centres less so, which in turn is a form of strong arm tactic to make merchants use your market.
I'll say it again, even bold it, so nobody misunderstands what I am saying: I do not think there is anything wrong with what you are doing. I do, however, violently disagree with the spin that is being put on it.
@Areks
While I understand what you are saying, I respectfully disagree with your line of argument. For Callambea to be successful, you do not need to worry about other trade hubs (nor should you). What you do need to worry about is the best throughput you can manage on your market. While everything you say is 100% true if I desire to trade with you, the 100% converse is true if I do not. I am sure you have your customers' best interests at heart, but as I have said multiple times before not everyone wants to be your standing customer and being browbeaten into it by the threat of the UNC* does not endear me to your system of persuasion. I would rather pick and choose where I trade based on the prevailing conditions. Many may feel the same way, or maybe they won't. I wish you all the best with it - I just won't allow you to tell me that you are doing it for my benefit without registering my dissent.
*the argument that other bandits will still prey on PAX customers is an irrelevance. First, UNC have already offered to SAD and/or escort (again, for a fee), and second, that is a less focused threat. A focused threat, even if aimed at such a disparate group as non-PAX affiliated merchants, is always worse than a random one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would imagine this is where Bludd's rule of "you only have the right to keep what you are able to defend" comes in. Similar as a trader that is not able to fight of an ambush or SAD and does not get to keep his goods a settlement that is not able to compete with Callambea is how good or save trade is does not get to keep the merchants.
PS: The above is absolutely not my personal opinion just the way I imagine the thinking behind it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are supporting bandits - it's the equivalent (with a little hyperbole added) of state sponsored terrorism. That's browbeating in my book.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thank you for keeping this discussion civil - it's always good when we have an exchange of opinions that doesn't end in agreement to see that it doesn't end in recriminations either. I've made my point, and I won't clutter up your thread any longer.
Respectfully,
Lhan
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Lhan
Ironically, you are having the same reaction that I have, when you speak of "spin" and I speak of "labeling".
I hope my typo resulting in the wrong shadow of the quote above did not confuse what I wrote.
Let me ask you, If there are three Pizzerias in a town, do they not compete in an attempt to attract all of the business to themselves?
Of course they do, and I can see you recognize that. But, even if one of them has the last place quality pizza of the three, it will still have loyal customers.
On the issue of "state sponsorship", do you believe Pax Aeternum is the only company / settlement that will hire bandits, not to attack their caravans but turn a blind eye when they attack the caravans of their rivals?
@ Papaver,
I understand you may not agree with the thinking behind it, but I'm glad you understand it.
As far as I am an RP'er, I like to find justification for things (where I can) in the Lore of the setting. The above agreement falls within the boundaries of two of the six River Freedoms.
Whereas, settlement leaders (ie. Kings) are not to block or tax the roads, they can hire bandits to do it for them.
And of course, To Have What You Hold, is the other River Freedom that you understand, but don't agree with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm going to refer to it as Bludd's rule as he is the only one on thees forums who uses it to justify a stance.
This is an incorrect way to look at it. My stance is not my creation, it is an adherence to the published River Freedoms, which are influencing PFO's development. In the interview with the Devs on Gobbocast, Rich Baker I believe was the one who mentioned that the River Freedoms were in their (his) mind when designing the culturally impacting interactions of the game.
The River Freedoms are predominantly reflective of the Chaotic Neutral population (including the "Kings") of the River Kingdoms.
I have recently been asking the question: If a law is Chaotic Neutral by its nature, then is enforcing it Lawful or Chaotic?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to refer to it as Bludd's rule as he is the only one on thees forums who uses it to justify a stance.
Hardly, he is simply the most vocal. I will happily say that I believe that in any PvP environment (Which we seem to be moving towards), a person should only have access to resources that they are capable of defending. That is how economies work. Especially particularly anarchistic economies like those present in online video games.
I won't even try and rationalise it via the in game lore. It is a built in feature of capitalism. Aggressive economics occur constantly even in modern society, it is just tempered by a few rules and laws that hides it behind a façade of decency.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are supporting bandits - it's the equivalent (with a little hyperbole added) of state sponsored terrorism. That's browbeating in my book.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thank you for keeping this discussion civil - it's always good when we have an exchange of opinions that doesn't end in agreement to see that it doesn't end in recriminations either. I've made my point, and I won't clutter up your thread any longer.
Respectfully,
Lhan
I just want to stop here and heartily thank you for the above sentiment. I completely agree that it is well past the time when respectful disagreement is more beneficial than generating ill will. We will have plenty of time in game to foster the latter.
I also agree that there can not be any dressing up that we now deal with bandits. We accept the benefits of such an arrangement, and we suffer the consequences of doing the same. While our stances might disagree on how the game environment is likely to look like in the future that fact is inescapable.
On the other points, like you have already mentioned, we will have to agree to disagree. I did want to point out positions that we can agree on.
While this is our first announced kingdom level alliance, we do not aim for it to be our last. It is our hope as we move towards launch that we have more representation on our national councils than just Pax and UNC. We see a necessity to draw in allies that can agree to a core principle, but we do not wish or expect them all to have the same game goals (or needs, ideals, or playstyles).
How that will balance out is yet to be seen. Like this announcement, we will make sure to make such deals known as soon as they are vetted and finalized to the Pfo community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It appears, somewhere it was missed, that Pax Aeternum, as part of its "Nation" concept, intends to be open to all (alignments).
This is what originally sparked my interest in them, as a settlement or group of settlements (Nation) that we could at least gain access to (peacefully) and perhaps train in.
The Sponsorship part did not come until much later, and not until a few Dev Blogs made it clear that long term advancement requires settlement sponsorship.
I would suspect that Callambea will not be the only settlement my bandits and assassins will have access to. It will be the only settlement that we sponsor (or that is sponsoring us) but it won't be the only one that we sell our services to, in exchange for access to training.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At what point will a merchant be defined as "doing business with Aeternum" and thus be safe from the UNC?
If a merchant visits Callambea once a week but trades elsewhere the other six days will he be safe all week or just when he is going to/from Callambea?
It seems that the more successful Callambea is the less content there will be for the UNC. If Callambea becomes the Walmart of PfO and everyone trades there what will become of the UNC?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At what point will a merchant be defined as "doing business with Aeternum" and thus be safe from the UNC?
If a merchant visits Callambea once a week but trades elsewhere the other six days will he be safe all week or just when he is going to/from Callambea?
It seems that the more successful Callambea is the less content there will be for the UNC. If Callambea becomes the Walmart of PfO and everyone trades there what will become of the UNC?
I am less sure such a scenario will occur in the game environment. Without a game to test competing scenario's I doubt we can be assured of any particular scenario.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At what point will a merchant be defined as "doing business with Aeternum" and thus be safe from the UNC?
If a merchant visits Callambea once a week but trades elsewhere the other six days will he be safe all week or just when he is going to/from Callambea?
It seems that the more successful Callambea is the less content there will be for the UNC. If Callambea becomes the Walmart of PfO and everyone trades there what will become of the UNC?
It will depend on your standings with Callambea. If you are blue with them, then you will be with the UNC.
If you are a grey (neutral) trader, and trade with Callambea then you will be safe in PAX territory and free reign everywhere else.
I doubt (but do not know for sure) that PAX will be giving out blue status like candy. Either way though, UNC will have plenty of targets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even though it's been stated I think maybe people are forgetting that we (Pax) didn't created the UNC. As a merchant they were already a threat to you prior to this alliance.
The only thing that has changed is now there is one small part of the world where they are not a threat. People say we are supporting them by letting them train, well they were going to get training anyway, somewhere.
If you didn't want to business with Callambea before the alliance then UNC was a threat. If you still don't want to do business in Callambea after the alliance then the UNC is still a threat.
I don't see any negatives for traders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At what point will a merchant be defined as "doing business with Aeternum" and thus be safe from the UNC?
When they execute any commercial transaction in Callambea that is defined as legal under Callambean Law.
If a merchant visits Callambea once a week but trades elsewhere the other six days will he be safe all week or just when he is going to/from Callambea?
This has not been determined yet, nor will it be until more is known about the in-game mechanics.
At best, I can say with confidence that those that are contributing to economic betterment of Callambea will be safe from any harm by the Nation of Aeternum.
It seems that the more successful Callambea is the less content there will be for the UNC. If Callambea becomes the Walmart of PfO and everyone trades there what will become of the UNC?
That is up to the UNC. I do not see them donning blue tunics with yellow happy faces and greeting people at the gate, however I do see them smiling as they count their coin. I do not believe that all content will be expended for the UNC. They will always be able to find content. I believe Bludd would agree with me on that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems that the more successful Callambea is the less content there will be for the UNC. If Callambea becomes the Walmart of PfO and everyone trades there what will become of the UNC?That is up to the UNC. I do not see them donning blue tunics with yellow happy faces and greeting people at the gate, however I do see them smiling as they count their coin. I do not believe that all content will be expended for the UNC. They will always be able to find content. I believe Bludd would agree with me on that.
Actually, quite the opposite is true Rafkin. The more successful Callambea is, the more content there will be for the UNC.
How so you ask?
Success will breed jealousy; jealousy will breed a covetous heart; a covetous heart will lead to covetous action; covetous action will lead to rivalry; rivalry will breed reprisal; reprisal will lead to coin!
Then there is the fact that UNC is not solely about banditry or even PVP. We will have a stake in controlling escalations that pose a threat to Callambea.
I have a feeling Escalations will be a good source of influence, and influence is need to purchase feud rights. The UNC will certainly want to maintain sufficient influence, so that we can initiate a feud at a the moment of need or desire and thus have free reign against our enemies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Sennajin
Running merchants away from Callambea is bad for business. If Callambea isn't having merchants come in, we can't grow, if we can't grow, UNC gets no training, so on and so forth.That's not what I have said. You are essentially running merchants away from other hubs of trade, not Callambea. Of course you want the area around your own hub to be safe. But by providing the UNC a haven you are effectively making other centres less so, which in turn is a form of strong arm tactic to make merchants use your market.
I'll say it again, even bold it, so nobody misunderstands what I am saying: I do not think there is anything wrong with what you are doing. I do, however, violently disagree with the spin that is being put on it.
You're right, I missed that context, and great point. All I have to say to that is, we've made sure our hub is safe from UNC(and I'm sure we'll be reaching out to other similar organizations as well, in the future), what the other settlements do to ensure the safety of merchants in their areas of influence is on them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Even though it's been stated I think maybe people are forgetting that we (Pax) didn't created the UNC. As a merchant they were already a threat to you prior to this alliance.
The only thing that has changed is now there is one small part of the world where they are not a threat. People say we are supporting them by letting them train, well they were going to get training anyway, somewhere.
If you didn't want to business with Callambea before the alliance then UNC was a threat. If you still don't want to do business in Callambea after the alliance then the UNC is still a threat.
I don't see any negatives for traders.
I think the issue is that now, to those that don't want to do business with Callambea, UNC is a more potent threat. That upsets people. Before they were thinking, well UNC doesn't have anywhere to train, now they do. Where they may have thought that they wouldn't have to hire Mercenary Guardsmen before, now they are rethinking that course of action. Mercenaries cost money. How many mercenaries will be enough? People don't like it when the cost of doing everyday business goes up for them.
Lhan articulated one trader point of view perfectly. For anyone who doesn't trade with us, UNC is now not only a more likely threat, they are a better prepared threat. If you aren't planning on doing business with us, it seems like a prick move. To take a line from our stance, "The bandit's coin clinks as loudly as the paladin's." The economy will be at the forefront of this game. It's nothing personal, it's strictly professional.
Then there is the point of view of our customer. We pretty much cut the threat level in half for them. Will they still have to hire mercenaries? Sometimes they may want to, but if they've got a decent line of intel on bandits, they may not have to as often. Not only that... they don't have to run the risk of getting killed. We deliver. APS. The cost of business will either be a good deal less expensive and a little safer or a bit more expensive but way safer. Either way, those customers pay the light bill for Callambea. Those are the ones that we care about the most. We are going to make it work for them because in the end, it working for them is what works for us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Lhan's point of view was similar to my own (this is only how I interpreted it, take it as you will). I was looking forward to a healthy trade relation with Callambea, and Pax in general. However, when they announced that they would essentially be sponsoring bandits to run free in neutral markets which aren't directly tied to them, it came off to me as a sort of extortionist philosophy. "Deal with me, or you'll have to deal with my friends here."
Now, I understand I had to deal with the UNC before you started offering them training, and that they'd probably find the training elsewhere. But by keeping them on as more than a strictly mercenary role, you have started supporting the guys I was (and at the moment still am) viewing as my enemy.
After talking a bit on this thread with Bludd about how I thought the economic scene is going to look, I admit that my notions about player settlements could be way off mark; they could all be training bandits to invade each other's territories, perhaps keeping it in the dark for a little plausible deniability. If that turns out to be the case, then I'll reconsider my position with Pax, and probably trade with you. As it stands, until I see more player settlements doing this than I can afford to avoid, well, I'm going to avoid them. This is my personal view on the matter, though I think there are at least a few others who are thinking along similar lines.
The only other player settlement I've personally interacted with so far is Golgotha; the only comments they've made concerning bandits is that they'd be hunted strictly throughout Golgothan territory. So I will definitely admit that my notions here could be naive, or not fit the reality of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Lhan's point of view was similar to my own (this is only how I interpreted it, take it as you will). I was looking forward to a healthy trade relation with Callambea, and Pax in general. However, when they announced that they would essentially be sponsoring bandits to run free in neutral markets which aren't directly tied to them, it came off to me as a sort of extortionist philosophy. "Deal with me, or you'll have to deal with my friends here."
Now, I understand I had to deal with the UNC before you started offering them training, and that they'd probably find the training elsewhere. But by keeping them on as more than a strictly mercenary role, you have started supporting the guys I was (and at the moment still am) viewing as my enemy.
After talking a bit on this thread with Bludd about how I thought the economic scene is going to look, I admit that my notions about player settlements could be way off mark; they could all be training bandits to invade each other's territories, perhaps keeping it in the dark for a little plausible deniability. If that turns out to be the case, then I'll reconsider my position with Pax, and probably trade with you. As it stands, until I see more player settlements doing this than I can afford to avoid, well, I'm going to avoid them. This is my personal view on the matter, though I think there are at least a few others who are thinking along similar lines.
The only other player settlement I've personally interacted with so far is Golgotha; the only comments they've made concerning bandits is that they'd be hunted strictly throughout Golgothan territory. So I will definitely admit that my notions here could be naive, or not fit the reality of the game.
A more than fair position to take. Neither of us will know what the reality of the game will be until boots hit ground. Even then the scene will likely change up to a year after official release. I expect there will be settlements with bandits, and there will be those without. I hold reservations that there will be an "all or none" scenario. We will see.
While we are sad to lose your business, we understand your concerns and appreciate you voicing them here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Taking a merchant's view, I completely understand shane (and a few other's) point of view. Why would I want to trade, and therefor support, a settlement that openly supports bandits? That just sound stupid. after all, worst case scenario, what happens a year or so down the road if things between UNC and PAX fall apart? Now you got UNC on the loose, with (in theory) no one you yank their leash and they are well trained and possibly geared. Now they are a bigger threat to everyone. (Keep in mind, this could apply to any bandit and/or merchant companies.) This is completely understandable. And completely valid.
Also the views for being "strong armed" into turning PAX into Jita (Eve reference) are completely understandable as well.
As others have said above, this is a mostly selfish and self serving move on the part of both parties. But then again, do you blame us? (I know a few have already answered) PAx believes this alliance will grow their trading hub and protect their customers, a protection they may or may not receive elsewhere so it could be a "perk" of doing your trading here. UNC likes the idea of a safe haven to spend our coin and receive training that will keep us competitive in the "Bandit game." Sure it "cost" us a few targets, but we feel the value is worth the cost.
Most of this has already been stated, atleast a few times above by bludd and areks and such, I just felt like adding another voice to it.
If you like the "perk" pax is offering and can overcome the anger at pax for supporting UNC, then your welcome to trade and do business here. If you can't, then good day and good luck. Maybe you will trade with another "big town" trader that isn't as open about their allies...
I said before and I ask again. For all those "upset" (IC or OOC) at PAX for their open support of UNC, would you had preferred it be a shadow contract? How would you feel then if in 6 months or a year you found out this information? If you take your business elsewhere and then 6 months or a year later find out the city you do your trading in supports bandits, what then? At least pax is upfront and open about it. No smoke and mirrors, no games, just business.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only other player settlement I've personally interacted with so far is Golgotha; the only comments they've made concerning bandits is that they'd be hunted strictly throughout Golgothan territory. So I will definitely admit that my notions here could be naive, or not fit the reality of the game.
I'm not speaking for them, but does it seem reasonable to assume that this rule won't apply to their own privateers?
This is a game of settlement control, competition for limited resources and conflict as a result of those two realities.
Your gauge of who you will deal with is, as I see it, if they tell the truth you won't deal with them. If they hide the fact, you will deal with them. You are anticipating that they will eventually reveal their dealings with bandits. Don't hold your breath is all I have to say.
Very early on I decided that UNC was going to be a Bandit Company, and I have been unapologetic about it from day one. No one else has done so. What I find curious and it speaks to the nature of greed among MMO players is this:
You hold no such animosity towards assassins as you do thieves. It is better to be killed in a game then stolen from, I guess. Thus is why the UNC plans on employing our own assassins often. We do not view an assassin's role as just a tool to use against a leader or the powerful.
Oops, sorry about the derail. Just a reminder, many and possibly most settlements will be using all of the tools of the game to come out as close to the top as they can. Whomever uses the tools most often and to the best effect will be on top.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you take your business elsewhere and then 6 months or a year later find out the city you do your trading in supports bandits, what then?
The kick in the pants part about that is, they'll probably have been robbed at least once or twice by those very bandits... then realize that the settlement actually had an arrangement with the bandits will be more salt in the wound.
We're "damned if we do and damned if we don't" really. If it were to be executed in private then we are being sneaky and sinister like we've been accused of in the past, if we are open about it then we are trying to strong arm the market. *shrugs*
At the end of the day, our customers are safer and that's all that really matters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I doubt this will happen, but something else to consider. What if (IMHO it is a BIG IF) UNC turns out to be among ( or just plain) the smallest bandit company in PFO? We sport a whopping like 20 members as our top "employment" and it turns out that other groups (like the bloody hand for example though I believe they are intending to be more assassins then bandits) top 100+ on a regular basis? Then would everyone think differently of PAX and the "security" they offer? Just something I thought about some 10 mins ago.
@areks Such is life. What you believe ("our customers are safer and that's all that matters") is all that really matters in the end. This can apply to everyone.
Back to bringing this thread in-line to it's (I believe) intended purpose as a announcement and Q&A thread, is there any other questions or comments pertaining to the announced alliance between PAX and UNC?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you are a grey (neutral) trader, and trade with Callambea then you will be safe in PAX territory and free reign everywhere else.
At best, I can say with confidence that those that are contributing to economic betterment of Callambea will be safe from any harm by the Nation of Aeternum.
Any discrepancy here?
If I was promised to be "safe from any harm" and was then jumped by the UNC one hex away from Pax territory, I'd be a bit upset.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Glad you can see it from my point of view Goodfellow, and that you understand I'm not trying to defame either organization for it. I am merely stating, as a part of the potential merchant base of Callambea, my concerns and positions in the matter, for you to take as you will and ignore at your leisure.
At Bluddwolf, I honestly believe there will be settlements who do not employ bandits. Perhaps I'm wrong in that, but once again we can't really know the specific numbers until they're known, right? I think it's unfair to say I'll only deal with those who lie to my face; not every person in the River Kingdoms is going to be CN, and I'm sure that if enough people want to play the game in a specific way (i.e., playing the market without privateer attacks) then they'll find a way. I myself am going to play this way, so I know there's at least one person who wants it. ;)
Finally, know that although I have spoken against this alliance and said that at the moment I don't plan to trade with Pax, those are only my current positions with the information and experience I have right now. I hope you don't take my statements personally, and that should I reevaluate in the future and decide I should in fact trade with Pax, that you won't hold things against me. As you say, it is only business. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Glad you can see it from my point of view Goodfellow, and that you understand I'm not trying to defame either organization for it. I am merely stating, as a part of the potential merchant base of Callambria, my concerns and positions in the matter, for you to take as you will and ignore at your leisure.
At Bluddwolf, I honestly believe there will be settlements who do not employ bandits. Perhaps I'm wrong in that, but once again we can't really know the specific numbers until they're known, right? I think it's unfair to say I'll only deal with those who lie to my face; not every person in the River Kingdoms is going to be CN, and I'm sure that if enough people want to play the game in a specific way (i.e., playing the market without privateer attacks) then they'll find a way. I myself am going to play this way, so I know there's at least one person who wants it. ;)
Finally, know that although I have spoken against this alliance and said that at the moment I don't plan to trade with Pax, those are only my current positions with the information and experience I have right now. I hope you don't take my statements personally, and that should I reevaluate in the future and decide I should in fact trade with Pax, that you won't hold things against me. As you say, it is only business. :)
Absolutely. Pax for one does not in any way hold it against you. We don't expect to appeal to everyone. We expect to appeal to enough to remain lucrative.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you are a grey (neutral) trader, and trade with Callambea then you will be safe in PAX territory and free reign everywhere else.
At best, I can say with confidence that those that are contributing to economic betterment of Callambea will be safe from any harm by the Nation of Aeternum.
Any discrepancy here?
If I was promised to be "safe from any harm" and was then jumped by the UNC one hex away from Pax territory, I'd be a bit upset.
If Pax is aware that you are incoming from far off lands, with cargo meant for their settlement, and you want an escort, you can either hire guards (from Pax or UNC) or have your own.
The key is "aware". If Pax nor the UNC know that you are incoming and you are "grey" and outside of Pax territory, then you are fair game.
I'm not going to guess if you are expected, and if you present a lesser risk for a greater reward, you will be a prime target for my bandits. It is nothing personal, it is just the price of doing business.
Our deal is with Pax, in Pax territory. Outside of that territory, if you are not "Blue" we will rob you (NBRI). If you are not on Pax business, or Blue to Pax, we will rob you.
I can't make it any more plain than that. UNC is in the business of robbery and assassination. We are mercenaries about it, and can be hired. We are very business like about it, and hold to our contracts.
If you feel that shows preferential treatment towards Pax or the friends of Pax, you are correct. We are being paid, just like any other contract to live up to that part of the bargain. We are being paid in access and training.
If you want the same protections, or other services, we can be hired to provide them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see what all the fuss is about. Pax has made a huge mistake here. They will learn of their mistake in time. Bluddwolf and the Unmanned Company are a bandit gang that got endorsed to conduct banditry from the safe haven of Pax territory. There is no further discussion needed. Pax and UMC can spin this all they like. Almost everyone I have spoken to about this ill advised alliance agrees with my position (so it is not MY position, it is the general opinion of the posting community in and out of the Paizo boards).
Bandit gangs are a taint. They spread their taint like the plague, and everyone that wishes to do legitimate business will avoid Pax territory and will not trade with Pax.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shane Gifford,
You are to be commended on your ability to ask questions before making assumptions and accusations, and equally so on your ability to state your disagreement without turning it into a flame war.
You have my respect for your cool head and desire to converse, gain the facts necessary for making up your own mind, and presenting that decision without inflammatory rhetoric.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you are a grey (neutral) trader, and trade with Callambea then you will be safe in PAX territory and free reign everywhere else.
At best, I can say with confidence that those that are contributing to economic betterment of Callambea will be safe from any harm by the Nation of Aeternum.
Any discrepancy here?
If I was promised to be "safe from any harm" and was then jumped by the UNC one hex away from Pax territory, I'd be a bit upset.
WOW, your just digging for anything.
I think its rather clear when you reference EVERYTHING ELSE... When you pick sentences piece meal, you wont get all the information.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see what all the fuss is about. Pax has made a huge mistake here. They will learn of their mistake in time. Bluddwolf and the Unmanned Company are a bandit gang that got endorsed to conduct banditry from the safe haven of Pax territory. There is no further discussion needed. Pax and UMC can spin this all they like. Almost everyone I have spoken to about this ill advised alliance agrees with my position (so it is not MY position, it is the general opinion of the posting community in and out of the Paizo boards).
Bandit gangs are a taint. They spread their taint like the plague, and everyone that wishes to do legitimate business will avoid Pax territory and will not trade with Pax.
The Darkfall Goblin Squad cliff jumpers are not the "community."
Thanks for stopping by
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Shane Gifford,
You are to be commended on your ability to ask questions before making assumptions and accusations, and equally so on your ability to state your disagreement without turning it into a flame war.
You have my respect for your cool head and desire to converse, gain the facts necessary for making up your own mind, and presenting that decision without inflammatory rhetoric.
Not sure if serious...
The assumption he made is that he was safe. He did make an assumption before asking a question. I wont make an assumption about the question itself.
If you are blue then and only then are you safe outside of PAX territory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With all due respect to PAX and UNC, I have seen Golgotha in this thread a few times and thought I should clarify our WIP policies in regard to banditry and trade. These comments can be found within our settlememt charter.
Again, House Karnath supports this treaty, and requests that the settlement of Golgotha and her policies be left out of this thread in order for questions to be answered in relation to this treaty.