Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hobs, thank you for your kind words. In my opinion one of the greatest advantages to online boards, as opposed to instant messages or text chat in game, is that you can read and reread what you have typed, to make sure your points are clear and come off with the right tone.
@Xeen, sorry if I seemed like I was making an assumption by asking the questions concerning what happens when you're not blue. I now better understand how Pax and the UNC will interact with people of various standings, because I asked questions about it. I wasn't trying to start off assuming that a grey merchant is safe from UNC; I was trying to get it directly from Pax that they're okay with UNC preying on grey merchants, and are prepared to deal with the consequences of that.
@Deacon Wulf, I apologize if I dragged your company into this. I was just using it as an example of my own ignorance when it comes to the policies of companies who are currently looking to start settlements, and by extension my even greater ignorance of what settlement policies will be like in game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"cliff jumpers" is an inside joke for those "in the know." As for those who feel this alliance is a mistake, I welcome that point of view as it ensures we at the UNC will have targets no matter how big and successful PAX becomes.
@Hardin Steele I can't help but wonder if you intentionally misspelled our company name as some childish attempt to deflame or upset us, or if it was unintentional. If it was a mistake, no biggy. If it was intentional, then that is they type of thing hobs (correct me if I'm wrong) was referring to about making the issue more personal then needs to be. If you are opposed and upset at our alliance, (judging from your post, you are) then On behalf of the Unnamed Company, we thank you for your voice on the matter and we are happy that you have volunteered to be OUR content and we will enjoy spending your coin on women and booze (with a side of training).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... you have volunteered to be OUR content...I think this reveals a profound misunderstanding of how PFO will work, but it's okay, you'll figure it out soon enough...
If you have insight that I don't, I welcome the correction and sharing of this knowledge. as a player, I try to be very informed about the game world and mechanics and seeing as I THOUGHT I understood this concept and you say I don't, I request respectfully to be taught the difference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is getting wildly sidetracked from the intended purpose of the OP.
I humbly request, beg, plead, wave my hands hilariously for the sniped comments and derails to cease.
@Deacon - I apologize that Golgatha was characterized in this thread, and I am glad to see your support towards both this move and banditry in general.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think most people get it. The Seventh Veil is working on a write-up to convey how important it is to us, and how we respect Goblinworks' intentions in that regard. I'll be sure to let you know when it's posted.
The alliance between Pax and UNC, and the operational plans of the UNC, are in compliance with the game design and rules that Goblin Works have made available to us, at this time. We (UNC) embrace the changes made with the settlements, companies, PVP flagging, Feuds, Faction Warefare, and the many new ways to avoid reputation loss, or to control our loss while PVPing.
I think what you are having a hard time grasping or coming to terms with is that their "intentions" six months or more ago, won't be a reality when the game is released.
Pax and the UNC are doing what Ryan Dancey told us to do. We are building the OtherBigTown. We understand PFO is going to be PVP at its core, and we will train for that. We know that settlement competition for limited resources is a major source of that PVP conflict. Pax has discarded concerns for alignment and reputation, just as Ryan Dancey has recommended that we do.
When the game launches OE, all of their intentions will mean nothing. That is when the Mob will decide what kind of a community the game will have in game, and it won't be pretty at first. PFO will have a high sub-rate the first month or two, and then it will dive, like all other MMOs out there. What GW does months +3 - +6, will make or break the game.
Pax and UNC will be spending our time in EE, preparing for the first 2 months of the game, post OE.
Pax will be free from UNC banditry and assassination. Their friends will likely enjoy the same treatment as well, in and out of Pax territory.
The UNC bandits and assassins, will have access to some of the best training in the River Kingdoms. This will give us the best opportunity to be the best at what we do.
It is nothing more complicated than that. A mutual interest to being the best, supporting self interest of wanting the best opportunities to achieve it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
There has been no spin, at least not from Me. If you wish not to trade with Pax, that is your right. No one can force you to. I find it odd that this agreement is getting so much of that fuss. You say you don't see the fuss, but you are making one in your assessment that it was a mistake.
Pax has immunized itself and its allies from UNC banditry. Any who choose not to participate, gain or lose nothing they did not already have before.
Before the agreement: UNC bandits were going to be active against targets of our choice, all over the map.
After the agreement: Pax and its allies are no longer on our target menu.
Before the agreement: UNC bandits had limited access to training, and probably not the best training when access occurred.
After the agreement: UNC bandits have access to training, and likely better training then would have been available before.
Before the agreement: Any merchant not blue to UNC, were a target of our banditry.
After the agreement: Any merchant, not affiliated with Pax, is subject to the same targeting as before. No change.
The UNC has other pending contracts with companies, that are not in public knowledge. Most are from merchant companies, looking to broker a deal that will immunize or partially immunize (pre paid SADS)their merchants from our banditry.
Is that a mistake for them to do that? Are you going to say how other companies will choose to protect themselves? Worse yet, are you going to judge them?
You may all be surprised should you gain the knowledge of whom has sent me PMs, in supporting me or in requesting deals.
There is a lot of ignorant hypocrisy going on here. I don't mean "ignorant" to mean stupid, I mean it as "unknowingly" hypocritical or innocently hypocritical.
As Areks said above, "We are damned if we do and damned if we didn't." We told the truth and are getting criticized. We could have kept it a secret, and if discovered, Pax would have been accused of betraying some kind of trust.
Really an unfair position to hold them in. Especially true because the major company / settlements will do exactly the same thing (raiding the holdings of rivals and protecting their own).
Maybe we will now see the non aggression pacts roll out, and these companies / settlements will declare that they will not use banditry or raiding against another companies POIs inside or outside of their own borders.
I'm not holding my breath..... Even sheepdogs need their teeth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bear in mind that this treaty in no way precludes the existence of banditry within PAX territory. Unfortunately UNC is not going to be the only source of banditry around. Otherwise unaffiliated bandits and brigands may, and probably will, utilize this territory for victims. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that other settlements may hire otherwise unaffiliated bandits to plague the area. These incursions will likely be dealt with by both PAX and UNC.
For neutral merchants outside of PAX territory on their way, unannounced, to PAX to deliver, should you be waylaid by UNC state your intent (quickly) and, for a reasonable fee, you may be able to hire yourself an escort. The fee will likely be less than a normal SAD demand, allowing you to maintain a decent profit margin on your goods. If you run into me, I may even accept a live vocal performance in lieu of coin or goods!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ The Goodfellow
In the same post you manage to label people "cliff jumpers" and then take umbrage at Hardin's "Unmanned Company". Is this intentional irony?
I am not sure I understand this post. I was attempting to "clarify" to those not understanding the "cliff jumper" reference and the comment towards Hardin was a question concerning his typo, if it was such. Either way, it isn't in line with this thread and as such, this is the last I will speak of it here.
On point with this thread, I am not sure if people are just not understanding, no matter how many ways it is said, or if people just refuse to understand this alliance. One very important thing to bear in mind, it is still nearly a year out from ee, look at what has happened and changed in the last year and you could potentially guess how things will change by EE. All this fuss and whatnot over this might be proved irrelevant should the situation change and this alliance dissolve before any actual in game time is spent on it. Something as simple as a dev blog, or even if either party changes their mind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the one hand, I agree that we shouldn't get wrapped up in specifics when we're still so far from EE; on the other, I personally don't mind so many tangents and hypotheticals and such. It's nice to talk about this game with people who are just as excited for it, and it's nice to experience the different perspectives and predictions that people have, even and especially if they're totally opposite my own.
But I guess none of this relates to the topic. Unfortunately I've asked about all I want to on it, so I can't contribute much more to meaningful discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As said on different thread, this models the privateers of the 17th century. I think it is a fit.
It is interesting to speculate if the UNC bandits will take on hideouts of other hideouts in PAX terrain (I presume there can be more than one hideout, otherwise each settlement will build hideouts around itself. I do not know if bandit hunting that is part of agreement, but it may be good hunting.
I had tried to speculate on another agreement with Bludd, but he dismissed me. Maybe later he would find arrangement with priests of ....
On another topic. EE has maybe 12000 subscribers from first kickstart plus second. That is 3 months of EE. Some of the Mobs may start showing in 4th month -- people added in next enrollment.
Hmmm.
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I had tried to speculate on another agreement with Bludd, but he dismissed me. Maybe later he would find arrangement with priests of ....
Lam
I honestly don't recall this, and it is not usually my way to "dismiss" having a conversation about any topic.
If you wish, please feel free to PM me with your idea or question, if you wish to keep it private.
As for dealing with Priests, abSOULutely.... compared to merchants, Priests tend to have the next deepests pockets. Priests also like to put up an image of themselves, and keep it untainted... ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have a question for Pax that I believe is relevant to the thread.
If UNC were being attacked by a third party, would Pax intervene to protect them? Would it matter if the attacks were taking place in Pax-controlled hexes? Does this alliance commit Pax to fight on UNC's behalf?
I would defend a Pax member, anywhere, in their time of need. As a sponsored company I think that mutual protection is implied.
Isn't it the same in the alliance between T7V and TEO?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We will defend TSV members as though they were our own. We also fully back the ideas and actions of TSV. I am willing to be held accountable for any actions committed by TSV members so long as we remain allies.
That is not to say that I have any control over them, simply that because of my support their actions should rightly be seen to reflect upon me. A fact I'm 100% comfortable with because TSV is a trustworthy and reliable group who has proven a real asset to this community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would defend a Pax member, anywhere, in their time of need. As a sponsored company I think that mutual protection is implied.
I appreciate the response, but I'm still hoping I can get an official answer from Pax.
Isn't it the same in the alliance between T7V and TEO?
The single-most important thing to me - personally - is Reputation. I want to be High Reputation, and I want to work and play with other High Reputation individuals. I do not believe there is any valid reason to support Low Reputation characters in PFO, and I utterly reject the premise that Low Reputation characters are in any way beneficial to the game.
The single most important thing to Andius - as I understand it - is to hunt down and kill RPKers. (( Let's not get into an argument about definitions, and simply accept that we're using Andius's definition since we're talking about Andius's motivations. ))
I don't share Andius's purpose exactly, but it is entirely compatible with my own, and I admire his courage and fortitude. I personally would be happy to fight at Andius's side in almost any situation I can imagine him fighting. I would also use what abilities I have in persuasion to inspire others to fight on his behalf as well.
That said, The Seventh Veil will always evaluate what is in our interests and act accordingly. Fortunately, with Andius and The Empyrean Order as allies, it's extremely difficult to imagine a scenario in which they're acting in a way that would be contrary to our interests if we helped them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While there may be finer details that we disagree on, UNC is backed by Pax any time, any where, as long as they are operating within the terms of our agreement.
And there it is :)
Not to pick nits, but I'm curious what qualifies as "operating within the terms of our agreement". Does it mean "currently engaged in an activity that is required by the agreement"? Does it mean "not currently engaged in an activity that is forbidden by the agreement"? Or does it mean something else?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not believe there is any valid reason to support Low Reputation characters in PFO...
To clarify, because I believe this can be taken the wrong way.
I believe there is a very compelling reason for the game to support Low Reputation characters, in the sense of allowing them to play and to engage in actions that lower their Reputation.
I believe there is no valid reason for other players to support Low Reputation characters by making room for them in their Groups, Companies, or Settlements, or by providing them Training. But that's a personal choice for each Player, and I expect the Reputation system will make that choice sufficiently meaningful.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
While there may be finer details that we disagree on, UNC is backed by Pax any time, any where, as long as they are operating within the terms of our agreement.And there it is :)
Not to pick nits, but I'm curious what qualifies as "operating within the terms of our agreement". Does it mean "currently engaged in an activity that is required by the agreement"? Does it mean "not currently engaged in an activity that is forbidden by the agreement"? Or does it mean something else?
I must ask in addition for what is meant by 'backed'?
Because a straightforward reading of the terms indicates that if/when a patrol encounters UNC bandits engaged in banditry in our territory, with Pax characters nearby, we should assume that those Pax characters will continue to actively assist said banditry.
I do not believe that encouraging that presumption is in the best interest of Pax.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(The following is purely my interpretation and my expectations)
I would expect the PAX patrol that stumbles across UNC activities would verify the parties involved and just to ensure "acceptable" actions are happening, and then return to their patrols. If they come across UNC being chased by others, lets say UNC is being chased into PAX territory after being caught being bandits, I would expect the PAX patrol to stop the chasers and ask the meaning of their intrusion into PAX controlled lands. Once learning they are hunting UNC, inform them they will take care of UNC and they are to return to their own lands. Or at least something like that. I don't expect PAX to "assist" UNC in our activities as that would imply they themselves are practicing banditry and other "shady" actions. This is not their intent or in-line with their goals. On the flip side, if UNC comes across a PAX patrol under attack, with few exception, the UNC would immediately jump in and assist without asking questions. At least not until AFTER we have looted their corpses.
Again, this is purely just my take on how each party would react and would be expected to react given a situation. Now I am sure there are situations that might alter these actions above, but for most general situations I think this would suffice. PAX is welcome to add their own take on this. But I hope, at least from UNC view point, this answers the question about what each party will "back" the other. Great question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While there may be finer details that we disagree on, UNC is backed by Pax any time, any where, as long as they are operating within the terms of our agreement.And there it is :)
Not to pick nits, but I'm curious what qualifies as "operating within the terms of our agreement". Does it mean "currently engaged in an activity that is required by the agreement"? Does it mean "not currently engaged in an activity that is forbidden by the agreement"? Or does it mean something else?
Does it mean "currently engaged in an activity that is required by the agreement"? - No
"not currently engaged in an activity that is forbidden by the agreement"? - Also no
Operating within the terms of our agreement simply means nothing in the agreed upon ToA was broken.
It's like a trade union, where you sign a contract agreeing to pay dues, working assessments, contribute to a health care plan, and not work non union on the side. Breaking any of those things, since you agreed to them, would be not operating within the terms of our agreement.
That was the intended meaning.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While there may be finer details that we disagree on, UNC is backed by Pax any time, any where, as long as they are operating within the terms of our agreement.And there it is :)
Not to pick nits, but I'm curious what qualifies as "operating within the terms of our agreement". Does it mean "currently engaged in an activity that is required by the agreement"? Does it mean "not currently engaged in an activity that is forbidden by the agreement"? Or does it mean something else?
I must ask in addition for what is meant by 'backed'?
Because a straightforward reading of the terms indicates that if/when a patrol encounters UNC bandits engaged in banditry in our territory, with Pax characters nearby, we should assume that those Pax characters will continue to actively assist said banditry.
I do not believe that encouraging that presumption is in the best interest of Pax.
If UNC is being targeting by an organization(s) in a mass, war time scenario then it benefits us both to "back" each other.
That does not mean that we will be protecting each other from content, around the clock. It also does not mean that a Pax member, or any other allied member, is required to aid upon sight a UNC bandit's SAD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon or Andius
I have asked this in the past and the answer was not provided. What is your definition of low reputation, at what point value?
For me I would consider low reputation to be in the bottom 20% or -6001 or lower. This of course could change once we see in game how much or little could be done to reach that point.
If one of my members occupied a level that the Council of the UNC would see as the result of griefing that individual character would face progressive steps of consequences.
Last night it was requested of me to provide MY definitions of griefing, low rep and what I would like to see from GW as far as activities to both raise and lower reputation. I will be working on that document today and write a personal view and later a UNC developed view (after meeting with Council).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As said on different thread, this models the privateers of the 17th century. I think it is a fit.
It is interesting to speculate if the UNC bandits will take on hideouts of other hideouts in PAX terrain (I presume there can be more than one hideout, otherwise each settlement will build hideouts around itself. I do not know if bandit hunting that is part of agreement, but it may be good hunting.
I had tried to speculate on another agreement with Bludd, but he dismissed me. Maybe later he would find arrangement with priests of ....
On another topic. EE has maybe 12000 subscribers from first kickstart plus second. That is 3 months of EE. Some of the Mobs may start showing in 4th month -- people added in next enrollment.
Hmmm.
Lam
At GenCon Ryan said and Lisa confirmed that there are 4500 to 5000 backers. That may or may not count add ons such as Guild levels. That is from the second Kickstarter.
Did anyone from the first kickstarter get a guarantee to be in EE?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you mean the tech demo kickstarter, they specifically kept in-game rewards of any sort out of that kickstarter, including any sort of early access. That was way before they had a lot of things laid out, I think, so they didn't want to make any assumptions or any promises they couldn't keep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon or Andius
I have asked this in the past and the answer was not provided. What is your definition of low reputation, at what point value?
For me I would consider low reputation to be in the bottom 20% or -6001 or lower. This of course could change once we see in game how much or little could be done to reach that point.
If one of my members occupied a level that the Council of the UNC would see as the result of griefing that individual character would face progressive steps of consequences.
Last night it was requested of me to provide MY definitions of griefing, low rep and what I would like to see from GW as far as activities to both raise and lower reputation. I will be working on that document today and write a personal view and later a UNC developed view (after meeting with Council).
I could be wrong, and in this case I know I am not... But you already did provide YOUR definitions of griefing and low rep, and you also suggested some ways to raise your rep... the ways of lowering rep are already stated by GW.
Im not quit sure why you were asked AGAIN... We have had this discussion over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Xeen
I was asked this question from a neutral party and so I will entertain it again. I was also asked to express my opinion as to what activities I think should be in the game to either raise or lower Rep.
I intend to think of my personal beliefs and speak (write) for myself. Then I would bring UNC together and discuss what our official stance is.
You are correct, I have laid out my my definition of griefing is, and it is not likely going to change. It will never include activities that GW does not consider griefing (ie. RPKing, Blue Blocking or Scams).
Personally, I would not consider virtually anything in global chat to be included as griefing. There are tools that every player has to avoind speech they do not wish to read. They can censor those they wish to, report those they wish to, and ignore those they wish to. I just don't want them doing it for me. I'm an adult, I can make those decisions for myself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Darn real life getting in the way of timely responses.... Anyway, singing off-key, even intentionally is perfectly acceptable, as is intentionally butchering a song (even if you do it badly enough that you should receive -rep for it). My motives for the request for vocalizations is not simply due to my personal brand of chaos and/or altruistic since I would be recording these performances, optimally to be used in the creation of a PFO UNC Album (Working title is "Sing for your Stuff: Volume 1"). I am sorely tempted to use it as a competition too. In this case, each performance on an album would be evaluated by a panel of impartial (heh) UNC bastards... err... judges and the winner given a prize!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon or Andius
I have asked this in the past and the answer was not provided. What is your definition of low reputation, at what point value?
I'm surprised I didn't answer it earlier... perhaps I missed it.
I expect a Reputation lower than -2,500 will be considered Low Reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, that's true; I hadn't looked at the higher reward levels. $1000 or above does indeed get you into Alpha playtesting, which is very much early access to the game, so I was mistaken above. There wasn't a guarantee into EE with that, but for $1000 I'd be surprised if they didn't have the option :P Still, the number of people at that level are 32 total, so it isn't a large number when determining the number of people in EE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My motives for the request for vocalizations is not simply due to my personal brand of chaos and/or altruistic since I would be recording these performances, optimally to be used in the creation of a PFO UNC Album (Working title is "Sing for your Stuff: Volume 1").
Sintaqx, you sir, are a genius!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Did anyone from the first kickstarter get a guarantee to be in EE?I'm not positive, but I would expect the Alpha backers from the Tech Demo Kickstarter would also have access to Early Enrollment.
Perhaps Decius can let us know.
Yep, just pulled up the Tech Demo and $1000 backers are in Alpha