] So there is no problem with the alignment except choosing between a certain alignment and between certain friends, is there?
Sigh completely different don't conflate the two.
One is people who currently play together as a group and will want to be part of the same organisation and may not want either through logistics or numbers to form two settlements. Think Eve corporation
The kingdom we are referring to is the equivalent of Eve alliance. Groups that find they mesh well coming together to be stronger that may have no prior acquaintance
Goblin Squad Member
|
] So there is no problem with the alignment except choosing between a certain alignment and between certain friends, is there?Sigh completely different don't conflate the two.
One is people who currently play together as a group and will want to be part of the same organisation and may not want either through logistics or numbers to form two settlements. Think Eve corporation
The kingdom we are referring to is the equivalent of Eve alliance. Groups that find they mesh well coming together to be stronger that may have no prior acquaintance
Ok, so no alignment problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except for Dancey has never said any of that will be in game in anything I have read. Really you are going to assume an advantage based on absolutely nothing except a blind faith in Ryan Dancey? Ok you go right on with that line of thought
Uh... Is there any particular reason to respond in such a way to somebody's post which starts with "I see... [things developing this way]?
Anyhow, I'm not basing this on assumptions (although I extrapolate how it could be developed fully), I'm basing on what they've actually written, and how Nations/Kingdoms have been introduced from Day 1... It's not hardly detailed very much yet, but Nations/Kingdoms have from the beginning been associated with actual game mechanics and unique endeavors only possible thru them, not just as an in-game matter of convenience which can't accomplish much that you can't also do thru out-of-game organizational methods. I don't know all the detail of what will be possible here, but clearly GW is planning for this level to be mechanically relevant (enough to divert tax money into), and that they are tying it into Alignment somehow indicates that Alignment will also be relevant at this level.
Finally, a "nation" fills the role that guild alliances do in other games. It is comprised of multiple settlements, and generally allows the members to share facilities and coordinate their actions more effectively than if they were just friendly with one another. You can only be a member of one PC nation: whichever one your settlement joins.
The highest level of social organization is the player kingdom. These are created when two or more player settlements agree to bind themselves together to create a single political entity. The kingdom is the most powerful organization in the game. It has access to the most powerful constructs and workshops. It can marshal and direct the efforts of thousands of player characters. Kingdoms field armies. Kingdoms engage in diplomacy. Kingdoms dominate their surrounding lands.
Though we use the word "kingdom," the political structures of these entities will be varied. Some will be actual kingdoms with power vested in a single monarch. Some will be oligarchies. Others will be more democratic—even a direct democracy is possible.
The economic structures of kingdoms will be varied as well. The kingdom may tax its members on their earnings to fund its operations, and that tax rate could vary from nil to 100%. Ayn Rand to Karl Marx and everything in between.
The combination of politics and economics will create a matrix of variety in kingdoms, and that matrix is further complicated by alignment, creating a three-dimensional structure of options. If you can imagine it, you can likely custom-tailor a kingdom to deliver.
Like I said, there shouldn't be any reason why you can't ignore that level (and it's restrictions) and coordinate different Settlements out-of-game (or heck, in-game chat is fine, just without the formal Nation/Kingdom structure). You will give up some advantages, but may also avoid some restrictions and weaknesses/costs. I expect Nations/Kingdoms leveraging their unique capabilities to predominate (because GW said so, so I expect their mechanics to be effective incentives), but other approaches can certainly also have a relevant presence in the game if people are dedicated to them.
Brainstorm for names for general term for "Nation/Kingdom" (but independent of government type): Sovereignty? Alliance? Holding?
Brainstorm for names for general term for "Nation/Kingdom": Sovereignty? Alliance? Holding?
Alliance is an eve term
Note though that alliances in Eve don't really do much mechanically apart from identify groups as being part of a greater whole (except for war decs where alliances increase the cost of the war dec, war decs are not a phenomenon in null sec sov holding warfare though which would be the equivalent of PfO settlement warfare so don't really count)
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
] So there is no problem with the alignment except choosing between a certain alignment and between certain friends, is there?Sigh completely different don't conflate the two.
One is people who currently play together as a group and will want to be part of the same organisation and may not want either through logistics or numbers to form two settlements. Think Eve corporation
The kingdom we are referring to is the equivalent of Eve alliance. Groups that find they mesh well coming together to be stronger that may have no prior acquaintance
The closest thing to a corp will be a chartered company. Anyone can join, and there is little or no capital cost in creating one.
Settlements have very high capital cost to create, as well as a significant cost to maintain. They roughly correspond to alliances which hold sovereignty in EvE.
Nations are the next larger unit, corresponding roughly to the EvE concept of a coalition of alliances.
You and your friends aren't enough people to form a single settlement by yourselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just a thought but once mechanics have been tested and to a more final stage. An alignment/rep reset could be done for EE players.Other games can do talent point and soul point resets server wide.
This is a possibility to be considered. Go!! lolThat is a good suggestion, but "Some People" would cry! pick up their ball and go home. They would declare that EE amounted to nothing more than a murder simulator, and that they had been duped into thinking PFO would be that "special little snow flake" they hoped for.
I personally would rather have people understand that PFO is a harsh place, where if you don't travel its environment smartly, you will die and die often. My view us more in line with what the Devs have stated, in my opinion.
The River Kingdoms = Soft in morals, not soft in will, body or skills.
I agree with you. However, to most I think it would be considered a "fair shake". Also it would make good publicity for those who prefer a player friendly organizations. In my opinion that is what keeps gamer's coming back. That being said, I think they would double what they lose.
Thanks, Ponix
] So there is no problem with the alignment except choosing between a certain alignment and between certain friends, is there?Sigh completely different don't conflate the two.
One is people who currently play together as a group and will want to be part of the same organisation and may not want either through logistics or numbers to form two settlements. Think Eve corporation
The kingdom we are referring to is the equivalent of Eve alliance. Groups that find they mesh well coming together to be stronger that may have no prior acquaintance
The closest thing to a corp will be a chartered company. Anyone can join, and there is little or no capital cost in creating one.
Settlements have very high capital cost to create, as well as a significant cost to maintain. They roughly correspond to alliances which hold sovereignty in EvE.
Nations are the next larger unit, corresponding roughly to the EvE concept of a coalition of alliances.
You and your friends aren't enough people to form a single settlement by yourselves.
Whatever you say Decius
Brainstorm for names for general term for "Nation/Kingdom" (but independent of government type): Sovereignty? Alliance? Holding?Alliance is an eve term
I'm trying to match English vocabulary to PFO, not worry about EVE's terminology or game context.
Other words applicable to the general concept, and flavor-appropriate in the River Kingdoms context, are welcome to be shared/proposed.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Steelwing is right. PFO is pretty much doomed. Not that he's arguing anything--he's simply pointing out (over and over again) how wrong everything his, all the holes in the design concept, the failure to appeal to gamers, etc. Again, it's think it's pretty clear Steelwing doesn't have an agenda--he's just making simple observations about how screwed up this whole enterprise is, from top to bottom.
Hey GW, how about you people listen to Steel, and maybe think about hiring someone with, uh oh I dunno maybe some actual experience in game design and MMOs? Because it's pretty clear to me and Steel that you guys are totally lost.
BTW I'm not saying you should change anything. I'm just agreeing with my main man, Steel.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@steelwing , I get the meaning , I just cant believe a group would give up sound defensive strategy , that goes for you too . Form a defensive alliance with a group half way across the map? The question is being used to express how incredulous I am , not that I need it explained again.Who said anything about cross the map.
I sit in my settlement for the sake of argument call it LN, next door is a CN settlement. We are friendly and want to make a kingdom but we can't because of alignment.
So we step outside the game mechanics and use ts and emails work out details of our kingdom and act as a kingdom in game by just taking the appropriate actions individually.
You declare war on them we declare war on you and the two of us gang up on you.
We declare war on you they do the same and we gang up on you.
Really it doesn't matter what Goblinworks go on about alignment wise if we want to form the bond we will do and there is nothing they can do about it.
Does this make it clear?
Yeah, but I already understood how meta game agreements work and understand that they will have a big role to play. You seem to miss my point and I would explain what I meant but you will find out in-game how things work.
Warfare costs money and makes you vulnerable to others through depletion of resources and being out of position. Taking part in NPC warfare which gains you nothing except an opportunity to PVP therefore seems a good way to spend energy better directed to furthering your settlement's position. Please don't let me stop you partaking however.
I can't bother to extract quotes of GW's blog and forum posts again for you, but I could point you to look at how they have described NPC Factions and associated gameplay... both when NPC Factions were first introduced and when the PVP Alignment Flag system was amended in favor of NPC Faction aligned PVP. They seem to consider NPC Faction combat a significant part of the game, and in fact something that many people will be doing, and will be sufficiently motivated/incentivized to do, apparently thru Faction Rank exclusive mechanics. You might also have missed that "NPC Faction aligned warfare" may in fact BE PVP. They seem to be using NPC Faction warfare to channelize/focus PVP in a specifically opt-in manner, as opposed to "randomly hostile" PVP based at most on Alignment (as the previous Alignment PVP flags promoted).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Steelwing is right. PFO is pretty much doomed. Not that he's arguing anything--he's simply pointing out (over and over again) how wrong everything his, all the holes in the design concept, the failure to appeal to gamers, etc. Again, it's think it's pretty clear Steelwing doesn't have an agenda--he's just making simple observations about how screwed up this whole enterprise is, from top to bottom.
Hey GW, how about you people listen to Steel, and maybe think about hiring someone with, uh oh I dunno maybe some actual experience in game design and MMOs? Because it's pretty clear to me and Steel that you guys are totally lost.
BTW I'm not saying you should change anything. I'm just agreeing with my main man, Steel.
Every time someone from EVE comes to these forums to say how things should be he gets a little chilly welcome lol, sorry about that Steel. :P
I think Steelwing is right. PFO is pretty much doomed. Not that he's arguing anything--he's simply pointing out (over and over again) how wrong everything his, all the holes in the design concept, the failure to appeal to gamers, etc. Again, it's think it's pretty clear Steelwing doesn't have an agenda--he's just making simple observations about how screwed up this whole enterprise is, from top to bottom.
Hey GW, how about you people listen to Steel, and maybe think about hiring someone with, uh oh I dunno maybe some actual experience in game design and MMOs? Because it's pretty clear to me and Steel that you guys are totally lost.
BTW I'm not saying you should change anything. I'm just agreeing with my main man, Steel.
Hmmm
Where have I said it is doomed?
I have been asking questions and discussing things as they apply to the group I am scouting the game for nothing else. If I decide the game won't be suitable for us I will merely shrug and go look at one of the other up coming games.
I haven't asked for anything to be changed I have commented where they will affect our decision and where I believe we can just ignore them or circumvent them. I am sure this is useful information for the Goblinworks marketing division (assuming they have one)
I have commented only so far on three systems a) the settlement one step alignment b) kingdom mechanics and c) Size of battles and how they will function
C) indeed I have merely asked questions and I await someone who actually knows what they have planned to respond.
Why are you so threatened by a prospective customer commenting on these? You do realise that PfO won't survive on just the kickstarters but you will need to get in new people during either EE or early OE else they may well decide to pull the plug?
You do realise the people most likely to come play a sandbox game with penalties for death and an open PVP environment are those playing such a game already?
Luckily for Goblinworks I regard your digs and jabs at me for daring to voice an opinion as equivalent to being savaged by a dead goldfish, more a source of infinite amusement than an irritation
Warfare costs money and makes you vulnerable to others through depletion of resources and being out of position. Taking part in NPC warfare which gains you nothing except an opportunity to PVP therefore seems a good way to spend energy better directed to furthering your settlement's position. Please don't let me stop you partaking however.I can't bother to extract quotes of GW's blog and forum posts again for you, but I could point you to look at how they have described NPC Factions and associated gameplay... both when NPC Factions were first introduced and when the PVP Alignment Flag system was amended in favor of NPC Faction aligned PVP. They seem to consider NPC Faction combat a significant part of the game, and in fact something that many people will be doing, and will be sufficiently motivated/incentivized to do, apparently thru Faction Rank exclusive mechanics. You might also have missed that "NPC Faction aligned warfare" may in fact BE PVP. They seem to be using NPC Faction warfare to channelize/focus PVP in a specifically opt-in manner, as opposed to "randomly hostile" PVP based at most on Alignment (as the previous Alignment PVP flags promoted).
I am sure that everything you say is correct. It however does not change the fact that engaging in warfare of any type costs in terms of both resources and time. If you are spending time and resources on npc faction warfare that is time and resources you don't have available for advancing your settlement.
Like I said, there shouldn't be any reason why you can't ignore that level (and it's restrictions) and coordinate different Settlements out-of-game (or heck, in-game chat is fine, just without the formal Nation/Kingdom structure). You will give up some advantages, but may also avoid some restrictions and weaknesses/costs. I expect Nations/Kingdoms leveraging their unique capabilities to predominate (because GW said so, so I expect their mechanics to be effective incentives), but other approaches can certainly also have a relevant presence in the game if people are dedicated to them.
Heck, it would be interesting for a group to organize multiple Settlements that end up being members of different Nations. They would need to answer to those Nations' expectations (if they expect to remain members), but could otherwise cooperate with their other "Chapters", avoiding fighting each other, etc. That would actually create some very complicated politics... especially if the arrangement is 'publicly' known by the broader Nations involved.
EDIT: That type of scenario, where it is known that a Settlement has different allegiances than the Nation as a whole, and cannot be depended on fully for the same range of action in all situations (e.g. they refuse to fight their own buds), seems exactly the reason why different modes of Nation government should exist. Such a Settlement might be accepted as part of Nation as an ally, but might be excluded from the governing council or some such. There is still benefit on both sides, but the expectations/priviledges would be adjusted.
I am sure that everything you say is correct. It however does not change the fact that engaging in warfare of any type costs in terms of both resources and time. If you are spending time and resources on npc faction warfare that is time and resources you don't have available for advancing your settlement.
Sure... In addition to Settlement Training and Building based Buffs, there is now NPC Faction based Buffs which hypothetically are broadly equivalent to some of the types of benefits PCs can get out of Settlements. Those Faction benefits will be character centric (although Settlement/Nations themselves could potentially also be Faction aligned), but a Settlement whose members all have additinal Faction benefits should be stronger than one whose members don't. Those Faction Benefits also don't depend on Settlement directly and are thus not subject to zero-sum game calculations dependent on the Settlement's direct prospects, therefore in stalemate scenarios or those where entering open conflict would be strategically detrimental (or simply less efficient due to facing stronger opposition/competition), pursuing NPC Faction goals may be a preferred way to augment your power. Plenty of player will have non-combat focused PCs, but those who are combat focused will presumably want to be engaged in combat most of the time (to continue progressing Merit Badges/etc), and NPC Faction combat (PVE or PVP) presents a 'productive' avenue for that. The whole picture determines people' priorities, which can shift and have different focuses at different times, but I'm pretty sure that GW will not be designing a whole sub-system with array of specific Faction mechanics in order for people to have no motivation to ever expend energy utilizing that system. If it's not working well enough as a motivation, they increase the benefit or otherwise tweak the mechanics.
If Settlements CAN build NPC Faction buff buildings and such, I think they shouldn't be more powerful effect than what Companies can build, even if they may be more 'efficient' if enough members of the Settlement want to focus on that. That's important if Factions are meant to have some measure of distance from Settlement gameplay: If Faction aligned Settlements is directly superior then that just becomes THE way to play the game... When it's not significantly important if your Settlement is Faction aligned, then the two modes of PVP and game dynamics retain more independence from each other, which seems intereting and desirable (even if there remains SOME intersection between the modes).
Although having said that, it might be interesting to have relative independence for Settlements and Factions, but then have Nations swing back to become more Faction centric? Nations' sub-Settlements (and members) may or may not align with the Nations' aligned Factions, although they end up getting "thrown in with the lot" in terms of Nation vs. Nation Faction PVP (and perhaps there would be game rules preventing being aligned with opposing Factions to the Nation's aligned Faction, even while you are free to be un-aligned or aligned with 'neutral' Factions).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever you say Decius] So there is no problem with the alignment except choosing between a certain alignment and between certain friends, is there?Sigh completely different don't conflate the two.
One is people who currently play together as a group and will want to be part of the same organisation and may not want either through logistics or numbers to form two settlements. Think Eve corporation
The kingdom we are referring to is the equivalent of Eve alliance. Groups that find they mesh well coming together to be stronger that may have no prior acquaintance
The closest thing to a corp will be a chartered company. Anyone can join, and there is little or no capital cost in creating one.
Settlements have very high capital cost to create, as well as a significant cost to maintain. They roughly correspond to alliances which hold sovereignty in EvE.
Nations are the next larger unit, corresponding roughly to the EvE concept of a coalition of alliances.
You and your friends aren't enough people to form a single settlement by yourselves.
You said your circle is about 10-25 people large, right?
Pathfinder Online's settlements involve large numbers of players in their founding, management, and defense, allowing ambitious coalitions of companies to alter the geography of the Crusader Road. Most settlements will likely number hundreds of members, and we anticipate that almost all Pathfinder Online players will at some stage be a member of a player-run settlement, and therefore potentially involved with settlement PvP. This may be participation as a settlement member, a member of a company allied to a settlement at war, membership in a mercenary company selling its services, or simply as an opportunist looking for spoils.
Your group seems to be the perfect size for a chartered company, which doesn't have any alignment restrictions at all.
You said your circle is about 10-25 people large, right?
I don't believe I have ever mentioned a number in anyway
I think it is important for GW to clearly convey/explain how all the game options and how those fit with different play style priorities.
One idea to convey the utility of Venture Companies without Alignment restrictions might be thru an early-game "intro" mechanic which suggests that new players join "Racial" (Elf, Gnome, Human, etc) Companies/NPC-Factions which are a sideline to other activity, but they end up cooperating with a broader array of Alignments then they do otherwise in their chosen Settlements. That concretizes the idea of such cross-Alignment groups, and thus applying the same idea for another purpose (non-Racial) becomes more of an obvious opportunity. The "Racial" Faction thing could just be mechanically relevant at low levels, so it isn't important in the over-all game, but it could just serve an introductory example to the possibilities of cross-Alignment Companies. ...Also providing some more in-game flavor for the Races in the context of the world lore, etc., and possibly even providing a hook for future plot developments.
Likewise, concrete examples of out-of-game dynamics (as well as in-game dynamics) that would correlate well to different Settlement/Nation government structures. That establishes their relevancy alot more, while still being just as open to 'other' applications/reasons to use those forms.
I don't believe I have ever mentioned a number in anywayYou said your circle is about 10-25 people large, right?
So what number are you talking about then?
So what number are you talking about then?I don't believe I have ever mentioned a number in anywayYou said your circle is about 10-25 people large, right?
As I have already said to someone who PM'ed me
"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
I will assist you in voiding the bolded part because?
So you want people to spend energy on a conversation addressing your specific concerns but you won't say what those are?
Great. I'm done here.
So you want people to spend energy on a conversation addressing your specific concerns but you won't say what those are?
Great. I'm done here.
To answer your quote directly whether we have 10,100 or 1000 players in our group doesn't actually affect the concerns I raised.
If you wish to continue reading however
I haven't asked anyone to address concerns with the exception of the question to the developer about how they plan to enable settlement warfare in respect of numbers and player caps due to technical limitations.
Other than that
I have made a statement that a particular mechanic makes life harder to pitch the sale. I did not ask for it to be changed or addressed
I have made a statement about how we would side step a game mechanic if we felt it was beneficial to do so.
The last two were informative
the first is informative for goblinworks marketing so they are aware of potential issues for bringing in new subscribers and they can choose to address it or not as they wish
the second is informative to the community about how groups like mine will sidestep mechanics if we have to.
Please show me a quote where I have asked for either change to these two or for a solution to the problem. Do not put words in my mouth that I haven't uttered because I will call you out for misrepresenting me
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you want people to spend energy on a conversation addressing your specific concerns but you won't say what those are?
Great. I'm done here.
Im gonna have to agree here, you should join the community, Steelwing , you and your group. Be sure to tell them you declared everyone your enemy when you give your report , is that the type of group they are? So far its just you so we don't really know if there is a group. So your problems with the game are just yours , not some mystery groups ,you claim to represent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you want people to spend energy on a conversation addressing your specific concerns but you won't say what those are?
Great. I'm done here.To answer your quote directly whether we have 10,100 or 1000 players in our group doesn't actually affect the concerns I raised.
So a group of 10000 or maybe 1000 sends one guy to check out a new game for ALL of them and based on what YOU say they will decide!! I call BS, tell us who they are and how to verify you represent them.
Im gonna have to agree here, you should join the community, Steelwing , you and your group. Be sure to tell them you declared everyone your enemy when you give your report , is that the type of group they are? So far its just you so we don't really know if there is a group. So your problems with the game are just yours , not some mystery groups ,you claim to represent.So you want people to spend energy on a conversation addressing your specific concerns but you won't say what those are?
Great. I'm done here.
I thought by delurking I was joining the community.
My group will decide to join or not depending on whether I go back and decide to sell them the bill of goods
You are obviously psychic knowing at this point exactly who your enemies are or aren't. Me I assume any group here could be either an ally or enemy come the launch of the game therefore I don't give information out that is unnecessary (especially ironic I have to say being castigated on not giving out information by someone called notmyrealname with no declared allegiance)
I haven't claimed to represent anyone. What I said was I belong to a group and a few of us are scoping out new games which to present to the group as potential new games....this is not representing the group it is merely acting as a talent scout. Why do you feel this makes it invalid for me to comment regardless of whether you believe me or not?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Could I get my "Goblin Squad Member" tag replaced with "A Dead Goldfish please?
It's a step up for me.
I'm looking forward to the website and a Goblin Squad subforums. ;)
It's sort of parallel to reputation in game; only on a forum. Forums generaly require a moderator's presence, I wonder if GW will consider the same for PFO?
Paladins would get my vote!
So a group of 10000 or maybe 1000 sends one guy to check out a new game for ALL of them and based on what YOU say they will decide!! I call BS, tell us who they are and how to verify you represent them.So you want people to spend energy on a conversation addressing your specific concerns but you won't say what those are?
Great. I'm done here.To answer your quote directly whether we have 10,100 or 1000 players in our group doesn't actually affect the concerns I raised.
You do realise those were examples pointing out the exact number doesn't matter I didn't claim any of the numbers (and by the way it is 3 numbers I typed not two 10 or 100 or 1000 it wasnt typed as 10100 though thats how you read it)
Anyways, previously there had been controversy over Settlements/Nations being overly broad in membership compatability (or vice-versa, whether they would be overly strict). I'm not against any hard limits in compatability, but I think that issue should also be addressed in non-'hard'-limited approaches, but by incentives: Declared Alignment XY Settlements can grant bonuses to members who share X/Y components. A Settlement with Declared Alignment of XY but with practically no members of that alignment will effectively be missing out on significant mechanical advantages. Settlements will be incentivized to have a population that overall is very close to their declared Alignment, exactly matching it being ideal by this mechanic directly, but unlikely because of the other benefits of mixed alignments.
Of course, not all those benefits are 'automatic', some will require building Buff Buildings keyed to whatever Alignment... So the Settlement becomes 'invested' in a certain Alignment thru the Buildings it has. If the average alignment of their population shifts, either by chance or thru direct repurcussions of the Settlement' policies and strategy, there would be motivation to change the Alignment to match the new average, but also inertia from the investment in older Alignment keyed Buff Buildings... SO if it's felt that the average could move back to the old average again, it might be better to go a time with a 'less optimal' mis-alignment of declared Settlement Alignment and actual Average Alignment of member.
I think having some 'automatic' benefit of declared alignment is good, just to have some immediate motivation re: declared vs. average alignment whatever the 'legacy'/existing buff buildings are... And then there is the question of whether differing alignment-keyed buff buildings can exist/be maintained at the same time, or whether they are 100% exclusive: they could be fully exclusive and you have to tear one down completely before a differing alignment building is made, or only one can FUNCTION at a time but you can keep the investment in a building if you wish, or multiple alignment buildings can funtion simultaneously (with just some advantage for any that match the current declared settlement alignment?).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
folks it honestly doesnt matter what group he is from or who they are. Its perfectly plausible that he is the scout they sent and he will go back and tell them, hey its interesting because of x or its not because of x or we need to wait.
I think at this point he some concerns that he will not considered addressed until the game gets into EE or even OE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought by delurking I was joining the community.
No, that's not really sufficient. To join a community, you must be recognized as a member by the existing community, which requires demonstrating characteristics of an 'insider' as opposed to an 'outsider' to the satisfaction of a critical mass of the community (such that even those community members who disagree with you cannot avoid that a critical mass of the community does consider you part of the community). Until you accomodate to the community norms (which can include negotiating your difference from existing norms), you are just an outsider somehow interacting with community members.
folks it honestly doesnt matter what group he is from or who they are. Its perfectly plausible that he is the scout they sent and he will go back and tell them, hey its interesting because of x or its not because of x or we need to wait.
I think at this point he some concerns that he will not considered addressed until the game gets into EE or even OE.
Indeed I already mentioned I didn't think EE would be a viable sell to the group because of too many systems missing. I have plenty of time to make a decision and I am in no hurry to do so.
I think GW's strategy of not trying or expecting to immediately grab a huge audience is good, they can expand the marketing push and increase the audience when ready. After getting the game solid that might even be the time for a graphics refresh, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
folks it honestly doesnt matter what group he is from or who they are. Its perfectly plausible that he is the scout they sent and he will go back and tell them, hey its interesting because of x or its not because of x or we need to wait.
I think at this point he some concerns that he will not considered addressed until the game gets into EE or even OE.
It matters a great deal to me, a group with 500 people that doesn't want us to know who they are? All the other groups are forthcoming about who they are. For someone to make a claim like this and then not back it up is not acceptable, why WOULDN'T a group want other people to know who they are?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought by delurking I was joining the community.No, that's not really sufficient. To join a community, you must be recognized as a member by the existing community, which requires demonstrating characteristics of an 'insider' as opposed to an 'outsider' to the satisfaction of a relevant portion of the community. Until you accomodate to the community norms, you are just an outsider somehow interacting with community members.
I disagree that admittance into this community is by some majority consensus.
I also disagree that a community member by necessity needs to adhere to the opinions and norms of their peers.
The only reasonable rule is "Don't be a jerk". That is what the mods have asked of us, and that is the only fair judgement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought by delurking I was joining the community.No, that's not really sufficient. To join a community, you must be recognized as a member by the existing community, which requires demonstrating characteristics of an 'insider' as opposed to an 'outsider' to the satisfaction of a critical mass of the community. Until you accomodate to the community norms (which can include negotiating your difference from them), you are just an outsider somehow interacting with community members.
Oh dear....sorry I have rarely seen a statement made that I have thought this person really needs to get over themselves.
This little forum clique you have you do realise you are a tiny little %age of even the kickstarters (certainly less than 2% most of you come EE aren't even going to be blips on the radar of the game community much less when OE rolls around.
Just looking at the community roll call thread and the number of posters here tells me that if anyone can lay claim to be the voice of the community it is probably the Pax lot (and no they are just a small blip as well).
Where do you get off telling people who and who isn't part of the community you self important little man
It matters a great deal to me, a group with 500 people that doesn't want us to know who they are? All the other groups are forthcoming about who they are. For someone to make a claim like this and then not back it up is not acceptable, why WOULDN'T a group want other people to know who they are?folks it honestly doesnt matter what group he is from or who they are. Its perfectly plausible that he is the scout they sent and he will go back and tell them, hey its interesting because of x or its not because of x or we need to wait.
I think at this point he some concerns that he will not considered addressed until the game gets into EE or even OE.
I made no claims of group size at any point in time on these forums.
Pax Morbis was kind enough to check and confirm. Please stop making up things I have said
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just looking at the community roll call thread and the number of posters here tells me that if anyone can lay claim to be the voice of the community it is probably the Pax lot (and no they are just a small blip as well).
Just to catch any comments before they get started, Pax is not offended by this comment.
It is a truth we have discussed internally since we began trying to get our own membership interested. Honestly we have had a lot of the same hurdles in convincing our members to join, but we are making some advances.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is this thread even about? XD
Edit: At this point everyone's arguing about nothing and it's just silly.
Perhaps we should get to the topic of alignment and/or reputation. What other things would make good candidates for Reputation-gaining actions? They should be things you can't quickly or easily repeat with the same target, probably with some cost associated. Any ideas?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It matters a great deal to me, a group with 500 people that doesn't want us to know who they are? All the other groups are forthcoming about who they are. For someone to make a claim like this and then not back it up is not acceptable, why WOULDN'T a group want other people to know who they are?folks it honestly doesnt matter what group he is from or who they are. Its perfectly plausible that he is the scout they sent and he will go back and tell them, hey its interesting because of x or its not because of x or we need to wait.
I think at this point he some concerns that he will not considered addressed until the game gets into EE or even OE.
I made no claims of group size at any point in time on these forums.
Pax Morbis was kind enough to check and confirm. Please stop making up things I have said
WHO is the group , do they have a website, how many members are there ? Simple questions and quite reasonable to ask them, after someone has repeatedly said that are reporting to a group about this game. I don't need Pax Morbus to confirm that you are playing with us about who your group is. I need you to tell us who the group is and how many are waiting for you to lead them to the promised land , err I mean to PFO land.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just looking at the community roll call thread and the number of posters here tells me that if anyone can lay claim to be the voice of the community it is probably the Pax lot (and no they are just a small blip as well).
Just to catch any comments before they get started, Pax is not offended by this comment.
It is a truth we have discussed internally since we began trying to get our own membership interested. Honestly we have had a lot of the same hurdles in convincing our members to join, but we are making some advances.
No offence was intended virtually all groups will never be anything but a tiny fraction of a % of the total game population. Hell even goons in Eve with their 11k members are a mere 2% of Eve players