Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We each have our vision of the game of Pathfinder Online, and we each have our own idea of how the game will best find expression. I believe that most of us prefer that the spirit of playing in the River Kingdoms will be filled with fun for everyone, and that we will each be able to focus ourselves on our individual play styles in liberty within the framework of rules GW is designing for the good of all.
However, we must recognize that there are exceedingly well-organized entities typified by the large Eve corporate entities whose efficiency and focus on territorial domination of everyone, everywhere will impose restrictions on our individual expressions. Our gaming liberty will be endangered if they are able to seize power and impose their limitations on our play. We will be relegated to serfdom and be left homeless.
Yet to band too tightly together now is to hand our game over to that alien game-style before the game has even entered alpha. We should not surrender our liberty for the sake of security before the first settlement is even built.
At the same time we should realize that those Eve corporate entities are already well organized and disciplined. Their internal communications are already established and practiced. Their management structure has their instant notification systems already in place and working, and they are already coordinating not just raids but invasions.
When they decide to come to Golarion we will be wide open.
Fortunately access to the game will be metered, and we may be able to detect their growing numbers over time. I recommend that we organize an informal defense league now, set up a system of communications not just of leaders of large guilds but including the individuals and independents.
The previous effort to do this preparatory work was, in my view, a vigilante system that would impose a version of justice, assigning 'black marks' on player characters. I opposed the idea of vigilante justice because I know how easily worms can insinuate themselves into even the finest apple. Worms can spoil the whole barrel by insinuating unjust accusations, and can divert an organization dedicated to real justice into an instrument of injustice.
I believe that when the threat is present it will be easily recognized. We do not need a vigilante justice organization at this time. We will know when we have to unite to resist the oppression of an alien spirit on our world. We need only set up our networking and ensure that each member and organization of our league stands prepared, supplied, and ready to suspend our hostilities with one another and unite for the common cause: the best PvP-RPG game on the planet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's a bleak picture of the future you are presenting, Being. While the case could be made that the game world risks falling under control of power gamers so that RPers, casuals etc. find themselves firmly under someone else's boot heel I think there is much to discourage such events.
I could maybe think of more points if pressed but I think you see where I'm going with this. I don't think your concerns are trivial and I don't think that a metagame alliance is necessarily a bad thing. I'm just trying to cheer you and the rest of these forums up a bit, there are plenty of reasons to stay positive :D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While you probably don't want my input you are going to get it and hopefully you will consider it in the spirit it is given
Don't start with a big vague thing like the river kingdom emergency defense league it will be hard to get buy in as people start asking awkward questions such as "and who decides what needs defending against". Instead my recommendation is start off small with concrete initiatives that people can see a value in. The use those build them into wider agreements. You have 9 months till EE and about 18 months to OE.
Concrete suggestions as examples.
Merchant types start talking to each other and think about traveling in groups whereby you can gain from sharing the costs of a worthwhile defense force. A merchant with 4 guards is easy pickings 8 merchants with 16 bodyguards not only works out cheaper for each merchant who is only now paying two guards but is also a much tougher nut to crack when attacking. Start talking about how you might coordinate things so you can find merchants travelling in the same direction.
An anti blockade force. A cross settlement organization dedicated to keep the roads clear of all blockades. It draws members from all settlements that allow their members to join and tackles ANY people trying to control road hexes as I have suggested we might do. (The any is in bold because I think it has to realistically not just be about not allowing certain groups to control roads).
Two of the top of my head that you can probably get easy buy in for and is exactly what players should be doing. Do not rely on mechanics rely on yourselves.
The other thing people need to do is start being realistic about settlements and start talking to each other and finding other groups that they share things in common with. You don't need to merge the groups but getting talking now towards scenarios such as could 6 or 7 of us combine to make a settlement with a realistic chance of staying up.
Talk to the bigger groups as well such as TEO and Pax, a settlement may be out of reach for some groups even if they combine forces but one of the bigger groups might be willing to discuss you setting up a POI in their domains though they will probably expect something in return.
Success comes through cooperation. Will you be able to match the organisation of the Eve alliances? No but neither will you be easy to push around if you are willing to accept sometimes it is in your interest to cooperate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks Being. I have been subtly trying to hint at something similar.
My ultimate idea would be for a very loose "Pact" of like minded settlements pledged to band together at need against a large opponent, but going about their business "as normal" in the meantime. The ideal would be a large area of NRDS for those most interested in PVE and exploration.
It would depend on how very carefully it is necessary that each guard it's precious resources, so I don't think my idea is a realistic one.
You never know though. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea Being, but Steelwing is right on with his points.
The Defense league could just give tasks to certain guild base on what they do to annoy the zerg infestation when it starts pushing.
The bandit companies like UNC could target their supply lines, scouting parties and targets of opportunity the zerg own.
The merchant/craft guilds supply the alliance with stuff at discount, but mark up the prices when the zerg buy them and if they get in their settlements,
and listen for information, and look around for hints to their plans.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems like it would be better for the game overall if everyone ran NRDS but it won't take long for paranoia to sweep through and trend everyone into a more harsh vein.
Ideally I would think we would have sparse identifiers so that you cannot see from afar whether some passerby is red or blue, only whether he is flagged for some reason. This would alleviate some of the nbsi problem for travelers, explorers, and migrants.
Another idea that will be very unpopular but I think very interesting would be to reduce in-game-chat to hearing distance, or even chat bubbles. Doing something like that would give great cause to stop in at every roadside stop to have a beer and collect road condition info. War ahead? Any news locally?
True, everyone would stick to teamspeak or mumble but voip doesn't give anyone all the information unless someone else is already in position.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think a standing agreement from, at the very least, the larger groups to crush any groups like those found in Eve that rear their heads in the River Kingdoms would suffice.
Should something like the goons show up, all neighboring realms and their allies should declare war on them and destroy them utterly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The following is not the position of Pax, just Morbis.
Why would I do that? Why would I not leverage the fact that I am the only person within a position of power willing to treat with such groups to my advantage? If Pax is as successful as I hope that we will be, why would I not use our success as a springboard for larger, better organised EvE groups, with the explicit guarantee that there would be a place for my group in the new order? What do I have to gain in not doing so? I have everything to gain in being complicit with their incursion.
The Goons (or, more likely, one of the other mega-alliances) could carry me to heights greater than those I am capable of reaching by myself. Why should I give that opportunity to someone else, rather than take it for me and mine?
All it takes for your plan to fail is for one of the larger groups that dominate EE to turn against you. And that will happen, because though power corrupts, the promise of power does so even quicker.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there's anything special about the Guilds that are active on the forums now. I expect there will be Guilds that join PFO years after Open Enrollment that will be focused on "positive game play" too.
What would thrill me no end is if the central hub - that generally stable area that's going to be very hard to dislodge in the original map - is made up of generally positive Settlements. That is, Settlements whose members aren't pushing the envelope trying to find out how disruptive to the New Player Experience they can be, or finding out how big a scam they can run, without getting banned.
I'd fight for that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@nihimon
and thats the thing, you wont be able to do anything about those groups who treat pfo like a job, go to the extremes, and play to win.
however what people can do is exactly what you suggest, create areas where the settlements/kingdoms back each other up so they cant get run out and they provide an area where people can feel safe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What would thrill me no end is if the central hub - that generally stable area that's going to be very hard to dislodge in the original map - is made up of generally positive Settlements. That is, Settlements whose members aren't pushing the envelope trying to find out how disruptive to the New Player Experience they can be, or finding out how big a scam they can run, without getting banned.I'd fight for that.
Might I interest you in some real estate of the lovely town of Brighthaven? You'll love the neighbors.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Might I interest you in some real estate of the lovely town of Brighthaven? You'll love the neighbors.What would thrill me no end is if the central hub - that generally stable area that's going to be very hard to dislodge in the original map - is made up of generally positive Settlements. That is, Settlements whose members aren't pushing the envelope trying to find out how disruptive to the New Player Experience they can be, or finding out how big a scam they can run, without getting banned.
I'd fight for that.
I think we are the neighbors :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would lend my support to both the larger endeavor proposed by Being and the smaller lead-up endeavors Steelwing claims is the path to getting there. While I cannot speak for the greater TEO organization definitively, I feel that enough share my mindset to claim we would be more likely than not to support this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No place will ever be completely safe. Several of the larger groups here could possibly band together with a NRDS policy (for each other) and still retain their autonomy though. The trade off is less centralized control of their NPC mob and harvestable resources. They could still retain individual control of their "bulk" gathering operations.
At EE we will be like a little pond full of fish at the bottom of an almost empty lake. We need to realize that the lake all around us will be filled with water someday and a tremendous amount of more fish. Most of different species.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would lend my support to both the larger endeavor proposed by Being and the smaller lead-up endeavors Steelwing claims is the path to getting there. While I cannot speak for the greater TEO organization definitively, I feel that enough share my mindset to claim we would be more likely than not to support this.
The reason I suggest the smaller route to go isn't really a claim in my thoughts. There have already been attempts to get every under some large vague agreement on two occasions on this forums. The treaty of Rovagug and the Confederation of communities idea floated by Nihimon
Both have failed due to people not wanting to sign on to open ended treaties where they are not particularly clear as to what they are signing up for. It seems (to me at least) that trying a third time is as unlikely to succeed.
Starting with small initiatives with precisely stated objectives seems to me therefore to be the way to go and much more likely to get the needed buy in. However feel free to do it the other way
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Liberty and individualism aside, I still think the most common solution to a big town threat will be for those preparing for that inevitability to do the same.
That is assuming those competing with incoming Eve alliances are:
1. Wanting to compete on the high tier settlement levels.
2. Are adverse to working with incoming Eve alliances themselves if given the opportunity.
I don't see competing against highly organized groups being successful by meta affiliations of companies and settlements. It is better to meet the numerical needs of a single strong settlement first. Then it is still better to meet the needs of a strong nation after that. It is only then that meta agreements are feasible IMO.
That said our individual organizations have not gotten to the point where we are willing to consider combining sovereignty. That could change as we roll into the game and individually face stronger forces and loss. I expect we will see quite a bit of flux in old grievances.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There have already been attempts to get every under some large vague agreement on two occasions on this forums. The treaty of Rovagug and the Confederation of communities idea floated by Nihimon
Both have failed due to people not wanting to sign on to open ended treaties where they are not particularly clear as to what they are signing up for. It seems (to me at least) that trying a third time is as unlikely to succeed.
Personally, I think that as each sub-community grapples with how to best address the problem, and consistently comes to similar conclusions, there is a greater likelihood of an eventual common understanding of what form such an alliance should take.
I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with embracing a process of small, concrete steps; I actually think that's a very good idea. I'm merely voicing my own belief that repeated attempts to solve a seemingly insoluble problem often do result in "Eureka!" moments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's only insanity if you try and fail to solve the same problem with the same methods every time.
Approach it differently. Start with a friendly NRDS agreement. Play it in EE, to get used to it. "When I PVE or harvest in this area with these people, we won't attack each other"
Build it from there. As the game gets more complex, more complex agreements will be needed but you will know they are coming and will have a foundation for communication.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being I think we all expect the game to evolve from a time of groups and CCs competing ,to individual settlements competing ,to kingdoms of settlements competing , to blocks of allied kingdoms competing. Any scenario like you describe will just speed up the social evolution of organization, they will cause what you want to happen by their actions.
The game will change as it evolves and be almost like a new game as larger and larger and more complex social structures come into play , it will be a lot of fun .
I think you assume a negative will prevail , I think many more will come to PFO wanting a PVP game where honor and respect are the way to play.
I would advocate for game mechanics that hinder the ability of large outside groups to come here for fast conquests of many settlements , if it is a real threat that can happen. But a better way is too plan to evolve your own Alliances as it becomes possible , if we are all destined to end up in huge defensive blocks to survive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks Being. I have been subtly trying to hint at something similar.
My ultimate idea would be for a very loose "Pact" of like minded settlements pledged to band together at need against a large opponent, but going about their business "as normal" in the meantime. The ideal would be a large area of NRDS for those most interested in PVE and exploration.
It would depend on how very carefully it is necessary that each guard it's precious resources, so I don't think my idea is a realistic one.
You never know though. :)
I think in EE, because the settlement warfare is only to be implemented at the end of it if I remember correctly, a NRDS policy is something that guilds, that are within a certain alignment range from each other(to qualify for a nation), should definitively work hard to establish. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally, my play style says I'll gladly jump to the aid of anyone deserving of it. When talking settlements and under ideal conditions in which I am free to role play that generally means any good settlement, and probably quite a few neutral ones. However, as a player I have great respect for community, and if there is an evil settlement that earns it respect being overrun by people that just make life miserable for everybody or simply disruptive to the community I'll probably swing by the evil settlement to give them a hand. A solid community means a hell of a lot more to me than role playing.
That said, the game community doesn't really even exist yet. Are just people on a forum talking about a game. The games community will really grow out of people playing the game together and social and political dynamics will grow out of that not what we have going on here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've never seen an mmo's community from before the game was released not disintegrate upon launch. The change may not be as dramatic because of early access, but these boards still only represent a small fraction of the Early access players. We are at best a drop in the bucket of the community that will be there once early access begins.
Also as much as I'd like to I don't really trust anyone the play the way they say they will until I see it. Or relationships to last past first pvp contact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was being too unclear; I do understand that we are a very tiny subset of the player community that will be in place, especially come Open Enrollment. What I'm saying is that, even now, the things we say and do on the boards will have little effects on the community of the game. The specific changes are unknowable to us, as the cause/effect chain of events is too boggling for our little mortal minds, but I do firmly believe that the presence of these boards will lead to a different in-game community than if these boards were not here at all (once again, to reiterate: the changes might be tiny and not at all what we expected, but they will be changes nonetheless).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Change is to be expected consequent to change: that is almost a tautology. The community after the change will certainly be different. That does not mean we cannot set up networks. Networks tend to act a shock absorber, making it more likely that we will change more similarly than we would change without that network.
Better to land in a new and hostile world integrated than disintegrated.
The idea is not all that 'big' or radical. It is just a recommendation that we should have a system of reliable communication in place between individuals and guilds. Guild communications are fine, but there isn't an infrastructure without a network and a network can include rather than exclude the uncommitted, the independent, the unaffiliated.
All the assumptions some have suggested that what I am proposing is somehow a big deal are asserting a fiction.
We should ensure we can communicate, and we can informally agree that if a common threat arises we will be able to deliver an SoS with some assurance that some of them may care, and of those few some may be positioned to lend a hand in time of need.
Small. Simple. Easy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The following is not the position of Pax, just Morbis.
Why would I do that? Why would I not leverage the fact that I am the only person within a position of power willing to treat with such groups to my advantage? If Pax is as successful as I hope that we will be, why would I not use our success as a springboard for larger, better organised EvE groups, with the explicit guarantee that there would be a place for my group in the new order? What do I have to gain in not doing so? I have everything to gain in being complicit with their incursion.
The Goons (or, more likely, one of the other mega-alliances) could carry me to heights greater than those I am capable of reaching by myself. Why should I give that opportunity to someone else, rather than take it for me and mine?
All it takes for your plan to fail is for one of the larger groups that dominate EE to turn against you. And that will happen, because though power corrupts, the promise of power does so even quicker.
Because what guarantee do you have that you can trust these other groups? At least the groups here in EE have some desire to NOT ruin the game for others. I should hope that PAX is not so selfish as that.
THIS is exactly what makes me nervous about truly enormous groups. Like Standard Oil and U.S. Steel in 19th century America, they are so big that nothing can stop them from taking over everything; and that is ultimately to the detriment of the entire system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The following is not the position of Pax, just Morbis.
Why would I do that? Why would I not leverage the fact that I am the only person within a position of power willing to treat with such groups to my advantage? If Pax is as successful as I hope that we will be, why would I not use our success as a springboard for larger, better organised EvE groups, with the explicit guarantee that there would be a place for my group in the new order? What do I have to gain in not doing so? I have everything to gain in being complicit with their incursion.
The Goons (or, more likely, one of the other mega-alliances) could carry me to heights greater than those I am capable of reaching by myself. Why should I give that opportunity to someone else, rather than take it for me and mine?
All it takes for your plan to fail is for one of the larger groups that dominate EE to turn against you. And that will happen, because though power corrupts, the promise of power does so even quicker.
Because what guarantee do you have that you can trust these other groups? At least the groups here in EE have some desire to NOT ruin the game for others. I should hope that PAX is not so selfish as that.
THIS is exactly what makes me nervous about truly enormous groups. Like Standard Oil and U.S. Steel in 19th century America, they are so big that nothing can stop them from taking over everything; and that is ultimately to the detriment of the entire system.
Because what guarantee do you have that you can trust these other groups?
You have the same guarantee that you have with the EE groups really. There is no certainty that groups will be as altruistic as they have advertised on these forums.
You get to know the people you are thinking on working with. Do what research you can, hear their goals, start a dialogue. Eventually you get to a point where you weigh the risk and make a judgement call. Sometimes you make a bad call for your group, and you rebuild. There really is no difference with working with or for Eve groups coming in.
At least the groups here in EE have some desire to NOT ruin the game for others. I should hope that PAX is not so selfish as that.
As Morbis stated:
1. He was not speaking for Pax
2. He is not speaking only of the Goons, but also other Eve alliances.
Not all Eve players are boogie (wo)men. Not all Eve companies explicitly aim to ruin game experiences. Not all alliances have an explicit goal to make players rage quit.
After all Pax has players in an Eve alliance / Corp/. CoTP has a corp in Eve. EE groups are already talking to Eve folk. If Eve = Bad then at least two of our EE groups are just plain awful.
THIS is exactly what makes me nervous about truly enormous groups
Higher potential risk, higher potential reward.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is inadequate to simply equate higher risk with higher reward. There is a point where projected risks will eclipse projected returns. It is therefore misleading to suggest that higher risks mean higher rewards without acknowledging that higher risks also means a greater chance of failure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is inadequate to simply equate higher risk with higher reward. There is a point where projected risks will eclipse projected returns. It is therefore misleading to suggest that higher risks mean higher rewards without acknowledging that higher risks also means a greater chance of failure.
I thought this part of the earlier reply dealt with the weighing risk aspect. Is that what you mean?
You get to know the people you are thinking on working with. Do what research you can, hear their goals, start a dialogue. Eventually you get to a point where you weigh the risk and make a judgement call
TL;DR
I thought greater chance of failure was assumed and in the calculation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
its funny when we see a movie or play video game (usually part 2) where enemies or old allies have to team up against a third force and we think why these stupid boneheads dont let it go those petty disputes/pride/arrogancy aside and unite?" Now that we are in this situation we more or less react in the same form, i guess its easy to judge when u are viewing from outside. more curious yet is the fact that usually are the leaders ego that get in the way not the ppl belonging to the groups.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prioritize things like this:
Community > TEO = TEO's Allies > Myself
Any organization that sees things that way I'm up for making alliances with, regardless of when they join and where they come from.
I just don't see many EVE organizations following that set of priorities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Being,
I had posted this in the original thread you mentioned this idea of yours, but I repost it here to get your response:
What is so special about the EE crowd (settlements) that we are deserving of such a unified front, against a storm that will not target all but just a few?
Yes Andius had called for a treaty, and we all know its flaws, and he was fried for it as you say.
I had called for the Bigtown approach and to not remain soft in the face of the storm, and I was fried for it.
So I ask again, based on what is this sense of entitlement that EE should be defended against a storm that would welcome many of us to join within its winds?
Those of us that have spoken most loudly on the side of the impending player vs, player conflict, have been fought at every turn, and countered with fears of supposed "toxic" behavior and Care Bear utopian dreams.
I will bide my time, and that of my company, and we will see what EE brings. It will remain to be seen whether or not EE will be a hand that feeds us or one that we shall chop off and join the storm.
Now to address some of the comments here. It is true that we will not have settlement vs. settlement for the majority of EE. This means that both EE and OE groups will have roughly the same experience as players with that system.
Secondly, the EE settlements will likely not even be through the lower portions of tier 2 in either structures, training or crafting. Yes there will be some advantage in being tier 2 vs tier one, but OE will have vastly greater numbers.
Third, of the potential 15 settlements, is the EE "Community" going to plan as a community that all alignments and play styles are being served? I already suspect that is not and will not be the case. Those EE companies or even settlements being left outside of that inner circle will be open to helping usher in OE entities, why wouldn't they?
Finally, for those that think the way to prepare for a hurricane is to build a house made if wet tissue paper. A suggestion, and I know some will be squeamish:
PC settlement will not be available right away. Let's assume first 3 months. You will not have settlement vs settlement warfare of at least the first 12 - 14 months.
0 - 3 months stockpile construction resources and train basic skills, yes including basic survival and combat skills.
(Assume month 4 brings in PC settlements).
4 - 12 months: Set Core Settlement Alignment to Lawful Evil and employ slave labor to build your settlements as quickly and efficiently as possible. Who should care about alignment when there is no settlement warfare. You are all talking about cooperating anyway, so do it in the most mechanically advantaged way you can.
Wait, everyone is heinous!!! By flag, yes, but not by reputation. So use that! Now EE companies can fight and train without fear of rep loss and expenditure of influence for feuding each other. We will build up huge stockpile of influence and reputation in time for OE.
13 - 17 months: switch your settlement to core alignment of choice, same as characters and play as you intend to even after OE begins.
TL;DR:
What I'm suggesting is, prepare during EE and play the real game in OE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The treaty of Rovagug
Funny that a (relatively) new forum-goer is the first to point out that analogue. For me, that was the first thing that came to mind just from reading the thread title. I think the ToR idea started at the same station as this RKEDL one, but got derailed by arguments over what constitutes "griefing", especially on a game-wide scale. Maybe it can work out this time if people aren't asked to sign up for something so loosely-defined and open-ended, but as a lore-geek I think I liked the name of the 'Treaty of Rovagug' better.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it can work out this time if people aren't asked to sign up for something so loosely-defined and open-ended,No one did that.
The word 'treaty' implies a contract, though. That was the point; I like the name of the Treaty of Rovagug from a lore perspective, but it does come with the baggage of being called a 'treaty'.
Arguments over the definition of 'griefer' was the part that stood out to me, anyway. It's kinda like the definition of 'pornography', I guess. Everyone thinks it's obvious when they see it, but it's hard to define in precise terms that many people agree on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it can work out this time if people aren't asked to sign up for something so loosely-defined and open-ended,No one did that.The word 'treaty' implies a contract, though. That was the point; I like the name of the Treaty of Rovagug from a lore perspective, but it does come with the baggage of being called a 'treaty'.
Arguments over the definition of 'griefer' was the part that stood out to me, anyway. It's kinda like the definition of 'pornography', I guess. Everyone thinks it's obvious when they see it, but it's hard to define in precise terms that many people agree on.
The thread you are reffering to was the INVITATION to A DISCUSSION ABOUT the treaty. Not the actualy treaty nor the signing to the treaty. That important fact is often forgotten.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Being, What is so special about the EE crowd (settlements) that we are deserving of such a unified front, against a storm that will not target all but just a few?
The EE crowd is us, the ones who contributed, substantially in cases. Those in EE will arguably be more invested and committed to the 'good of the game' than those who come later. And those who come later will not be excluded, especially if they show interest in furthering rather than abusing the game and its community.
The real game began some time ago, because the game is the players. We have yet to manifest in the game environment, but that is only the vehicle by which the real game will be finally expressed. Many players who committed to PFO being an excellent game are already present. Factions are already present. We already wrestle and contend.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe it can work out this time if people aren't asked to sign up for something so loosely-defined and open-ended,No one did that.The word 'treaty' implies a contract, though. That was the point; I like the name of the Treaty of Rovagug from a lore perspective, but it does come with the baggage of being called a 'treaty'.
Arguments over the definition of 'griefer' was the part that stood out to me, anyway. It's kinda like the definition of 'pornography', I guess. Everyone thinks it's obvious when they see it, but it's hard to define in precise terms that many people agree on.
Hence the informality, the request for agreement that we will each pay attention when one or more of us transmits an SOS. Part of the problem I had with the Treaty of Rovagug was that it attempted to set relationships in contract form before we could have opportunity to know whether one or more of us might be the very personification of Rovagug. The treaty seemed to be attempting to define what is still undefined in game terms. And my biggest objection was to giving authority to what was described as Justice when it was vigilantism.
Removing those elements from a mutual agreement keeps the spirit that I believe motivated the proposal of that treaty yet removes measures that I found questionable. Granted there were good reasons for those measures if things worked out the way that was feared. The problem is if things did not work out exactly as that treaty feared.
Leaving the agreement informal allows greater fluidity and adaptability. It does not fossilize relationships in the mud of assumed conditions. It does not bind relationships in the absence of unrealized circumstance. And it provides a means by which relationships may be formally initiated once the circumstances have become realized.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The old Rovagug Treaty is dead in the water. The time to discuss it again would be a time after the game is going and we are beginning to experience signs that griefing behavior is growing and not being addressed by GW. This discussion, though in a similar spirit of cooperation, is about a different subject - namely the majority of the EE community present on these forums being steamrolled by some unknown BigTown.
Discussing the old treaty is only going to confuse the matter at hand. Any argument worth making should be strong enough to stand on its own merits. The problem with referring to historic topics in regard to a current topic is that the way the historic topic is viewed, either positive or negative, will taint any point with confirmation bias.