Roseblood Accord


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 958 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Lhan - Thank you for the kind words, and you are certainly correct. Pax has no more interest in people who are playing to break the game or griefing than any other group desirous of a positive gaming environment. In the Pax Gaming Charter (Link), we clearly state the following:

6.5 RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (ROE): Players have a right to be free from griefing. While most online games are about war, the Pax Gaming Community is against the griefing of other players. In addition to the harassment and verbal abuse rules, Pax members will conduct themselves with the utmost honor in all aspects of the game related to PVP combat.

As Dacrnes rightly puts it, "Positive gameplay starts somewhere, we can all see to it that it starts with EE, whether we are a part of this accord or not." My hope is that no one assumes that if a group is not in the accord, that they must also not value positive game play.

Darnes - How on Earth did I get dragged into your list. :P Seriously speaking, regardless of the person, if what they are saying makes sense - good sense for all of us - then what they are saying should be thoughtfully considered, regardless of their posting frequency, guild allegiance, popularity, etc.

Those of us who have been here since at least the first Kickstarter have certainly invested enough time, effort, hope, and money into this game. Though there will be competition, and competition does not equate to griefing, we should all be ensuring that this opportunity we have waited so long to experience is a positive one.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree with Lhan, the game politics will explode many different directions once we are actually in the mix of it. Right now it is all a shared dream.


This Alliance will end up corrupt - I guarantee it.

Goblin Squad Member

Cirolle wrote:
This Alliance will end up corrupt - I guarantee it.

Lol do you want to expand on that? Or did you just read it in a fortune cookie or something. Why do you say this?

Goblin Squad Member

Reminds me of Men's Warehouse commercials. Always end with the guy saying "I guarantee it."

We have been pretty open about the mutual success clause, and that further agreements will be settled on in the long run.

Saying that at some nebulous point in the future this accord will stand for something different than what we have set forth here, is like saying "Winter is Coming", eventually you are always going to be right.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Cirolle wrote:
This Alliance will end up corrupt - I guarantee it.

Other than corrupting it yourself, what mechanism do you see that might result in corruption of the Roseblood Accord?

Do you believe that a culture of positive gameplay is impossible to create, that commitment devices like the Roseblood Accord are not part of an effective plan to create such a culture, that the social engineers allegedly working on producing a culture of positive gameplay have incompatible motivations, or some other belief that results in a culture of positive gameplay not coming to fruition?

Goblin Squad Member

Only thing I can see corrupting this alliance is, if the leaders aren't strong enough to cut out not-positive gameplay again and again... Its just cutting, cutting, cutting, nothing else but cutting, cutting cutting...

Goblin Squad Member

Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
Only thing I can see corrupting this alliance is, if the leaders aren't strong enough to cut out not-positive gameplay again and again... Its just cutting, cutting, cutting, nothing else but cutting, cutting cutting...

So true!

The politics involved are going to be a nightmare and are not going to get easier overtime. I hope none of the leadership has a heart condition, the stress of constantly babysitting your guild members is going to be very real.

The never ending complaints about how so-and-so from another guild in the Roseblood Accord was being a negative d-bag. Then you have to talk to that person's leader and ask that they get that player to shape up or kick them out as a responsible member of the Accord is supposed to. Not to mention when you get one of those messages asking you to resolve an issue with one of your members.

Good luck, and stay strong!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

Is there a Pathfinder Society of Divorce Lawyers?

Ok, maybe that was a little negative, but no more so then the dissolution of the Pax UNC contract. At least our separation was amicable and in accordance with the terms of the contract.

That was solely because no kids were involved. Kids complicate EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wanted to expand on what bludd said and reissue the UNC's offer to join the accord. In the beginning, this was discussed, not as an alliance of good aligned settlements and companies, but as a meta-game concept, or pledge if you will, to promote positive game play in PFO. It is my understanding that "Positive gameplay" does not exclude conflict and losses, but rather enjoyment and learning in game. It is my belief, and that of the UNC, that enjoyment of the game CAN be had while being on the receiving end of a SAD or ambush.

Not don't get me wrong, I fully understand that NOONE likes to be robbed and/or killed and lose potentially hours of work and effort. However, I believe that it can still remain a contribution to the "Positive gameplay" that this accord is founded on. Learning to work with others, as opposed to working solo (this is a MMO after all), or even learning to defend yourself or how to "negotiate" with bandits, will help to give a more enjoyable and worthwhile experience in PFO.

As mentioned in other threads, with the lack of an in depth PVE content package, it falls to us, the various players, to provide the enjoyment and meaningful interactions in the game. We at the UNC have chosen to be the "bad guys" of this equation, a necessary part of the meaningful interaction equation. Most of us actually came to the game with the intent of being a "good guy" (of varying degrees), including myself. But I digress from the point.

I state again the intent of the UNC to join this accord and our desire to promote positive game play within PFO. We do not agree with the idea that "you can't promote positive gameplay by playing the bad guy." And since this is an accord and not an alliance, or some other sort of "club for cool kids," (at least that is my understanding from reading this whole thread) I don't see why our declaration of intent isn't enough to be considered members of this accord.

Goblin Squad Member

My thoughts on the matter remain consistent from what I put in my last post in this thread. I can't speak for everyone else, but I'd be happy to work alongside UNC in a meta-game manner toward a better community and positive gaming experience.

With that said, I'll expect no quarter if we traverse your romping grounds and give none in the opposite scenario. Good gaming!

Goblin Squad Member

Ixiolander wrote:

My thoughts on the matter remain consistent from what I put in my last post in this thread. I can't speak for everyone else, but I'd be happy to work alongside UNC in a meta-game manner toward a better community and positive gaming experience.

With that said, I'll expect no quarter if we traverse your romping grounds and give none in the opposite scenario. Good gaming!

This is basically what we said. We intend to promote positive gameplay and being bad guys as well. We have no intention to grief, no intention to "over farm" an area or even players/settlements, and while we do ultimately follow the coin, this just means that our game play will adjust as the game does, too many bandits means more money in guarding, and so on.

Being respectable and honorable opponents is the metagame reputation we are striving for. Even if our IC relations are not as rosy.

Goblin Squad Member

"The Goodfellow" wrote:
I state again the intent of the UNC to join this accord and our desire to promote positive game play within PFO. We do not agree with the idea that "you can't promote positive gameplay by playing the bad guy." And since this is an accord and not an alliance, or some other sort of "club for cool kids," (at least that is my understanding from reading this whole thread) I don't see why our declaration of intent isn't enough to be considered members of this accord.

I was really hoping to hear UNC's answers to the questions I posed earlier. Personally, I find "preying on the weak for profit" to be incompatible with "positive gameplay". A commitment to "not grief" is not the same as a commitment to "positive gameplay"; not griefing is a requirement of playing the game.

For the moment, we can continue to pretend that you're not just being provocative, and if there's a general consensus that UNC belongs in the Roseblood Accord, I'll be happy to list you.

Goblin Squad Member

"The Goodfellow" wrote:
In the beginning, this was discussed, not as an alliance of good aligned settlements and companies, but as a meta-game concept, or pledge if you will, to promote positive game play in PFO.

"The Roseblood Accord is a group of sovereign player organizations united not under central authority, but in our agreement to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members."

***

So, The Roseblood Accord's primary goals pertain to a meta game oath or pledge, but it is also an in game alliance with in game goals. The Roseblood Accord can acknowledge a group as "positive game players", but that doesn't make them part of the Roseblood Accord.

That said, I'm all ears if you intend to join the alliance. All ears.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A bit of an aside. I just wanted to say, kudos for developing a great idea that incorporates canon elements in an interesting way. I hope we see more of this approach by all of the organizations in PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

@T7V Avari. That is a good point.

I agree that you can be the "bad guy" and still promote positive gameplay and I don't particularly have an issue with UNC joining but I don't quite see how you wash "mutual success" with thieves!? :)

Maybe you need a superset group of anti-greifers/jerks. Though admittedly I am already overwhelmed at all the different layers that exist.. :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I support, in principle, the intent of the Roseblood Accord. However, I still feel that intentions, no matter from whose point of view, are irrelevant. It remains to be seen if those who support this accord will actually act accordingly. But even their actions may become irrelevant if the majority of players do not have the same concept of "positive gameplay and the mutual success". As DeciusBrutus pointed out, a majority accepted definition of positive game play may be highly elusive, and the concept of "mutual success" even more so.

In spite of all of that, I will adhere to the accord. I do so not for any reason, justification, or argument presented here, but because it is how I choose to behave. I have paid too high a price in my past for acting against that which I hold as my ideals of behaving as a human being, both actually and virtually.

Nihimon wrote:
1. Is it "positive gameplay" to prey on the weak and inexperienced?

I personally feel that doing so is contrary to my integrity. If I have a bandit character within the game, I will chose that character's actions to fulfill the actualization of a fully developed, skillfully played, and complete character within the lore of the game. I will not do things simply because I can do them. I do understand, and accept, that I have no control over how other player's interpret my actions. They will act accordingly. So be it.

Quote:
2. Would players seeking a "positive gameplay experience" feel fulfilled if they were robbed by bandits who had promised to provide that "positive gameplay experience"?

Would they feel fulfilled if they were killed by a monster mob with all its consequences of lost time and effort?

Quote:
3. Would robbing members of their valuables or raiding members' Outposts contribute to "our mutual success"?

What if that outpost were overrun by an escalating monster cycle? Would that contribute to their "success"?

Quote:
4. Is Banditry compatible with Milani's stance against oppression?

Not unless banditry were conducted as a governmental policy by a settlement or nation.

Goblin Squad Member

Elorebaen wrote:
A bit of an aside. I just wanted to say, kudos for developing a great idea that incorporates canon elements in an interesting way. I hope we see more of this approach by all of the organizations in PFO.

We spent a lot of time working on it, with a lot of different people. I'm really happy with the way it turned out. Thanks :)

Goblin Squad Member

Cannot take a weekend off without something erupting it seems. As a simple point of clarification...

Yes, those of us who have already decided where we are settling would like to seek good neighbors during the land rush.

No, we do not seek to draw every individual company that wishes to sign on to the established principles to be isolated in the same region.

The above statements happen to be true regardless of participation in the Roseblood Accord. It does help us identify which organizations we may wish to form tighter bonds with and offer support to, regardless of location on the map.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

OK... I have returned from my weekend trip. Had terrible internet connection and no computer and Iphone is just a nightmare to respond to all of this.

First to Nihimon's questions:

1. Is it "positive gameplay" to prey on the weak and inexperienced?

A. Yes, if you yourself are also "weak" and "inexperienced"
B. Yes, if there is some greater purpose being served (Self Defense, Faction, Feud, War)
C. Yes, if they are suspected of being a proxy (alt) of another, with the intent to do harm.
D. Yes, if they are transporting greater wealth than would be expected (alt mule).
E. No, if there was no other meaningful reason for robbing or killing them.

2. Would players seeking a "positive gameplay experience" feel fulfilled if they were robbed by bandits who had promised to provide that "positive gameplay experience"?

If the promise has been made and there is mutual benefit for keeping to that promise, than I would view it as a contract. The UNC and I have personally stated numerous times that a contract will be met to the fullest of our ability and to the terms set forth by the contract.

There would have to be very clear terms of the contract, and only those terms would be considered. There is no "In the spirit of" in contracts.

3. Would robbing members of their valuables or raiding members' Outposts contribute to "our mutual success"?

These actions would violate the contract, as I mentioned above, and therefore during the term of the contract your holding would be safe from our predation.

4. Is Banditry compatible with Milani's stance against oppression?

Quote:
Until the death of Aroden in 4606 AR, the goddess Milani was simply one of dozens of saints within the Last Azlanti's faith. She was the beacon of hope to all those who fought against repressive regimes, giving courage to those who had little but their desire to live a free life. The death of her patron, combined with the tremendous upheaval and suffering that followed his death, gave her a focus and attracted many new followers. Those devoted to her found the courage to organize the rebellions against the infernal takeover of the Chelaxian Empire, helping many of her outlying territories break free of its control. They fought against the slow slide into barbarism, restoring people's hope that a just and good society could be restored. Milani has never been as popular as Aroden's other followers, such as Iomedae, perhaps because the Inheritor's worship had already been firmly established before their patron's passing.[2]

There is no reference to "oppression" being anything disassociated with a oppressive regime or government.

If the UNC were to be a government, having our own settlement, we would run our settlement in a Chaotic Neutral approach, in adherence to the River Freedoms. This would most directly impact our stance on Slavery, which we adamantly oppose and we would use banditry as a tool against slaver operations, liberating the slaves. (I hope there is some liberation merit badge or accolade, rather than just "destroying the inventory").

@ Nihimon,

You have stated that you read my recent posts concerning target selection. Having done so, you would see that we have taken great efforts to direct our banditry and raiding to the type of targets that the developers have stated they would consider to fall within "sanctioned" targets, or more generally, "The type of PVP we would like to see". (paraphrased).

Quote:
Even if it turns out that most of the folks who would agree with this Accord feel that Banditry is not a component of "positive gameplay", I think we all recognize that Banditry is an important part of PFO.

I'm not certain about your own membership, but the Devs have made Blogs and posts that disagree with this. So I ask you...

Do you know better what is "positive game play" than the developers?

Lhan wrote:


I think we all need to get a little perspective here.

First, the number of people who have posted on these boards is I believe less than 12.5% of those who are eligible to take part in EE. The idea that we are now "setting the tone" for PFO is untenable given those numbers, and the claim that the game will fail because of the actions of any or all of us active on these boards is arrogance in the extreme.

I differ with Lhan on two points.

First, I do not consider the belief that our small population attempting to set the tone is "arrogant". It is extremely naive. This I do not place at the feet of Nihimon. Ryan Dancey had set this naive thought into some people's heads, and they are running with it.

What "Arrogance" I place att Nihimon's feet is this. He has made several attempts to be the sole arbiter of the definition of "Positive Game Play". If you disagree with his definition, than you at the very least, do not support "Positive Game Play".

His arrogance does not stop there. In the land rush, organizations are vying for a settlement hex. Nihimon has claimed a whole region, including non claimable hexes, where are most adhere to his concept of "Positive Game Play" or they are not, and potentially even worse, they are toxic.

Cirolle wrote:


This Alliance will end up corrupt - I guarantee it.
DeciousBrutus wrote:

Other than corrupting it yourself, what mechanism do you see that might result in corruption of the Roseblood Accord?

Do you believe that a culture of positive gameplay is impossible to create, that commitment devices like the Roseblood Accord are not part of an effective plan to create such a culture, that the social engineers allegedly working on producing a culture of positive gameplay have incompatible motivations, or some other belief that results in a culture of positive gameplay not coming to fruition?

The Accord is corrupted in its inception. It is based on a self serving definition of "Positive Game Play." What it should actually say is: "Positive to Our Game Play".

By trying to pose it as a Community Wide initiative, and not a self serving one, it is built on deception.

As I have pointed out earlier, it is built on arrogance and naievete.

If it were posed as a meta-game alliance, and eventual an in-game alliance, then it would be fine to be self serving. That is to be expected.

Cirrole is correct about alliances, they always fall to corruption and eventual infighting. Simple reason... Self Interest finds a way.

Now, as to my questions:

Are the signatories of this Accord stating that they will be mutually beneficial towards the UNC, by not interfering with our banditry, outside of their south-eastern region?

Wouldn't it be easier to just approach the UNC or other potentially hostile parties and hire them to protect your merchant / travelers that have gone abroad?

I can assure you, a contract with the UNC will protect your membership from us and from others, if we are escorting, according to and during the terms of the contract.

Final Note: I still stand by the five points I made in my initial post. I also stand by the comments made by The Goodfellow.

Goblin Squad Member

No, it says positive game play and it should say positive game play. Nowhere, anywhere , in the announcement has it been said that we are not trying to "win the game". Quite the opposite, we mean for our membership to be successful in PFO and that will often mean stepping over other groups and players.

What we have said is that we are going to play by the rules and try to abide by the intent of GW's game design. There is no deception. This is not an organization pretending to be non political . We are a political entity with a meta game goal of positive game play.

Goblin Squad Member

I was answering the questions and hit the wrong button and lost it all and do not wish to rewrite the whole thing again so I am sorry I will not be answering them. Bludd basically said the same thing I was intending to anyway.

Let me say this:

The feeling I am getting from this whole thread is similar to the "treaty of ragnrock (or whatever the spelling was)" Basically it has good intentions but I think is sliding from those intentions as it develops and things are discussed and presented.

My reasons for this is mainly because of how we, the UNC, are being received. We come here, posting on this thread, with the SOLE INTENT of expressing our support and desire to participate in a gaming community that wishes to be overall positive and promotes positive gameplay. Despite the fact that we will be the "bad guys" in varying degrees and roles, we felt it could still help promote the idea behind this accord.

As things progressed since our announcement here, it seams to us that this is a agreement between members of the community that see any sort of loss or conflict as "bad and toxic." (I am not "" because someone said it, I am "" it because those are terms that I felt described it best, even though the definitions vary person to person) Basically I get the impression that anything that happens to the collective "you", that is involuntary or not promoting your happiness, is then bad and not promoting positive gameplay.

For those that read the "great pvp experiences" thread and, specifically, my contribution to it, do you think the experience that I described was a positive one? Would it fit into your accord's "definition" of a positive gameplay experience? I would say yes, but what about from the POV of the shammy? Was it a positive gameplay experience for him?

It is my belief that, by my interpretations of some of the posts here, from the shaman's POV, it was NOT a "positive gameplay experience." Would this be correct?

Goblin Squad Member

So basically Bludd wants to run a protection racket.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
T7V Avari wrote:

No, it says positive game play and it should say positive game play. Nowhere, anywhere , in the announcement has it been said that we are not trying to "win the game". Quite the opposite, we mean for our membership to be successful in PFO and that will often mean stepping over other groups and players.

What we have said is that we are going to play by the rules and try to abide by the intent of GW's game design. There is no deception. This is not an organization pretending to be non political . We are a political entity with a meta game goal of positive game play.

The bold part is my question's reference.

Are you saying this as T7V or as the Accord?

If it is the Accord, this is the first I have heard it like this. Maybe it is for the same reason people still think the UNC are/will be griefers and "toxic" players. Maybe the wording has played a big part in this misunderstanding.

Also, the accord keeps referring to "the mutual success" and I am curious. Are you referring to only the members of this accord, or are you referring to all players in PFO? Is everyone's success important, or just the members that sign up here?

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Phyllain wrote:
So basically Bludd wants to run a protection racket.

This was always one of our potential contract types. It is the "merc" side of the UNC. You can negotiate both protection from out attacks, as well as the use of our members to form the protection details of your various caravans/POIs/settlement. Details will vary contract to contract, but nearly everything is negotiable.

Goblin Squad Member

Lone_Wolf wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
C. Yes, if they are suspected of being a proxy (alt) of another, with the intent to do harm.

That sounds like anybody could be targeted under justification "C" then. What metrics do/can you use to determine if a "noob" is an alt and intending to do harm?

I'll make it clear that I certainly don't like alts being used for this type of thing, I think it subverts the game. But I know it happens (and likely will happen). The issue is that I could easily see "Justification 'C'" being used as an excuse (not saying you would, Bludd, but some certainly would) to prey on the weak.

The same argument can be used to declare someone "inexperienced" or "weak", what metric is used to identify that character as such?

We will likely see only two or three pieces of information what viewing a character: Name, Company / Settlement, Reputation

We may eventually gain the personal knowledge of what types and tiers of armor look like. But, this will be an inaccurate picture of what the character's experience or level of "weakness" is.

The disguise skill throws this all out the window, and anyone can wear lesser armor which creates the perfect disguise.

But, to your point....

Some players will eventually learn to spot obvious alt / spies or lookouts. Just like experienced players can spot "bait' targets for ambushes.

With 100% accuracy? No, of course not.

Goblin Squad Member

It seems as if you are confusing two things. Yes, this is a meta-game initiative to promote positive game play. But UNLIKE the Treat of Rovagog (whatever it was), this is not a server wide call out to anybody who wants to sign off for positive game play. This is an in game alliance, made of loosely affiliated guilds, that holds positive game play above any in game goals.

Will UNC fit our definition of positive game play? Maybe. If you do we will gladly have talks for hiring you out, or who knows what other agreement we can have.

One thing is for sure though, we will not negotiate with those we view as toxic to the game designs of PFO or to the community.

Goblin Squad Member

"The Goodfellow" wrote:


Also, the accord keeps referring to "the mutual success" and I am curious. Are you referring to only the members of this accord, or are you referring to all players in PFO? Is everyone's success important, or just the members that sign up here?

It very clearly states the mutual success of our players. It also very clearly states that we believe promoting positive game play is good for the entire community.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Avari wrote:
"The Goodfellow" wrote:


Also, the accord keeps referring to "the mutual success" and I am curious. Are you referring to only the members of this accord, or are you referring to all players in PFO? Is everyone's success important, or just the members that sign up here?

It very clearly states the mutual success of our players. It also very clearly states that we believe promoting positive game play is good for the entire community.

Your group does not determine what constitutes "positive game play" as an overall concept. To this Accord, positive game play is only gameplay that serves you in a beneficial way.

Gameplay that allows for us to raid your outpost is still positive game play, this is according to the game design.

Is this Accord declaring that game design elements such as raiding, PVP, conquest, assassination, bounty hunting, etc. are not "positive game play"?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

"The Goodfellow" wrote:


I state again the intent of the UNC to join this accord and our desire to promote positive game play within PFO. We do not agree with the idea that "you can't promote positive gameplay by playing the bad guy." And since this is an accord and not an alliance, or some other sort of "club for cool kids," (at least that is my understanding from reading this whole thread) I don't see why our declaration of intent isn't enough to be considered members of this accord.

Frankly, the reason why I don't acknowledge that the UNC is sufficiently committed to the ideals I mean when I say "positive gameplay". My belief was moderately reinforced when Bluddwolf provided a list of behaviors that he was willing to commit the UNC to following, but the majority of the list was "refrain from griefing, unless the target is a feud or war target".

Abstaining from griefing is NOT sufficient for me to believe that you are committed to making the game fun for the maximum number of people.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

To this Accord, positive game play is only gameplay that serves you in a beneficial way.

Not true. We will have rivals who play in a positive way.

Bluddwolf wrote:


Is this Accord declaring that game design elements such as raiding, PVP, conquest, assassination, bounty hunting, etc. are not "positive game play"?

If GW has made a game design, we believe it should be used in the spirit it was designed.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
T7V Avari wrote:
"The Goodfellow" wrote:


Also, the accord keeps referring to "the mutual success" and I am curious. Are you referring to only the members of this accord, or are you referring to all players in PFO? Is everyone's success important, or just the members that sign up here?

It very clearly states the mutual success of our players. It also very clearly states that we believe promoting positive game play is good for the entire community.

I reread it and see the part I missed. Thank you. However, now that that has been corrected and reread, I have an issue with this.

Am I wrong in reading it that you intend to promote a positive gameplay experience for you and your own (within the accord) but don't care about anyone else's experience? It becomes a "us and them" scenario? I don't think that is healthy for the game as a whole if this is true.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
"The Goodfellow" wrote:


I state again the intent of the UNC to join this accord and our desire to promote positive game play within PFO. We do not agree with the idea that "you can't promote positive gameplay by playing the bad guy." And since this is an accord and not an alliance, or some other sort of "club for cool kids," (at least that is my understanding from reading this whole thread) I don't see why our declaration of intent isn't enough to be considered members of this accord.

Frankly, the reason why I don't acknowledge that the UNC is sufficiently committed to the ideals I mean when I say "positive gameplay". My belief was moderately reinforced when Bluddwolf provided a list of behaviors that he was willing to commit the UNC to following, but the majority of the list was "refrain from griefing, unless the target is a feud or war target".

Abstaining from griefing is NOT sufficient for me to believe that you are committed to making the game fun for the maximum number of people.

Are the Accord members willing to refrain from interfering with banditry, directed at characters not of their own association, outside of the Accord governed territory?

Goblin Squad Member

"The Goodfellow" wrote:


Am I wrong in reading it that you intend to promote a positive gameplay experience for you and your own (within the accord) but don't care about anyone else's experience? It becomes a "us and them" scenario? I don't think that is healthy for the game as a whole if this is true.

Our dedication to positive game play is at a meta level. We absolutely care about every single player having and abiding by positive game play. Us v.s them is purely in an in game context. We are in fact attempting to be successful in a competitive game.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


Are the Accord members willing to refrain from interfering with banditry, directed at characters not of their own association, outside of the Accord governed territory?

If we interfere with banditry that does not concern us being done in the spirit of the game design, it would be an alignment or in character reason. We are after all, a mostly Good aligned group.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

Your group does not determine what constitutes "positive game play" as an overall concept. To this Accord, positive game play is only gameplay that serves you in a beneficial way.

Quite incorrect. Each person individually, for themselves must determine what positive gameplay is and is not. The accord is between people who have shared enough about what they think that they believe that their definitions of positive gamplay converge enough to be useful.

Bluddwolf wrote:

Gameplay that allows for us to raid your outpost is still positive game play, this is according to the game design.

Is this Accord declaring that game design elements such as raiding, PVP, conquest, assassination, bounty hunting, etc. are not "positive game play"?

Your personal opinion is noted. Again, the Accord is explicitly NOT declaring what is and is not positive gameplay. If you disagree with other members significantly about their interpretation, you shouldn't join without first discussing those differences fully.

Personally, I feel that every gameplay element can be used in a positive way and in a negative way. Without exception.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pax Phyllain wrote:
So basically Bludd wants to run a protection racket.

It has been discussed, but really he has said he wants to be a bandit.

I do not know if anyone has placed the concern in this fashion.

In TT (P&P) and in theme parks the challenges presented to player characters is guided to be challenging but mostly achievable by the character.

In PvP there are greater challenges than a theme park can manage. But there does not yet seem to be a way to meter the challenges to the abilities of the challenged. This lack of balance and the history in other systems of the attacker choosing to take simple challenges and let the big ones go bye the way. The bandit is not going to take the real challenging targets, and the easy targets do not have any choice.

Bandits have the choices and few risks. Some feel this is not balanced. That is the issue. The bandits know too much and the targets too little. The bandits can reduce their risk. The targets can try to avoid, but never know if they are"lucky" or doing a good job or overkill.

The obvious way to deal with bandits is a honey pot and calvary to the rescue, yet the bandits argue against such risks. It is argued there can be no risk for the bandit!

Goblin Squad Member

I think that the UNC does believe that they can provide a positive game play. I do not see how they propose to have the risk balance adjusted. The proposal has been about more and more information and control for bandits yet less for the targets. The risk seems one sided and through constant argument it becomes more and more control of the event to the bandits.

How can the risks and consequences be balanced?

Goblin Squad Member

Purely personal thoughts here. Representative of no one but myself.

When it comes right down to it, conflict is a significant part of the game. It is going to happen. Every Company, settlement, empire, alliance, "loose agreement" and/or "combination of" has to look at who they group with very seriously. If a part of their "group" is aggressive (not saying that is bad), the group has to realize that retaliation against "that group" is fair gaming. I would go so far as to say it falls within "positive game play" and the spirit of the game.

If aggression or possible repercussions (resulting from part of your "groups" actions) are not a part of your current plans, the consideration is pretty heavy.

Goblin Squad Member

8 people marked this as a favorite.

This is not the opinion of T7V or anyone in the Roseblood Accord, it is mine and mine alone.

The way I see it is that UNC is a bandit group in game, they will do all the things Bandits do, take from the rich or pour and give to themselves and that is their purpose. I truly feel the game will need this, it needs the bad guys to have something to fight against, a challenge to go up against that isn't full blown war or feuding but just your every day PVP action in a day of playing. Of course they will try to build systems up to make their gameplay more fun and give them options, that is what the game is for them and I truly feel it has a place in this game.

That being said I feel that it is a very good sign that they are planning to be the bad guys (because we will need bad guys to have something to work against) but are yet openly and willingly promoting and trying to be a part of the group that is in agreement with positive game play. They are trying to work with the rest of the community to make the game better but still play their part knowing it will be the hard one. Knowing that they will be the ones that most people point at when someone yells "Griefer!", they are trying to add a needed, even if negative, element, but at the same time make it as positive as possible.

I personally have some empathy for this as my character design is an Assassin, in a group of knowledge seekers (who are mostly neutral or good) and I very much want to be a part of my guild, but also want to be able to play my character as who he is. It is a hard line to follow as Assassins are evil, uncaring and often cruel or unfeeling. Yet I am part of one of the major guilds and initiators of the Roseblood Accord. I will do the dirty work of the guild if there is any to do, I will be the dark side of our group (if I can pull it off), but I am totally and completely behind this accord and positive game play and completely against griefing and anything that makes the game less. We all (including the UNC) want this game to be amazing. We all want to play our part and be part of something bigger, and make this game as much fun as possible for everyone. And it is my belief (and it may not be shared) that the UNC, taking on the position of "bad guys" but trying to do it and work with us to be the good "bad guys", giving us content to work against in game, but working with us out of game to make that as meaningful as possible is the best situation we could have.

They are bandits, avowed and knowingly the enemy of most, in a world where that is needed to create challenges for the "good guys", in a world based on meaningful interactions that has to have Characters against other Characters to make it worth while, but with the players behind those characters reaching out in friendship to try and be part of the positive game play group. I am for their participation if they mean it and work with us. Yes, they may raid us, hold us up, take our things, destroy our POI and so forth as everyone not in a specific alliance with us may do and any PVP or CVC in the game would also do, even if they aren't calling themselves bandits, but at least they are open and willing to work with us to make the game better for everyone in a meta-game fashion. They can work with us and those new to the game to show the positive side to being the bad guys and do their best to show people how to do that without being "griefers".

I hope to be the same in my role. I may not be able to pull it off and instead will turn into a rogue because the game system makes the character concept unworkable, but I hope to at least attempt to be the bad guy who thinks he is the good guy doing what needs to be done, for greater knowledge and fun for everyone.

I also hope that I have not upset anyone in my guild with my opinions in this matter or my difference of view as these are the people I want to play the game with, but I truly feel that we need the UNC and people like them in the game and if they want to be a part of this accord I feel it can only make the game better as they are trying to do it in the most positive way possible while still holding true to their character type.

Anyone out there agree with me or am I off my rocker? (always knew i had some screws loose).

Wexel

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@wexel, I don't recognize your name so you have either been quiet or are relatively new to the forums and I welcome you either way. I would also like to thank you for wording exactly what our intent has been since Bludd first posted on this thread, actually even before that. Maybe coming from someone not associated with UNC will make it more clear or easier to understand.

What he said in that long post is a very good interpretation of what we at the UNC have in mind and are trying to do, from the beginning mind you. From our first post, this is what our intent was. To be the bad guy and be the content for everyone else, while making everyone our content. However, this wasn't a decision we made over night or on a whim. We wanted to still be members of the community, a Positive role model for any and everyone that wanted to follow our lead in being other people's content on purpose.

The whole reason we looked into the treaty of ravagog, and now this accord, is with that same mentality and those same intentions. We want to help the community be great and a place where people come and stay and enjoy themselves. We want everyone to have fun and have epic stories to add to the "great experiences" thread and so on.

Coming from one of your own, I hope it is received better than posts from us. It is the same message. Even in other threads, the message is the same. We argue and fight for things we feel will help us, or you, to make the game more enjoyable and fun for the greatest number of people. The SAD mechanic is designed to be an alternative to only being able to kill to gain loot and inflict loss on our opposition.

I could go on but I'm tired and ready for bed. The point is that Wexel isn't the only non-UNC member to see what we are trying to do and what we stand for. If more could see that we are not the "enemy" and just the other side of the same community coin, maybe we can stop the bickering and hostilities between us and achieve this goal we all want.

Goblin Squad Member

There's your diplomat showing through again, Milo; you'd better straighten your mask. When you speak for UNC, how is it that it sounds so much different from your fellows?

You obviously don't want to stir up fights in this non-game arena, but it's quite hard for me to say that of the presentation-styles of some others. It appears, if they believe as you, their word-choice (among other aspects) has, so far and in several ways, made it difficult to see past their rhetoric to their message.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
"The Goodfellow" wrote:

@wexel, I don't recognize your name so you have either been quiet or are relatively new to the forums and I welcome you either way. I would also like to thank you for wording exactly what our intent has been since Bludd first posted on this thread, actually even before that. Maybe coming from someone not associated with UNC will make it more clear or easier to understand.

What he said in that long post is a very good interpretation of what we at the UNC have in mind and are trying to do, from the beginning mind you. From our first post, this is what our intent was. To be the bad guy and be the content for everyone else, while making everyone our content. However, this wasn't a decision we made over night or on a whim. We wanted to still be members of the community, a Positive role model for any and everyone that wanted to follow our lead in being other people's content on purpose.

The whole reason we looked into the treaty of ravagog, and now this accord, is with that same mentality and those same intentions. We want to help the community be great and a place where people come and stay and enjoy themselves. We want everyone to have fun and have epic stories to add to the "great experiences" thread and so on.

Coming from one of your own, I hope it is received better than posts from us. It is the same message. Even in other threads, the message is the same. We argue and fight for things we feel will help us, or you, to make the game more enjoyable and fun for the greatest number of people. The SAD mechanic is designed to be an alternative to only being able to kill to gain loot and inflict loss on our opposition.

I could go on but I'm tired and ready for bed. The point is that Wexel isn't the only non-UNC member to see what we are trying to do and what we stand for. If more could see that we are not the "enemy" and just the other side of the same community coin, maybe we can stop the bickering and hostilities between us and achieve this goal we all want.

Thanks Goodfellow, I have been on the boards since before the first Kickstarter as I am a P&P PFS player. I didn't use this alias and never posted much so no one had heard of me but I've always been shadowing the boards and pretty much been here from the start. I don't post all that often but have more over the last few months since I officially joined T7V. Suffice to say I read just about everything though and have seen what the UNC has been trying to do and be even if I don't always agree with you, Bludd or Xeen.

I also hope that coming from someone outside your group that I could help settle the waters and welcome the UNC into the fold, maybe even eventually have the UNC as real allies if it works out that way (not my decision though as I am only a member and have no rank in T7V). Even if never allies, I truly hope to have many encounters with the UNC both as friends and enemies to hone skills, give me something to fight for or against and just add to the game world. I'm willing to be content for others, I'm willing to be the bad guy for the good guys to kill, to make their experience more fun, challenging and entertaining or flip the coin and fight the bad guys, and I hope the UNC are the best bad guys in EE, a group for us all to have fun fighting against, as our characters, not as players. As players I hope to go up against you and yours and lose (or win) and learn and afterwards have a nice chat and laugh about it. Have fun with it as it is a game and to be enjoyed even when you lose as you gained greater understanding in that loss.

Very few may share this view, but as I've said, I welcome the UNC and the diversity you bring while still trying to be the best bad guys (and OOC good guys) out there for all the good guys to go up against. Honestly, I think there will be so many good guys that you may have trouble just keeping up and may not be enough content for us all.

So, hopefully I have reached out to those on the opposite side of this argument as well and shown that while the UNC may not be helpful or beneficial in an in character sense, and Bludd may be one of the most stubborn in always keeping to his views as correct or what have you, the real purpose they have is the same as ours, to have fun in an PVP MMO by being content as we will all be, and promote positive game play while at the same time playing that hardest of roles by being the bad guys (and we need bad guys!) while still being, as players, good guys who we can work with. OF course if they don't actually play that way, we will all see it and easily agree that is the case but if we welcome them, work with them, and in game have someone to fight, send our new players to learn the ropes of what the bad guys will will do and learn from them, I think they can be a real part of this accord. We can send our new recruits, knowingly through UNC areas (once trained) to learn from their battles, with both sides as players working together to make things better. Sure in game someone loses, and someone wins, but thats what a game is, and what better way to play than have it be a game between friends? To me that is Player Assisting Player (PAP) but Character vs Character (CVC) and the best option we have instead of outright enemies in game and out.

So, what do you all think of my ramblings?

Goblin Squad Member

I'm glad Wexel is in T7V. My Main is going to be TN. He will do Good or Evil stuff, based on the current needs for himself and the betterment of his Settlement/Company.

I'm sure there will be times I will want to use assassin option and Wexel will probably be one of the first player I setup a contract with.

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks Bane! I hope to be one of the first Assassins in the game, period, but being T7V I want to have the purpose for the evil I do be balanced by the good and knowledge it brings everyone through T7V. A hard road to walk, one I am not sure is even possible yet, but still I will try, and hope to be a loyal, stable, valuable and trusted member of a great group who knows I put them first even if my actions are evil and dark at times. Most of the time I will sit in the CN band, but I'm willing content for those who need to test their mettle in or out of T7V when I push that line over into evil at other times. I hold true to all contracts and T7V is my first and always held contract, never to be broken or betrayed, as their vassal, to do what must be done.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sheesh, you go to sleep for a few hours and it all kicks off...

Bluddwolf wrote:
Lhan wrote:

I think we all need to get a little perspective here.

First, the number of people who have posted on these boards is I believe less than 12.5% of those who are eligible to take part in EE. The idea that we are now "setting the tone" for PFO is untenable given those numbers, and the claim that the game will fail because of the actions of any or all of us active on these boards is arrogance in the extreme.

I differ with Lhan on two points.

First, I do not consider the belief that our small population attempting to set the tone is "arrogant". It is extremely naive. This I do not place at the feet of Nihimon. Ryan Dancey had set this naive thought into some people's heads, and they are running with it.

You are conflating two different points, Bludd. I actually said it was arrogant to say that we could cause the game to succeed or fail. As for setting the tone, while I don't believe it is possible to state categorically that we can set the tone, there are plenty of reasons to suppose that we might. Is it naivete to attempt to do so? Possibly. But the fact that it is not a "clear win" situation will not stop us from trying. Perhaps that's the difference between us and the bandit types - we're willing to take on a challenge even if it's far from clear that it will succeed.

Bluddwolf wrote:

What "Arrogance" I place att Nihimon's feet is this. He has made several attempts to be the sole arbiter of the definition of "Positive Game Play". If you disagree with his definition, than you at the very least, do not support "Positive Game Play".

His arrogance does not stop there. In the land rush, organizations are vying for a settlement hex. Nihimon has claimed a whole region, including non claimable hexes, where are most adhere to his concept of "Positive Game Play" or they are not, and potentially even worse, they are toxic.

I cannot begin to explain how wrong you are here to so unjustly single out Nihimon, as I don't know where to start. But I'll try :).

First, this accord was hammered out in long, long (and in my case stupid-o'clock-in-the-morning) meetings on TeamSpeak. Was Nihimon involved? Yes. But so were probably 30 other people from at least 5 different chartered companies. To claim that this is "his" policy and to single him out for it is as ridiculous as it is insulting. I thought better of you than that Bludd.

Second, there is very deliberately no strict definition of positive game play made in the document. Why? Because while we may all know it when we see it, there is sometimes room for interpretation. Nihimon and I have disagreed about this in the past - some of the things that make him uncomfortable are ok with me (and I am sure the other way around too). There is no definition - so how can it be his?

As for "claiming a whole region" (boy, did you ever excel in hyperbole class), are you now claiming that this game is not a settlement based PvP game? Yes, we are laying claim to the hexes around our settlements, and yes, we want allies around us - isn't that the way we are supposed to play this game?

Next: claiming "unclaimable" hexes. First, is this just another unjustified attack on Nihimon? Please point out to me specifically where Nihimon has said such. Second, who is being naive now? Do you really think that because a hex is unclaimable mechanically that settlements will not claim it anyway? Just because you cannot build an outpost or a POI it doesn't mean you can't patrol the hex and shoo off "undesirables". Or did you think that every sky metal hex, for example, was going to be a wonderful demonstration of share and share alike?

As you may have gathered, I am not happy when my posts are twisted to make personal attacks that are not even clad in the thin veils of courtesy. I am severely dischuffed.

As for laying the "arrogance" of the Roseblood Accord at Nihimon's feet, then - in the spirit of Kirk Douglas - I'm Nihimon! (and so's my wife!)

EDIT: P.S. I'm well aware that Nihimon is a big boy and can speak for himself. He's far more of a gentleman than I am though, so I'm not sure if he would. And it wasn't his words that were twisted. Just sayin'.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wexel, I'm glad we have you in T7V (and the other shadowy types who are keeping off the board to lower their profiles). The pursuit of knowledge can sometimes require ... obstructions to be removed.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
Wexel, I'm glad we have you in T7V (and the other shadowy types who are keeping off the board to lower their profiles). The pursuit of knowledge can sometimes require ... obstructions to be removed.

And I am sure the shadows hold their own secrets.

Goblin Squad Member

I know Bludd knows how to ruffle feathers better than most and I knew his post was going to, but I'm an bit of a Diplomat and Assassin (do those contradict each other?), and while I don't agree with how Bludd says what he says often, as stated in my long winded posts above, I still think they can be a useful and are a needed part of the game and think if we can welcome them into this accord, it would be much better than shunning them for the aggressive way Bludd responds to most things. He is a bandit first and foremost and having him as a friend is better than an enemy.

I'm fairly certain everyone knows that although Nihimon posted this thread, he is only one of many who took a part in it's making and I think there is bad Bludd (haha, I made a funny) between Bluddwolf and Nihimon. It almost seems like they are brothers who always fight because that is just what they do. I try to see through the aggression Bluddwolf displays in his writing style and purposely abrasive responses (as is his way) but I think his feelings may have been hurt a little at being rebuffed by those in the accord not seeing that he is trying to be a part of it (in his own way) as I described above. And when you put his fur up, he attacks as most wolves do. Maybe he is really just a pup on the inside and needs some affection and has been nipped a little too much…..

Maybe I've stayed up too late and need to go to sleep…..

Where was I….Oh, we all know Bludd talks a mean talk and is very firm in his opinion of Banditry and it being a positive game play experience and good for everyone and while I don't agree with the way he says it most of the time, I do agree with the principle if we can make friends and play nice.

No more fighting kids!… (points a finger at everyone fighting)

( I really think i should just shut up and go to bed but I've come this far and guess I should finish trying to say something clearly)

So, maybe the GoodFellow can speak up for UNC and work out how they can be a part of this accord and work with us in game to provide content when we need it and back off when we don't for those in the accord. If everyone in EE ends up being part of the accord then something else may have to be worked out for UNC as then they won't have much to do but as I've said before, lets have them as friends as players and enemies as characters for a better game for all, eh?

Did I just get taken over by some sort of possession? Bludd very well may take offense to some of the things I've said here, and so may others but I'm too tired to care much and just want us all to get along out of game and have fun in game (once we can actually play). I'm all for fighting some bandit friends! Who's with me?

(Looks around and sees he's ten talking to himself and promptly walks off running into a tree knocking himself out cold)

(Maybe he was drunk?)

The End.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Lhan Thanks, usually it isn't so much that I don't have something to say as that I don't have time to say it and often don't think my voice is loud enough or sound enough to say it well. I really appreciate your responses though and am happy and proud to be part of T7V and the Roseblood Accord. I will also happily take up those obstructions and remove them for us ;).

@ Forencith We do hold our own secrets, but while I may not share them all, I know I can trust T7V with their keeping.

BTW, I'm really not a spy from UNC and have never even talked to their members directly although I seem to be defending them, I'm really just trying to include everyone who wants to work and play with us and they seem to.

101 to 150 of 958 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Roseblood Accord All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.