Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
It would be really great if we didn't have another thread turn into endless squabbling with Bluddwolf about things that are totally unrelated to the thread.You should direct this to Audoucet, he started the "moral relativism" topic.
Well he doesn't need to direct something specifically to me, I can take his demand into consideration anyway, which I will do, and stop arguing with you.
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have some questions:
- Is there a written Accord and is it public?
- Sovereignty was mentioned, do you see the Accord as more of a United Nations (very little authority, more of a inter-group conscious) or a European Union (collective voice/power).
- Do we get to call your members 'Rosies' :)
I interpreted it more like the Human Rights than UN.
(and UNC offering to sign the 1949 Geneva convention instead, which is also a very good thing but not the same).Ultimately, we could all maybe agree on "positive gameplay" meaning "whatever makes the game more fun for the players", but there are differing opinions in what 'fun' means and who the 'players' are in that sentence. For example banditry as a mechanic makes the game better, but noone wants to be robbed...
Rewording (if not done already?) the Accord more like the Ten commandments or the Human rights charter could make it clearer exactly what we are committing to. Then UNC (and others) could commit to some -but not all- of the sections.
For me, knowing that UNC are "honorable bandits" means I expect to be ambushed and robbed, but will complain to Bluddwolf if UNC members corpsecamp or harass me.
SirZac: You're welcome to call us 'Rosies', as long as you're willing to endure the consequences (and as long as GW don't interpret it as a racial slur...)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have some questions:
- Is there a written Accord and is it public?
- Sovereignty was mentioned, do you see the Accord as more of a United Nations (very little authority, more of a inter-group conscious) or a European Union (collective voice/power).
- Do we get to call your members 'Rosies' :)
I interpreted it more like the Human Rights than UN.
(and UNC offering to sign the 1949 Geneva convention instead, which is also a very good thing but not the same).Ultimately, we could all maybe agree on "positive gameplay" meaning "whatever makes the game more fun for the players", but there are differing opinions in what 'fun' means and who the 'players' are in that sentence. For example banditry as a mechanic makes the game better, but noone wants to actually be robbed...
Rewording (if not done already?) the Accord more like the Ten commandments or the Human rights charter could make it clearer exactly what we are committing to. Then UNC (and others) could commit to some -but not all- of the sections.
For me, knowing that UNC are "honorable bandits" means I expect to be ambushed and robbed, but will complain to Bluddwolf if UNC members corpsecamp or harass me.
SirZac: You're welcome to call us 'Rosies', as long as you're willing to endure the consequences (and as long as GW don't interpret it as a racial slur...)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm catching up on the forums - I've been gone for a month(ish) and totally missed the Landrush vote - but a belated congratulations on your upcoming settlements, and on this accord. As an individual with a few friends and family following me into PfO, I obviously can't be a signatory, but I fully support the spirit of positive gameplay!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Randomwalker Just wanting to say: While we have withdrawn our application to join this accord, this by no means changes our stance on what we feel is positive and meaningful gameplay and will continue to do as we have declared is our intent.
Calling us "honorable bandits" is a fair description of our intended playstyle. And very much indeed, if you (or anyone) feel you are being targeted and/or harassed by members of the UNC, we ask you to notify those in command of the UNC so that it can be researched and corrected. It isn't our intent to do such action as it violates OUR view of positive gameplay experience.
We will rob you and we will kill you and we do it as part of the game and for our own enjoyment, but not with the intent of costing you your enjoyment. Being killed and robbed is part of the game and we hope that it is interpreted as such, and not anything negative.
In an attempt to not post yet another massive post, I will end there. Hopefully I got my message across without offending anyone or starting another "discussion" of how us robbing and killing is "bad and not fun."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Randomwalker Just wanting to say: While we have withdrawn our application to join this accord, this by no means changes our stance on what we feel is positive and meaningful gameplay and will continue to do as we have declared is our intent.
Calling us "honorable bandits" is a fair description of our intended playstyle. And very much indeed, if you (or anyone) feel you are being targeted and/or harassed by members of the UNC, we ask you to notify those in command of the UNC so that it can be researched and corrected. It isn't our intent to do such action as it violates OUR view of positive gameplay experience.
We will rob you and we will kill you and we do it as part of the game and for our own enjoyment, but not with the intent of costing you your enjoyment. Being killed and robbed is part of the game and we hope that it is interpreted as such, and not anything negative.
In an attempt to not post yet another massive post, I will end there. Hopefully I got my message across without offending anyone or starting another "discussion" of how us robbing and killing is "bad and not fun."
If this is the "real" UNC, and your members have all signed off on this, then I for one will not be complaining. I am not going to wish you luck in robbing me, but I appreciate the honesty and the acknowledgement that other people's enjoyment is also important. There should be room for all playstyles in PFO - with the exception of griefers - and that includes the bandits. So I salute you now Goodfellow, as I will after we have a run in in game (which I'll have won, of course :P)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rewording (if not done already?) the Accord more like the Ten commandments or the Human rights charter could make it clearer exactly what we are committing to.
I think the only "commandment" that would have been approved by everyone is "Thou shalt not prey on other players". And, again, that's not because we think "preying on other players" is a terrible thing that should be banned from the game - I personally think it's a critical part of making the game more meaningful. And I think there will be a great many cases where attacking other players - even initiating hostilities against them - will be perfectly in line with this "commandment".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that the Roseblood Accord is basically just an agreement among like-minded individuals to be the "good guys" in the game. I mean, that's what all this "positive gameplay" posturing is all about, right? It's just a buzzword approach to saying, "Hey, let's not be the people who go around robbing and killing people just because they have something we want. Let's instead be the good guys!"
The UNC has made it clear that they intend to be the "bad guys." They intend to rob and kill, extort, assassinate, and anything else they can get paid for. Additionally, they don't seem to have any particular desire to be a member of the Accord, taking a stance along the lines of, "if you want to add us to your Accord, go ahead." They have shown no interest in changing their behavior to be more like the "good guys."
So I don't see the problem here. We don't add them to the Accord, they get to play the bad guys, we get to play the good guys, everyone gets what they want. We can't be good without having their badness as a counterpoint and vice versa so we're each providing a service to the other. All this semantics about defining "positive gameplay" is just silly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Diametrically Opposed is something that comes to mind. I don't mean this negatively at all, but in the sense that two opposing parties are what make games like this great. Even better when you can get three, four, or five major groups all competing for resources.
I sincerely hope that a lot of these groups pop up, some that are similar to Roseblood, some that are in the middle, and some that might be opposite. All of them within the rules/mechanics would be nice, but we all know that some people will cheat/exploit.
To me, personally, Positive game play is playing within the rules/mechanics of the game, not cheating, exploiting, or preying on newbs.
Griefing is a touchy subject to some, as well as hard to define at times. Is bindpoint camping griefing, if you are attempting to win a mass battle?
All in all, I really agree with the Roseblood Accord, and I am glad there will be other groups out there doing their thing and being bad guys.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... Is bindpoint camping griefing, if you are attempting to win a mass battle? ...
Mmmm if indiscriminate I'd imagine so, but if I'm not mistaken bindpoints will be in settlements, so that should be pretty hard to pull off.
Interdiction of return routes/supply certainly shouldn't be griefing. I am thinking the devs might consider a 'stand-and-deliver' like mechanic called 'Interdict' (or similar) that is only useful in war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... Is bindpoint camping griefing, if you are attempting to win a mass battle? ...Mmmm if indiscriminate I'd imagine so, but if I'm not mistaken bindpoints will be in settlements, so that should be pretty hard to pull off.
Interdiction of return routes/supply certainly shouldn't be griefing. I am thinking the devs might consider a 'stand-and-deliver' like mechanic called 'Interdict' (or similar) that is only useful in war.
I could see that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this discussion of morality/Alignment in PFO is reminding me of how peoples views of Alignments seem to have shifted based on Wanting to play Evil in PFS where Evil PCs are banned.
As a GM I've had to give players warnings about killing helpless enemies being an Evil act.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a final point, I recently responded to a PM with this...
I look forward to working with you. At times we will be on the same side, and at others we will be opposed. I'm fairly confident that we can make those interactions "Mutually Enjoyable", even if they are not "Mutually Beneficial"
I believe that this final point is really the key to "Positive Game Play". That is not to say that cooperation is not enjoyable, but it is not competitive and certainly not as challenging. Without risk, any reward is diminished. I have had some of my most enjoyable MMO experiences in a loss, particularly if they were funny or if I learned from them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We, the Keepers of the Circle, have reviewed the terms of the Roseblood Accord within our organization and are greatly in favor of the document. We too desire to see positive gameplay flourish in PFO, and are willing to help lead by example wherever we live and travel.
We formally request that we be added to the list of organizations supporting the Roseblood Accord as we believe we can work toward the mutual success of all parties involved.
Signed,
The Keepers of the Circle
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We formally request that we be added to the list of organizations supporting the Roseblood Accord as we believe we can work toward the mutual success of all parties involved.
Good to hear. I've been looking forward to working with the Keepers; I hope you'll consider becoming a neighbor to Brighthaven.
P.S. Though we are guildmates, Ixiolander and I are not actually twins, though the resemblance is uncanny.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If this is the "real" UNC, and your members have all signed off on this, then I for one will not be complaining. I am not going to wish you luck in robbing me, but I appreciate the honesty and the acknowledgement that other people's enjoyment is also important. There should be room for all playstyles in PFO - with the exception of griefers - and that includes the bandits. So I salute you now Goodfellow, as I will after we have a run in in game (which I'll have won, of course :P)@Randomwalker Just wanting to say: While we have withdrawn our application to join this accord, this by no means changes our stance on what we feel is positive and meaningful gameplay and will continue to do as we have declared is our intent.
Calling us "honorable bandits" is a fair description of our intended playstyle. And very much indeed, if you (or anyone) feel you are being targeted and/or harassed by members of the UNC, we ask you to notify those in command of the UNC so that it can be researched and corrected. It isn't our intent to do such action as it violates OUR view of positive gameplay experience.
We will rob you and we will kill you and we do it as part of the game and for our own enjoyment, but not with the intent of costing you your enjoyment. Being killed and robbed is part of the game and we hope that it is interpreted as such, and not anything negative.
In an attempt to not post yet another massive post, I will end there. Hopefully I got my message across without offending anyone or starting another "discussion" of how us robbing and killing is "bad and not fun."
agree with Lhan here. If UNC can be my "mutually enjoyable content" that's good enough for me.
For the record: Some of my most enjoyable PvP experiences have been as a Freetrader in PotBS, simply trying to outrun the pirates and make it into the blockaded port with a shipload full of valuables. Just don't expect me to fight back (I prefer that to come as a surprise).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We wish you luck and hope you will stay on the path.
"The worst government is often the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression."
MA
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We'll all be like Wood for Sheep?
And, Audacity will be like, fk yeah.
hah! Damn straight. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Moved from our Aragon Settlement thread:
Late to the party, but wishing you all the best. A pity the Accord didn't work out but I still hope to work alongside you all in a less formal capacity toward a positive gaming experience. Cheers!
As the emphasis of the Accord became more clear it became obvious that it was not just a meta game pledge to adhere to "positive game play" but in actuality it is an accord to adhere to "mutual benefit" of the signatories.
Since our chosen path is to be bandits, raiders, assassins and mercenaries, and being primarily PvP focused, "mutual benefit" is hard to sell to the losing side of PvP.
The other misunderstanding is that this Accord applies to a region of the map and not specific settlement hexes, and it applies to all members as a block. Our contract system is designed to be more focused and in short terms.
The UNC has every intention of participating in positive game play, but that does not include joining an alliance with a self interest that runs counter to our role or play style. Our goal is to make our game play "Mutually Enjoyable or Entertaining". That in our opinion is a good measure of "Positive Game Play".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It will be very interesting to see how "mutual benefit" plays out if any of the signatories end up on opposite sides of the field.
I think it would come down to good gamesmanship among all parties. I am sure we can each think of ways to engineer the defeat of an opponent using out-of-game advantages. Good sportsmanship would exclude unfair out-of-game instruments and prefer whatever the game developer has expressly provided. Good sportsmanship means all teams play within the rules that afford 'fairness' and distinguish 'what is a game' from 'reality'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It will be very interesting to see how "mutual benefit" plays out if any of the signatories end up on opposite sides of the field.I think it would come down to good gamesmanship among all parties. I am sure we can each think of ways to engineer the defeat of an opponent using out-of-game advantages. Good sportsmanship would exclude unfair out-of-game instruments and prefer whatever the game developer has expressly provided. Good sportsmanship means all teams play within the rules that afford 'fairness' and distinguish 'what is a game' from 'reality'.
I may be misreading this. Are you saying that "Good Sportsmanship" can only be achieved if we all yes the same keyboards, mice, VOIP, Internet connection speed, etc?
"Rules that afford Fairness", does this mean equal size groups, experience, gear tier, and the conflict is set at an arranged time and place?
That is not truly meaningful PvP, it is practice and even in that it has little real value. Even in scripted practice combat, you should design scenarios that are imbalanced or unfair. The measure of success for the disadvantaged is not whether or not they survive but how long they survive or how many they can take down to defeat with them.
|
I agree, and don't see what you are trying to accomplish here Bludd.
I understand you want to do all that nasty nasty, but I don't understand what is so hard to understand about agreeing not to be viscous, abusive, or grevious. The mutual benefit portion is only implied because of the fact that an environment free of such things will clearly benefit all thereby.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf, this is a recruitment thread. I'd appreciate it if you would try to minimize the number of times you derail it to challenge people on their statements.
I think Bluddwolf is so eager to try his hand at PvP, he is attempting to PvP you, Nihimon, by derailing this thread at every opportunity. =o)
He will likely continue parsing every comment to create endless debates about the exact semantics behind every word and phrase just to have something to argue about. Internet drama queens just can't be stopped.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The mutual benefit portion is only implied because of the fact that an environment free of such things will clearly benefit all thereby.
Like Goodfellow, Darcnes, and Bluddwulf, I can completely see where two or more parties adhere to in-game, "fair" intended mechanics as they relentlessly hammer away at each other for a week long war resulting in somebody losing a settlement. That's not materially beneficial for those that lost their settlement, but hopefully it was fun or at least engaging and rewarding in the long run because that's the crux of the game.
I claim credit for being the first in the thread to make the sports analogy so I'll keep going... when the quarterback makes a 15 yard pass to a tight end that slips his linebacker and other far off defenders for a touchdown, the defending team didn't benefit but the intent is both sides had a good time in the challenge of it.
It might have been an interception returned for a touchdown if a guy ran a slightly different route, or someone fell down, or a defensive lineman managed to knock into the quarterback. All the players stayed within what's expected of "fair competition" and the outcome results from tactics, planned counter defense, and what offense actually happened.
Football has to define explicitly what's allowed or fair and in good spirit, we don't. We know what Goblinworks intends this game to be with very little deviation in perception. Many to most players (I hope) choose to accept the challenge of competing within those boundaries and see how good their team can be. A few will try to get an advantage with dirty tricks the refs can't see. Whatever you call it, Roseblood Accord or good sportsmanship or juggling geese, that is a key foundation to me for what kind of players we are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other major keystone to what kind of players we are is that an actor is not his character. People who play Hitler or Jesus or Peter Pan don't necessarily share the qualities of the personas they project. Though the separate actual person resides underneath the character guiding its actions so someone playing a doctor in surgery doesn't actually use a scalpel on another actor and hurt the person underneath the character.
That's why I'm not mad at UNC for saying they might try to take my character's stuff or Golgotha for harboring necromancers, assassins and other wretched scum and villainy. The game simply wouldn't be fun if we pet kittens, pooped rainbows, and held universal committee meetings to decide who can harvest where and whose turn it is to inhabit various settlement plots. That's what I think as a player, in character it will be more along the lines of "Die criminal! Die scum! Die abomination! This Land is safe and pure once again. Gold please."
Actors that are really good people play really bad guys in their performances so that the stories they are a part of telling are interesting and engaging and memorable. This is a sandbox GW isn't going to create that side of the stories for us. WE NEED GOOD BAD GUYS. And good bad guys can adhere to good sportsmanship too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Internet drama queens just can't be stopped.Whoa! Whoa! Calling Bluddwolf a queen is a bit much...
He is a princess at best :p
You can't even comprehend how difficult it is to resist the urge to open Photoshop right now and channel the thing that is "princess Bluddwolf" in my head into it.
