Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't you want to be a member of the AccordEon?Clearly this has to be The Accord of Eon.please 'splainIf that's the name of this Accord, I guarantee it's going to fold.
Because someone is going to put the squeeze on it.
Edit: I.e. It'll fold under pressure, guys.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is going to be an agreement, based on good will between fellow gamers rather than parsing semantics, that acknowledges there are certain actions that players can make their characters do outside the intended game design and expectations of a territory and resource based RPG that unduly inhibit the ability of other players to have fun, and those actions don't have a place in our gaming time.Does this extend in any way to players' actions on the official forums (i.e. "forum warrioring") and otherwise outside the game?
Not specifically. But if it's going to be an agreement to treat the MMO community members at their keyboards the same as your friends around the table on game night then it can logically be extended to what you say as well as what you do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are going to be times when rep will be lost, it will be fringe mechanical overlaps or even some form of emergent gameplay deemed acceptable by players but not originally envisioned to be so.
I can think of a couple instances where mechanics would get in the way, ie. Fireballs to take out a group of bandits, one or two of which have no active bounties. I think this is a situation where those players would be deemed collateral damage, and may even be kept around to discourage area attacks that would cause rep loss. Or what about guards left out of a caravan group so as not to be part of the group being issued the SAD, once again the Fireball is the most effective means of attack, but mechanically unacceptable.
Regardless, keeping in game definitions out of Proxima's Accord is probably best.
I would like to hear what people feel about grey areas. I know some would say "if you have to ask...", while others prefer to toe the line, which is being left intentionally fuzzy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1.) I sometimes worry consistent forum goers are getting treaty fatigue. Can any of you show this or at least this thread to account holder friends that haven't been active in the forums yet, or friends that are potential players to see what they think?
2.) To give it longevity and lack of exploitation I'm keeping it a very simple and clear concept: we're basically all players sitting around a honking gigantic table on game night to play Pathfinder together, so don't forget to be awesome to one another.
3.) Seriously, this thing is going to be a few sentences long and the only way to make it complicated is if you try reeeaaally hard to blur the meaning and intent. Rough draft is in the works.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what may be useful is that we drop the terms: treaty, accord, alliance, agreement, or any other word that typically has a definite structure and consequences for not meeting it.
This could simply be a pledge, and the elements of that pledge can be as individualized or as concrete as anyone wishes to make it.
Any person or organization can make the pledge they are comfortable with. No question of "well that is not enough" or "that us expected anyway". Everyone should be satisfied that at least the individual is pledging to uphold what is "expected", because we all should know, there will be maybe who don't hold to even that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This could simply be a pledge, and the elements of that pledge can be as individualized or as concrete as anyone wishes to make it.
Any person or organization can make the pledge they are comfortable with. No question of "well that is not enough" or "that us expected anyway". Everyone should be satisfied that at least the individual is pledging to uphold what is "expected", because we all should know, there will be maybe who don't hold to even that.
If I may ask, what is the purpose of this document? It seems to me to be a simple record of who has made this pledge. If so, then what is its intent? Is it suppose to assure new players that person x of company y which is a signing member of this pledge has promised to not generally behave "bad"?
Okay, I accept this...and think it a noble goal. As a hypothetical however, I want to ask: if anyone can join and make whatever "pledge" they want, without regard to questions such as, "well that is not enough" or "that us expected anyway", what happens when person w of company v which is a signing member of this pledge, does go do "bad" things and company v refuses to punish them for it?
What does it mean to be a signer of this pledge when anyone can really behave however they want after becoming so? How is this pledge suppose to assure a newcomer that our table is an a pleasant one to play at, when there is no expectation to be minimally pleasant at the table?
Just something to consider.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What does it mean to be a signer of this pledge when anyone can really behave however they want after becoming so? How is this pledge suppose to assure a newcomer that our table is an a pleasant one to play at, when there is no expectation to be minimally pleasant at the table?
Just something to consider.
There are no game mechanics or GW rules that make anyone adhere to agreements from the forums. It's purely a social contract. Anyone that cares about how people treat them and their friends in real life pays attention to that, and if we care how players are treating each other in the game we'll pay attention to it.
Putting your or your company/settlement name on a meta agreement like this is talking the talk. When EE goes live we'll pay attention to the walk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I may ask, what is the purpose of this document? It seems to me to be a simple record of who has made this pledge. If so, then what is its intent? Is it suppose to assure new players that person x of company y which is a signing member of this pledge has promised to not generally behave "bad"?
Okay, I accept this...and think it a noble goal. As a hypothetical however, I want to ask: if anyone can join and make whatever "pledge" they want, without regard to questions such as, "well that is not enough" or "that us expected anyway", what happens when person w of company v which is a signing member of this pledge, does go do "bad" things and company v refuses to punish them for it?
What does it mean to be a signer of this pledge when anyone can really behave however they want after becoming so? How is this pledge suppose to assure a newcomer that our table is an a pleasant one to play at, when there is no expectation to be minimally pleasant at the table?
Just something to consider.
There are no assurances of any kind of behavior when you are dealing with Massively Multiplayer. That being said, there will be those people who make this pledge and genuinely hold themselves to it. Maybe not perfectly so, or all the time, but they will make a concerted effort.
When a person of a pledge member company or an individual pledge member does not live up to the pledge, it will become known. That person can be reminded of the pledge that he / they had made. If their breach of the pledge is serious enough or not nearly rare enough, he/they should be viewed as untrustworthy, not to the pledge but to their own word. It is important to remember that this pledge was created by the individual, presumably one that he felt he could follow.
On the last question, again assurances can never be made. I question whether or not a newcomer to an MMO actually asks him / herself, "I wonder if this game's community is pleasant?" I think it is more likely, questions of the quality of the game play, will there be enough to do, will it be fun, is it graphically appealing, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wheaton's Law
I would sign off on that. It is purely meta, and it is easily recognizable.
Have people pledge to it and build a list of pledges and those willing to maintain it. These prior would simply be responsible for recording new names and voting on whether to remove pledges that have failed at this simple task.
Also, very short, I like it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I question whether or not a newcomer to an MMO actually asks him / herself, "I wonder if this game's community is pleasant?" I think it is more likely, questions of the quality of the game play, will there be enough to do, will it be fun, is it graphically appealing, etc.
If we were talking about any other genre of game, I'd agree with you. However, given prior examples of other PvP sandbox MMOs, I think it's a perfectly reasonable question for a prospective player to ask themselves when looking at a new PvP sandbox MMO. This wouldn't even be a topic for discussion on these forums if that wasn't the case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I question whether or not a newcomer to an MMO actually asks him / herself, "I wonder if this game's community is pleasant?"
How about "I wonder if this game's community is toxic?" I think there are a lot of folks who would like to play PFO, but are concerned about this very thing...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I question whether or not a newcomer to an MMO actually asks him / herself, "I wonder if this game's community is pleasant?"How about "I wonder if this game's community is toxic?" I think there are a lot of folks who would like to play PFO, but are concerned about this very thing...
I have never read a game review, on any of the major online or magazine based game reviewers that critiqued the game's community. However, I will do a bit if research and see if I can find at least one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, I'm not talking about the questions game review sites try to answer. I'm talking about the "word of mouth" questions, or even the unspoken questions, potential players will ask.
I know a lot of the folks I've talked about PFO to have expressed this very concern - they don't normally play PvP games because they don't want some jerk killing them for no reason just because he can... or just because they're wearing a green hat.
I think there are a lot of folks who would really dig fighting other groups of players over meaningful things like Settlements, but who just don't have the desire to be some jerk's chew toy... or to be that kind of jerk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For the record, I'm not talking about the questions game review sites try to answer. I'm talking about the "word of mouth" questions, or even the unspoken questions, potential players will ask.
I know a lot of the folks I've talked about PFO to have expressed this very concern - they don't normally play PvP games because they don't want some jerk killing them for no reason just because he can... or just because they're wearing a green hat.
I think there are a lot of folks who would really dig fighting other groups of players over meaningful things like Settlements, but who just don't have the desire to be some jerk's chew toy... or to be that kind of jerk.
While I agree with you, I was specifically talking about major game reviews. I played Saga of Ryzom for 4+ years...and bought the game because I read a review on one of the "major online game reviewers" that said it had the best player community.
Similarly, negative communities is one of the things that drove me from AoC and Darkfall.
Doing a quick google search now, I have no problem finding "official reviews" that mention the quality a game's community...and a few that are exclusively on that topic.
But, at the same time, I don't really remember reading any reviews of the mission systems in any of the games I have played...although I am sure they were rated. I imagine we all see and remember what is most important to us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For the record, I'm not talking about the questions game review sites try to answer. I'm talking about the "word of mouth" questions, or even the unspoken questions, potential players will ask.
I know a lot of the folks I've talked about PFO to have expressed this very concern - they don't normally play PvP games because they don't want some jerk killing them for no reason just because he can... or just because they're wearing a green hat.
I think there are a lot of folks who would really dig fighting other groups of players over meaningful things like Settlements, but who just don't have the desire to be some jerk's chew toy... or to be that kind of jerk.
I do agree that there needs to be more meaningful reasons for PvP, but we also need to be realistic here. Fighting over settlements is going to be the pinnacle of PvP in PFO, and not something that happens frequent enough to occupy the masses. This is why there are other PvP activities that come in at a much lower requirement or level of commitment.
Goblin Works in their blogs have said that Outpost and POI raids will be the most common forms of PvP. Stephen has written that Faction based PvP will be the easiest system (and perhaps the earliest) system to implement.
I have little doubt that no matter what GW implements, there will still be some disgruntled, former PFO player, who will write an article about how bad the game was or how toxic it's community is.
There will also be others that don't see as toxic, certain behaviors that most probably would see as toxic.
The only fair assessment of PFO will be what condition it's game play and community is in by the time GW is looking to turn the switch on for Open Enrollment. If you think that is too long to wait, I'd suggest that settlement vs settlement conflict will likely not see full implementation until just prior to OE, and that is if we are lucky.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think what may be useful is that we drop the terms: treaty, accord, alliance, agreement, or any other word that typically has a definite structure and consequences for not meeting it.
This could simply be a pledge, and the elements of that pledge can be as individualized or as concrete as anyone wishes to make it.
What do you mean when you say 'pledge'?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What do you mean when you say 'pledge'?I think what may be useful is that we drop the terms: treaty, accord, alliance, agreement, or any other word that typically has a definite structure and consequences for not meeting it.
This could simply be a pledge, and the elements of that pledge can be as individualized or as concrete as anyone wishes to make it.
Pledge - noun
1.
a solemn promise or (verbal) agreement to do or refrain from doing something.
I view a pledge as being a bit less formal than even an agreement, especially a written agreement, so I inserted (verbal) to express that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The post where I first outlined this idea got 9 likes so I assume there's still some desire for this a few day later.
The community discussion part has died down so I went ahead and finished everything up.
As for a name, "The Green Hat Pledge" seemed to have the most supporters and is named after a community-created concept about the same basic issue (and was my idea so I like it the most). Bluddwolf who was the first to type the words "green hat" in these forums has expressed why he thinks that's a terrible name for it.
As the first demonstration of this concept in action, if I was sitting at a table with Bluddwolf on game night and he really didn't want me using a name he made for the thing I did I would find another name, so I will do that over the internet too. (yes people it really is that simple)
Unless a whole flurry of new ideas comes in from the forum-at-large expect to see The River Kingdoms Pledge posted soon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The post where I first outlined this idea got 9 likes so I assume there's still some desire for this a few day later.
The community discussion part has died down so I went ahead and finished everything up.
As for a name, "The Green Hat Pledge" seemed to have the most supporters and is named after a community-created concept about the same basic issue (and was my idea so I like it the most). Bluddwolf who was the first to type the words "green hat" in these forums has expressed why he thinks that's a terrible name for it.
As the first demonstration of this concept in action, if I was sitting at a table with Bluddwolf on game night and he really didn't want me using a name he made for the thing I did I would find another name, so I will do that over the internet too. (yes people it really is that simple)
Unless a whole flurry of new ideas comes in from the forum-at-large expect to see The River Kingdoms Pledge posted soon.
I certainly appreciate that Proxima, because we (UNC) intend to celebrate Green Hat Tuesday in-game as a festival of chaos. Of course, Hobs will be forced to participate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pax Golgotha is set to be the biggest of the Evil settlements at the moment. You can read more about us in our own threads,
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qy4v?The-Empire-of-Xeilias
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q434?Golgotha-Settlement-Charter
and though you might not see any of us as signatories in these accords, that's primarily because we believe our own charter does a better job for policing our own, not because we disagree with the "Don't be a dick" message.
If you want, I am happy to talk to you more about Golgotha, though this isn't really the place for that.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
This is my first forum activity / posting with Pathfinder. I have high hopes for the game, ever since looking for another true sandbox game - and having not really seen anything close to sandbox (in my opinion) since my Asherons Call days... ''way back when''.
With that being said, as I read this forum post, perused the other forum postings and guild recruitment threads - it seems that a super majority of the guilds are structuring themselves to be of Lawful/Good alignment guilds - prepared to stamp out evil.
Is there no place for "bad guys" out there...Or is Pathfinder set up to punish the ''evil'' game style too harshly to have this type of group out there. (I understand the complaints against out right griefing as described by the OP - and am not a supporter of griefing) - but I believe there IS a way to play the opposite of the Lawful/Good groups - and add a measurable flavor to the game.
Thanks for your time.
Like Morbis and others said, there is indeed evil groups, and chaotic groups. UNC even just announced a chaotic good group that could be defined as "eco-warriors".
And about all the "good guys", I don't think that you should worry too much about them "stomping" evil, most of the time, the results are the other way around, in those kind of games. :)
Which is why, I think, GW is trying to "limit", in some ways, chaotic evil gameplay : Just to even the odds ! :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...and though you might not see any of us as signatories in these accords, that's primarily because we believe our own charter does a better job for policing our own, not because we disagree with the "Don't be a dick" message.
There's a simple thing here that is literally nothing but that message, except put in a way that says what our intentions as players ARE rather than what they're not. No hassles about in game politics, no muss no fuss.
I think it would relieve a lot of worries among people looking at Pathfinder Online to see members of the prominent Evil and Chaotic groups also taking part in it. Participating brings zero new obligation since it's already part of your guild policy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Like Morbis and others said, there is indeed evil groups, and chaotic groups. UNC even just announced a chaotic good group that could be defined as "eco-warriors".
And about all the "good guys", I don't think that you should worry too much about them "stomping" evil, most of the time, the results are the other way around, in those kind of games. :)
Which is why, I think, GW is trying to "limit", in some ways, chaotic evil gameplay : Just to even the odds ! :)
The UnNamed Company being a CN company, and looking to establish a CN settlement "Aragon", we have decided to begin developing our Chaotic Good aspect. The River Freedoms being at the core of our beliefs, our Chaotic Good division (sub company) will be focused on Anti Slavery and Anti Exploitive Harvesting of Nature.
The details of this new division will be released shortly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
More my complaint is the new "guilds" do not express their alignments. Or worse say that they are open to alignments more than one step off of core. The latter is either unaware of months of information the devs have provided or a bait and switch
I could post a guild welcoming all non-lawful and gather lots of votes for a NG settlement which would not accept CN members, who did not realize it. THere is a lot of incomplete descriptions.
After June 1, I hope the guilds are better, but guilds membership less than 3 are a will be roll of dice after June 1.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's worth pointing out that Guilds don't have alignment restrictions. In fact, there aren't any in-game restrictions that apply to Guilds, because there is no such thing as a Guild in-game. Guilds exist entirely outside of the game. Companies, Settlements, and Nations will have alignment restrictions, and occasionally a Guild will perfectly line up with one of those, but once the Guild Land Rush is over, "the use of "Guild" in [Goblinworks] terminology will cease".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I enjoy this much more than I did the roseblood accord, and have high hopes for you. As with the Roseblood Accord, however, I will remind you that I am watching.
This project is now finished and located here.
Besides, putting "Un" before all your names might confuse people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should start putting "MC" in front of my name, for Mooncalves. And for being the Main Character.