Concerning Pax in the Land Rush

[Valkenr]

Jiminy wrote:

My opinion is that Pax is an umbrella organisation and that Aeternum and Golgotha are separate entities for the purposes of PFO. They are starting settlements that are vastly different concepts with differing alignments, plus Golgotha was planned prior to joining the Pax community. More than happy to see Golgotha continue on in the landrush.

I wouldn't say they are 'vastly' different. Xeilias is branded as lawful, so I'm guessing most Pax members will be playing lawful. If they were LG and CE I would give you that concession.

Don't forget the 2.5 year character development. By the time we are getting to things that require specialized settlements, I'm guessing the land rush seeding will be well over and settlements will be up for grabs. From the video today, Tier 1 and 2 are probably going to take up the better part of a year and a half(lv 1-14). Unless I am unaware of a change to the the long-term character development idea, made in my absence.

If I thought Pax Golgotha would be put at a serious disadvantage, I would probably support their having an entry in phase II.

[Lam]

In TT, experience needed to reach next level typically increases exponentially (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 ,...). I received impression that levels 1-8 would be about a month of play. Consider 5 times as long for 9- 14 and 5 times that for 15-20.

1 month + 5x1 months + 5x5x1 months = 31 month ~ 2 1/2 years (ok 2. 58 years)

GW may be address some tier 3 before end of EE. GW may appreciate some crowd forging start on tier 3.

[ZenPagan]

Ok I haven't been around for a while as I decided to withdraw from Pathfinder early enrollment and take a wait and see approach to how the game was looking a few months after launch. Due to that I haven't really be bothering to watch these forums. Being on teamspeak for other games however with some of the PfO people I have picked up some of what was happening so decided to come take a look. Having looked I have decided to comment a bit.

First of all claiming Golgotha has only been around since August 2013 is complete and utter tosh. Golgotha the name itself has only been around since then but the organisations making up Golgotha have been around for a lot longer. Indeed Maelstrom who make a sizeable component of Golgotha are even mentioned on the Landrush. I know all this because I was the Aeternum diplomat for quite a while and was in contact with all the groups that now make Golgotha prior even to the discussion they had about a potential alliance with TEO. When those alliance talks fell through the three groups decided to merge themselves into one identity known as Golgotha. Golgotha therefore was always an entity in its own right and merely did as Ryan Dancey advised and forged alliances to form Golgotha.

Second the Pax structure. Yes both Golgotha and Aeternum are Pax divisions. That does not automatically mean they will not fight nor that they will cooperate. The leadership of Golgotha has no power over the members of Aeternum and vice versa. Should a dispute between the divisions occur it will be ruled upon by the Inner Sanctum (the pax council)...however and this is a big however this would not involve in game disputes which the inner sanctum would rightly ignore....this is about out of game things such as racism, breach of codes of conduct. You will notice there is nothing in the Pax charter saying Pax guilds must cooperate in game merely that they should not damage Pax. Some are trying to read into that article that it relates to not attacking each other in game. It doesn't I can assure you. Having said that Golgotha and Aeternum decided to form a kingdom between themselves. Kingdoms are part of the game. They did this before anything was known about the new landrush, once again following Ryans admonition to build a better big town to resist the onslaught of the open enrollers. If they had know the new land rush rules they may well have decided not to form a nation and Golgotha not to join Pax. Or alternatively they may have decided to just not announce their plans to form a kingdom an Golgotha to become a Pax division. Either way would have fallen within this spirit of these rules you keep harping on about. The crime here seems to be not what they did but the fact they let you know they were doing it and did so transparently. I am sure there are plenty of done deals that have been kept quiet that will be just as dangerous to the small groups as Pax.

Thirdly these landrush votes are shaping the political landscape of the initial phase of the game. Everyone who spent the 100$ should be entitled to have their vote count towards shaping that landscape. What you are effectively doing is saying to Golgotha's hey your vote is now worthless and you have to be part of a settlement that you never intended to be part of. Sorry guys they shelled out as much money as you, they are entitled to cast their vote same as you for the settlement they wish to be part of. They have both given an undertaking that only people who want to be part of Golgotha will vote for it that should be enough. Pax has given as much to this community as most people and in many cases more than a lot of groups and they have been repeatedly vilified and slandered.

Fourthly: Apportion blame for this fiasco squarely where it belongs on Ryan Dancey's shoulders. He was the one who gave us the half baked initial landrush where people were on an honour system a system that was abused either by mistake or on purpose. It was he who changed the rules on people halfway through the competition. It was he who failed in his ability to give clear instructions and it was he who sat back and watched a communtiy tear itself in half over this issue when he could have stepped in at an early stage and made a precise statement of what rules he wanted to apply. Instead he chose to be wishy washy and not take a stance and now we have 15 pages of bile ridden invective.

[Ryan Dancey]

I prefer to see it as really meaningful human interaction.

[Dakcenturi]

Not wanting to discuss points on the specific topic but raise a related question, would it make things easier if the initial Land Rush was not considered? If the initial 3 agreed remove their intial claim to the first Land Rush that was not able to be properly counted due to people easily making false accounts. This way everyone starts on an equal basis and there is no concern about one group swaping votes or the like. Then simply dish out settlements from the current land rush as appropriate? Is that a feasible option?

Obviously there is still the over arching issue of having two PAX entries on the leaderboard, but then I suppose it would give the other 2 initial land rush winners the opportunity, if they so desired to make sub guilds to also claim a second settlement. Perhaps instead Golgatha could simply remove the PAX nominclature from their Land Rush entry?

Just some thoughts on other ways to resolve the issues presented.

[TEO Alexander Damocles]

If that is your definition of Meaningful Human Interaction, Mr Dancey, then I feel like I may no longer wish to support Pathfinder Online. An abdication of responsibility is *not* effective leadership. If your system of justice will be based on mob rule, then there *is* no justice and this game will fail to attract anything but the organizations you so detest.

[ZenPagan]

TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:

If that is your definition of Meaningful Human Interaction, Mr Dancey, then I feel like I may no longer wish to support Pathfinder Online. An abdication of responsibility is *not* effective leadership. If your system of justice will be based on mob rule, then there *is* no justice and this game will fail to attract anything but the organizations you so detest.

I was about to say much the same thing.

You are seriously telling us you wanted 15 pages of back and forth with the same participants getting more and more hot under the collar with each other?

Could I point out this bit at the bottom of the forum

"The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards
to be a fun and friendly place."

The corollary to this surely is "Do not encourage people to be a jerk" I would suggest Paizo may wish to add it as it is obvious there a certain CEO's that can't follow the unwritten rule unless it is spelt out to them

[Kitsune Aou]

I think I'd like to stand up for Ryan in this case. I'll agree only to the point that, "Yes, the Land Rush promotions could have been executed better." I say that, mostly because of some of the terminology used (such as "guild" - when it's clear now that there will be no such thing in game), and the unclear idea of how companies and these settlements will interact. Through the course of many Q&A's throughout the forum, these have been cleared up... but a little late.

That being said, I don't see the need to attack Ryan's character or decision-making. It is clear to me that these sorts of issues are not exactly something that he (or the rest of GW) would like to give a clear and concise answer - for the sole purpose of letting the community figure it out for themselves.

Whenever the discussion gets too far off track, too repetitive, or too meaningless, you'll notice he is quick to jump in and get things back on track.

It would NOT be in Ryan's or GW's best interest to put their foot down and tell us exactly how we should play their game. It would likewise be foolish for them to make this game unfriendly for large guilds - that is of course, unless the community itself rejects the large guilds. After All, why would they want to turn away so many customers?

In any case, I will reiterate that I think there could have been some slight improvements to the land rush (including the first one, but they did just about the best they could using the terribly inadequate tool that they had - Paizo.com forums). That doesn't mean that Ryan himself is responsible for the community getting nasty with each other about the community's actions.

[Ryan Dancey]

There's no problem with Phase 1 of the Land Rush. It worked exactly as desired. The 3 groups who were awarded Settlements weren't just the top 3 vote-getters. They dominated the votes. Nobody else was even meaningfully close. 4th place had just a bit more than 50% as many votes as 3rd place.

So far as I know there's been no complaints that anyone suspects vote fraud in Phase I. Nobody has come forward to say that the 3 groups who received a Settlement padded their votes with shills. That wouldn't withstand much scrutiny anyway since they all appear right back at the top of the current Land Rush poll which requires validated votes.

There was no changing of any rules in Phase II either. We communicated in advance with the groups we were awarding a Phase I Settlement to and clearly told them what the rules for Phase II would be and what restrictions we were imposing. From our standpoint, some people took a generalized answer by Lee posted much later and as a reply to a comment in a thread rather than in any form of official communication and treated it as negating a specific requirement imposed on the winners of Phase I by me - that's not a mistake we made, that's a mistake the people in question who chose to take the most liberal possible interpretation of a potential conflict in answers as gospel rather than just asking directly for a clarification. We made that clarification when asked and it appears that the people in question have resolved their error. So right now, we're pretty happy in general with the progression of the whole promotion.

We are still pretty interested in seeing how the community views Pax - as one Guild or several Guilds. We think that's the only meaningful question open in this thread.

[Valkenr]

There was lots of meaningful human interaction here, it was slightly overpowered by obvious attempts at trolling and people bringing in other arguments.

[Ryan Dancey]

TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:

If that is your definition of Meaningful Human Interaction, Mr Dancey, then I feel like I may no longer wish to support Pathfinder Online.

Meaningful human interaction is often messy and painful. That's not a bug, that's a feature.

People who cannot even play the game yet have spent at least a week discussing this issue, sometimes with careful reason and sometimes with intemperate remarks. That shows me that this is an important topic that has a lot of people concerned. If this thread was 3 people playing Rock Paper Scissors with each other, I'd have shut it down long ago. But it is not. There are several dozen distinct voices and after my request yesterday we got several new posters to comment. And I hope we continue to get new people engaged in the dialog.

All of this just indicates that we're on exactly the right path. We've created something people care a lot about - care enough about to get passionate and intemperate about. We've created a venue where people are expressing opinions. And those opinions are being considered. You can be sure that the number of people reading a thread like this are vastly greater than the number posting in a thread like this. You are performing for an audience.

You may not like the fact that Golgatha is on the leaderboard. You may not like the fact that some people who don't like the fact that Golgatha is on the leaderboard have gone public with that dislike. Tough. These are the kinds of discussions which are going to become more, not less, common as time progresses. Get used to having to see people say things you don't like seeing. As long as they're not harassing, as long as they're not personal, and as long as they're presented in good taste, those expressions of opinion are not only acceptable, we welcome them and want to encourage more of them.

YOU are the community. We cannot tell YOU what to think, how to act, or what you will do when you think we're not watching. We can't write rules that define you. All we can do is create an interesting venue for your interaction, and police that interaction to restrict it in ways that are toxic.

[Xeen]

If that is the only meaningful question, what will it change if anything?

[Ryan Dancey]

@Xeen we've heard your voice already in this thread. It's time to create space for new voices. Thanks.

[Dakcenturi]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

We are still pretty interested in seeing how the community views Pax - as one Guild or several Guilds. We think that's the only meaningful question open in this thread.

Well to that specific question my answer would be if they share the same name (in this case the are both PAX) and they share the same forums or other communication medium(in this case both PAX forums) then they are the same guild.

[Jiminy]

Dakcenturi wrote:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

We are still pretty interested in seeing how the community views Pax - as one Guild or several Guilds. We think that's the only meaningful question open in this thread.

Well to that specific question my answer would be if they share the same name (in this case the are both PAX) and they share the same forums or other communication medium(in this case both PAX forums) then they are the same guild.

Which of course leads to the question of, "What does this means for PFO?". Guilds do not exist within PFO, so should we be asking this about companies using the same forums, or settlements, or factions, or kingdoms?

[TEO Alexander Damocles]

A flamefest about religion or politics or any other thing would generate a lot of attention too.

What happens when the game starts, do you hold debates about the validity of a guild, and threaten to disband them if enough people agree it should be done? That would ignite a *wonderful* thread, full of people passionately arguing both sides!

Forum drama is not meaningful. Its pent up frustration. Further, the first land rush was implied to have been closed and no longer relevant to anything. I was *floored* when TEO was handed a settlement because of it. No Dev posts had been made about it. There was no announcement of how it would relate to the second land rush. Lack of communication and leadership does not equate to MHI. I have no problem with seeing things I don't like. To imply as such is a rather cheap shot, one I would think a CEO would not stoop to take.

[Jiminy]

Valkenr wrote:

Jiminy wrote:

My opinion is that Pax is an umbrella organisation and that Aeternum and Golgotha are separate entities for the purposes of PFO. They are starting settlements that are vastly different concepts with differing alignments, plus Golgotha was planned prior to joining the Pax community. More than happy to see Golgotha continue on in the landrush.

I wouldn't say they are 'vastly' different. Xeilias is branded as lawful, so I'm guessing most Pax members will be playing lawful. If they were LG and CE I would give you that concession.

Agreed, if you only view this from an alignment perspective. I meant that it had differing alignment and settlement concepts though. I may be wrong, but I thought one was based around using force (PvP) to dominate and the other was around trade and political machinations.

Effectively, similar to how two LG settlements can have vastly different concepts.

[Bluddwolf]

Xeen wrote:

If that is the only meaningful question, what will it change if anything?

Ryan Dancey wrote:

@Xeen we've heard your voice already in this thread. It's time to create space for new voices. Thanks.

That doesn't change the importance of his question, or are we to go through another 15 pages to find out that there was no intention of a decision to be made?

Oh and you've heard my voice too, and I don't care. Working as intended in my book.

*smack a member of UNC, you'll get a response

[Nihimon]

Nihimon wrote:

Can you imagine how toxic the game would be if all the hate and intimidation, all the veiled and not-so-veiled insectsinsults and threats were directed at the folks who work at Goblinworks instead of just another member of the community?

[Valkenr]

Jiminy wrote:

Valkenr wrote:

Jiminy wrote:

My opinion is that Pax is an umbrella organisation and that Aeternum and Golgotha are separate entities for the purposes of PFO. They are starting settlements that are vastly different concepts with differing alignments, plus Golgotha was planned prior to joining the Pax community. More than happy to see Golgotha continue on in the landrush.

I wouldn't say they are 'vastly' different. Xeilias is branded as lawful, so I'm guessing most Pax members will be playing lawful. If they were LG and CE I would give you that concession.

Agreed, if you only view this from an alignment perspective. I meant that it had differing alignment and settlement concepts though. I may be wrong, but I thought one was based around using force (PvP) to dominate and the other was around trade and political machinations.

Effectively, similar to how two LG settlements can have vastly different concepts.

More emphasis should be placed on the rest of my post. The settlements we will be given are not full settlements, they are proto-settlements. My guess is that every settlement for the majority of EE will be fairly similar and a lot of training will also be coming form POI's. I can't see the specialization that would separate Pax Aeternum and Pax Golgotha being in the game. I think the big differentiator in EE will be Alignment, and Pax Golgotha has a 66.67% overlap with Pax Aeternum. We it gets to a point where Pax Golgotha needs a settlement of their own, I imagine they will be able to go claim one.

But this is not what goblinworks is concerned about, they are concerned with external perception. They want to know if Pax is seen as a single guild or not. And if pax is seen as a single guild, they don't want them in phase II. But if GW can speak to the above comments, It would probably ease some uncertainty.

[TEO Malvius012]

I would like to remind people like TEO Alexander Damocles and Nihimon that if we believe in a policy of non griefing your posts could be counted as griefing and personal attacks to certain individuals and groups in this forum. I believe in the policies you CLAIM to espouse but your actions in this instance are not in line with those policies.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

@ Ryan Dancey

We are working well into 16 pages of community opinion now. The problem here though, is that there is an underlying "feeling" that a GW level decision is pending about Golgotha. If that is not the case, then please make that clear.

If it is the case, please make a decision. The clock is ticking towards Sunday. The first round of Land Rush 2 has a value both physically and emotionally to the participants. It is not as easy or as quick to get that many people reorganized as you think. They may or may not need to make some decisions of their own, but this is bordering on torture for them. The whole "settlement" (that is watching this) wants to comment but is refraining to keep the drama down and to let the community have a say.

The community has had ample chance now.

Thank You for reading.

[Ryan Dancey]

@All - if you're talking about the topic - should Pax have two Guilds in the Land Rush, that's constructive.

If you're not ... you're not. So please don't.

[Kitsune Aou]

Valkenr wrote:

Jiminy wrote:

Valkenr wrote:

Jiminy wrote:

My opinion is that Pax is an umbrella organisation and that Aeternum and Golgotha are separate entities for the purposes of PFO. They are starting settlements that are vastly different concepts with differing alignments, plus Golgotha was planned prior to joining the Pax community. More than happy to see Golgotha continue on in the landrush.

I wouldn't say they are 'vastly' different. Xeilias is branded as lawful, so I'm guessing most Pax members will be playing lawful. If they were LG and CE I would give you that concession.

Agreed, if you only view this from an alignment perspective. I meant that it had differing alignment and settlement concepts though. I may be wrong, but I thought one was based around using force (PvP) to dominate and the other was around trade and political machinations.

Effectively, similar to how two LG settlements can have vastly different concepts.

More emphasis should be placed on the rest of my post. The settlements we will be given are not full settlements, they are proto-settlements. My guess is that every settlement for the majority of EE will be fairly similar and a lot of training will also be coming form POI's. I can't see the specialization that would separate Pax Aeternum and Pax Golgotha being in the game. I think the big differentiator in EE will be Alignment, and Pax Golgotha has a 66.67% overlap with Pax Aeternum. We it gets to a point where Pax Golgotha needs a settlement of their own, I imagine they will be able to go claim one.

But this is not what goblinworks is concerned about, they are concerned with external perception. They want to know if Pax is seen as a single guild or not. And if pax is seen as a single guild, they don't want them in phase II. But if GW can speak to the above comments, It would probably ease some uncertainty.

That's why I was trying to make the suggestion earlier that a simple "rename" (or disband/reform) of Golgotha to exclude the "Pax" part of it may be a simple solution that [I believe] could please both sides of the argument. In addition to the above, they might simply state in their description (on their LR2 page) their reasons why they need the 2nd settlement (e.g. what game mechanic ... such as alignment or reputation restrictions).

Again, I really don't see what is so disagreeable about such a simple plan. Is it because it's too simple? Is there some need to make this more complicated?

[Tertiary]

It was my understanding that in-game coalitions would be comprised of parties, chartered companies, settlements, and nations - none of those are guilds... so I just want to clarify before I offer an opinion: Has anyone defined 'guild' as it is relevant to PFO?

[Ryan Dancey]

It is not relevant to anything except the Land Rush promotion. There will be no guilds as structures in the game.

[Summersnow]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

@All - if you're talking about the topic - should Pax have two Guilds in the Land Rush, that's constructive.

If you're not ... you're not. So please don't.

Its only constructive if it will have any effect on the landrush.

If the decision has already been made its just a waste of air so you can sit back and get you're jollies watching the discord and rancor build.

[Nihimon]

Tertiary wrote:

Has anyone defined 'guild' as it is relevant to PFO?

Ryan Dancey (Goblinworks Blog: Put It in Writing) wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

I'm very curious how a "Guild" is going to map to PFO social structures.

Well, let's be on the same page. Most "Guilds" are in theme park games.

Most "Guilds" are a dozen people. They're effectively what we'd call a Chartered Company. They exist for the purpose of letting a group of folks adventure together without having to re-form a party every time they log on.

Probably 90% of all "Guilds" area few dozen people or less. There's little value in having more because once you're large enough to have a party that can raid nightly in the largest instance adding more members just makes things more complex without adding much value.

Then there's a very small number of really large "Guilds" which are really extended communities which happen to play MMOs together. They exist external to most games and have their own identity separate from the games they play in. These entities can be really large, but are more diffuse with many members relatively inactive (or inactive on the MMO side even if they are message board active).

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

To quote Ryan's own excellent answer on this topic:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

The guild land rush is just a promotion on the web site and when it is over the use of "Guild" in our terminology will cease.

[Tertiary]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

It is not relevant to anything except the Land Rush promotion. There will be no guilds as structures in the game.

I feel like that is the answer you are asking for, then. :) Whether they are or are not a guild seems irrelevant to PFO in all ways, shapes, and forms.

My opinion is that holding on to outdated schemas of organization, remnants of the archaic theme-park strata, would be detrimental to forging PFO's unique destiny. Those who view the game in such a manner will undoubtedly fall behind - nations are only a collective of settlements, chartered companies are unrelated to their governance.

Guilds are mere flesh-golems; constructs of the real-world. Is Pax a guild? No, guilds do not exist in PFO.

[Valkenr]

Kitsune Aou wrote:

That's why I was trying to make the suggestion earlier that a simple "rename" (or disband/reform) of Golgotha to exclude the "Pax" part of it may be a simple solution that [I believe] could please both sides of the argument. In addition to the above, they might simply state in their description (on their LR2 page) their reasons why they need the 2nd settlement (e.g. what game mechanic ... such as alignment or reputation restrictions).

Again, I really don't see what is so disagreeable about such a simple plan. Is it because it's too simple? Is there some need to make this more complicated?

That only masks the underlying problem, and will probably make it worse. Any large organization coming to PFO is going to look at every guilds website, especially the top 30(33). They are going to see that two of the existing guilds are using the same website, and VOIP. For the vast majority of gamers, that says that they are one guild with two entries. If they were trying to hide it by removing the 'pax' prefix, it sends the message that other large guilds should do the same thing.

Being out and open about what you are doing, is much better than trying to hide it, because the more it is hidden, the larger the backlash when it (and it will) come to light.

[Tertiary]

Valkenr wrote:

That only masks the underlying problem, and will probably make it worse. Any large organization coming to PFO is going to look at every guilds website, especially the top 30(33). They are going to see that two of the existing guilds are using the same website, and VOIP. For the vast majority of gamers, that says that they are one guild with two entries. If they were trying to hide it by removing the 'pax' prefix, it sends the message that other large guilds should do the same thing.

Being out and open about what you are doing, is much better than trying to hide it, because the more it is hidden, the larger the backlash when it (and it will) come to light.

Are we governed by the ignorant? (*EDIT: How is it) relevant that outsiders label two related CCs as a single guild?

[Kitsune Aou]

Valkenr wrote:

Kitsune Aou wrote:

That's why I was trying to make the suggestion earlier that a simple "rename" (or disband/reform) of Golgotha to exclude the "Pax" part of it may be a simple solution that [I believe] could please both sides of the argument. In addition to the above, they might simply state in their description (on their LR2 page) their reasons why they need the 2nd settlement (e.g. what game mechanic ... such as alignment or reputation restrictions).

Again, I really don't see what is so disagreeable about such a simple plan. Is it because it's too simple? Is there some need to make this more complicated?

That only masks the underlying problem, and will probably make it worse. Any large organization coming to PFO is going to look at every guilds website, especially the top 30(33). They are going to see that two of the existing guilds are using the same website, and VOIP. For the vast majority of gamers, that says that they are one guild with two entries. If they were trying to hide it by removing the 'pax' prefix, it sends the message that other large guilds should do the same thing.

Being out and open about what you are doing, is much better than trying to hide it, because the more it is hidden, the larger the backlash when it (and it will) come to light.

I still feel it would be a step in the right direction. Maybe list a different website to help? Web hosting for 1yr can cost as little as $12 and change. Just a thought.

I just think it would be better than leaving things as-is, which seems to be the majority consensus, but with the louder voices in the room opposing.

[TEO Alexander Damocles]

Tertiary wrote:

Valkenr wrote:

That only masks the underlying problem, and will probably make it worse. Any large organization coming to PFO is going to look at every guilds website, especially the top 30(33). They are going to see that two of the existing guilds are using the same website, and VOIP. For the vast majority of gamers, that says that they are one guild with two entries. If they were trying to hide it by removing the 'pax' prefix, it sends the message that other large guilds should do the same thing.

Being out and open about what you are doing, is much better than trying to hide it, because the more it is hidden, the larger the backlash when it (and it will) come to light.

Are we governed by the ignorant? (*EDIT: How is it) relevant that outsiders label two related CCs as a single guild?

Ryan Dancey has said that is how he wants to handle the matter.

[Forencith of Phaeros, TSV]

Tertiary wrote:

It was my understanding that in-game coalitions would be comprised of parties, chartered companies, settlements, and nations - none of those are guilds... so I just want to clarify before I offer an opinion: Has anyone defined 'guild' as it is relevant to PFO?

I would define it as a single community, CoTP, TSV, Pax, UNC, etc, (inclusive of all sub-divisions thereof)...are all individual communities and hence, "guilds".

As far as Golgotha goes, I do not see how their history is relevant to the question of what they are today. Golgotha has (rightfully) benefited from the shared resources and community building efforts of Pax. In my opinion they are part of the Pax community, no matter their roots.

What GW is trying to accomplish is giving each discrete participating "community" a home, a place to start from, and a stake in the game. By giving Pax two communities, a different community is prevented from getting their location...and their stake in the game.

As mentioned by several people previously, the facilities that will be available in settlements for the foreseeable future will probably be identical...the minimally viable product. The customization of settlements will be minimal. The most important part will be insuring as many discrete communities as possible get their stake in the game.

Again...in my opinion.

[Tertiary]

TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:

Tertiary wrote:

Are we governed by the ignorant? (*EDIT: How is it) relevant that outsiders label two related CCs as a single guild?

Ryan Dancey has said that is how he wants to handle the matter.

That he wishes for us to be governed by the ignorant, or that he wishes for outsiders to designate our lexicon? Neither seems accurate, productive, or relevant.

It was my understanding that he wished to know if Pax was collectively regarded as a guild by our community, and that our community (PFO) does not have guilds. Am I mistaken or otherwise confused?

[Kitsune Aou]

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

... As mentioned by several people previously, the facilities that will be available in settlements for the foreseeable future will probably be identical...the minimally viable product. The customization of settlements will be minimal. The most important part will be insuring as many discrete communities as possible get their stake in the game. ...

Perhaps maybe if GW were to make a statement on this, specifically, then it may sway the consensus in the room to favor disbanding the settlement? (haters, don't hate)

What I mean is this question about timing: if Golgotha were to join Aeternum, would the restrictions (e.g. alignment/reputation) or customizations take effect BEFORE Golgotha would be given the opportunity to establish a brand-new settlement after the launch of EE?

[Forencith of Phaeros, TSV]

Kitsune Aou wrote:

What I mean is this question about timing: if Golgotha were to join Aeternum, would the restrictions (e.g. alignment/reputation) or customizations take effect BEFORE Golgotha would be given the opportunity to establish a brand-new settlement after the launch of EE?

Can you clarify what you mean?

[Gol Morbis]

He wants to know if Golgotha would be getting screwed out of a settlement until before OE, or until OE. Would we be able to get everything we need in Callambea? Because that should matter when determining the fate of a $5000 dollar investment and 8 months of hard work.

[Kitsune Aou]

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

Kitsune Aou wrote:

What I mean is this question about timing: if Golgotha were to join Aeternum, would the restrictions (e.g. alignment/reputation) or customizations take effect BEFORE Golgotha would be given the opportunity to establish a brand-new settlement after the launch of EE?

Can you clarify what you mean?

Sorry, the thoughts in my head are not relaying to my fingertips well. :P

It is my understanding that functionally the only standing arguments as to why Golgotha needs its own, separate, settlement (at least in the beginning) is because there will be certain restrictions on some companies and individuals belonging to certain settlements - such as alignment differences, or reputation level restrictions. And The reason that this would matter is because it is my understanding that establishing new settlements will not be an option in the very beginning of Early Enrollment. Therefore, if the restrictions were not applicable until sometime after the ability to claim new settlements, then there remains no functional reason why Golgotha should need its own settlement from the land rush - they could simply use the collective force of Pax to claim their own new settlement when the time came.

[EDIT/ADD]: Therefore my question to GW is: Which comes first - the restrictions, or the ability to claim new settlements outside of the land rush ones?

[Gol Cyneric Torrin]

Kitsune Aou wrote:

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

Kitsune Aou wrote:

What I mean is this question about timing: if Golgotha were to join Aeternum, would the restrictions (e.g. alignment/reputation) or customizations take effect BEFORE Golgotha would be given the opportunity to establish a brand-new settlement after the launch of EE?

Can you clarify what you mean?

Sorry, the thoughts in my head are not relaying to my fingertips well. :P

It is my understanding that functionally the only standing arguments as to why Golgotha needs its own, separate, settlement (at least in the beginning) is because there will be certain restrictions on some companies and individuals belonging to certain settlements - such as alignment differences, or reputation level restrictions. And The reason that this would matter is because it is my understanding that establishing new settlements will not be an option in the very beginning of Early Enrollment. Therefore, if the restrictions were not applicable until sometime after the ability to claim new settlements, then there remains no functional reason why Golgotha should need its own settlement from the land rush - they could simply use the collective force of Pax to claim their own new settlement when the time came.

[EDIT/ADD]: Therefore my question to GW is: Which comes first - the restrictions, or the ability to claim new settlements outside of the land rush ones?

I'm not going to say much, Lee says it all for me, we start off at a greater disadvantage then others.

From the thread http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qyuc?Blog-Rushing-the-Blog#27

Quote:

The basic plan, highly subject to change once the settlement system gets actually up and running, is that settlements won in the land rush will start with a Hall/Keep (i.e. the first and central building every settlement needs) and a selection of always useful support buildings (banks, possibly some development index boosters, and such) and a bundle of resources. Everyone else will have to go clear out a hex from any hostiles that may hold it, gather the resources to build a hall (bulk goods, company influence, money), spend the time building the hall, etc.

[Saiph the Fallen]

They shouldn't have 2 settlements in the land rush. Perhaps when the game starts one or the other can get a settlement the natural way. But yes, I believe it is unfair to reward a gaming community two settlements in the land rush. This is my own opinion.

[Valkenr]

Gol Morbis wrote:

He wants to know if Golgotha would be getting screwed out of a settlement until before OE, or until OE. Would we be able to get everything we need in Callambea? Because that should matter when determining the fate of a $5000 dollar investment and 8 months of hard work.

I would imagine no guild would be able to get everything they need from just their settlement. I imagine most settlement's members will at one time or another, after they join, be forced to train elsewhere. The game is being designed so no group can have everything they need.

[Gol Morbis]

Finish this idiocy already. All you are getting is half the people saying that we should have a settlement, and the other half saying we shouldn't. Make a decision. Have some balls. Or at least say that you are stepping out of it, and we don't have the risk of you deciding that in five weeks we are in some way undeserving over our heads. We have given this a week. A week of complete indecisiveness on whether or not your arbitration will screw us over. Do it already.

[Xeen]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

@Xeen we've heard your voice already in this thread. It's time to create space for new voices. Thanks.

Why? Are we running out of space on the internet? Everyone can still post.

I was asking a relevant question that pertains to this topic that EVERYONE wants the answer to. Yet you refuse to answer it. Everything that can be said on this subject has been said.

If the mob votes to remove Golgotha from the land rush, are you going to follow through with it? Or, is this just meaningful human interaction and nothing more?

EVERYONE wants to know, is GW going to interfere with politics in the game (pertaining to things like this) or are you going to step back and watch?

[Forencith of Phaeros, TSV]

Kitsune Aou wrote:

It is my understanding that functionally the only standing arguments as to why Golgotha needs its own, separate, settlement (at least in the beginning) is because there will be certain restrictions on some companies and individuals belonging to certain settlements - such as alignment differences, or reputation level restrictions. And The reason that this would matter is because it is my understanding that establishing new settlements will not be an option in the very beginning of Early Enrollment. Therefore, if the restrictions were not applicable until sometime after the ability to claim new settlements, then there remains no functional reason why Golgotha should need its own settlement from the land rush - they could simply use the collective force of Pax to claim their own new settlement when the time came.

[EDIT/ADD]: Therefore my question to GW is: Which comes first - the restrictions, or the ability to claim new settlements outside of the land rush ones?

But isn't every community facing those meaningful consequences and decisions? TSV has members who want to play alignments we can not support...for them, they decided being part of our community trumps their immediate desire for specific styles of play. In the long run, we intend to develop additional settlements to support these other play styles. Until then, we know we have our single gaming community that will assist our members as we can.

[Kakafika]

Xeen wrote:

If that is the only meaningful question, what will it change if anything?

I always thought the point of this thread was to change minds. If enough Paxians change their minds, they would take voluntary action, and in so doing earn the respect of everybody in this thread.

I have no doubts that some mega-guilds will create shadow settlements (note: that isn't a reason to also behave badly). My hope is that we can keep the number of offenders low (getting off on the right foot benefits all involved), and that we can take unified community-wide action against negative influences in the River Kingdoms.

I don't necessarily believe Pax is trying to game the system with Golgotha, but that will likely be the perception of newcomers. Pax would be making a noble sacrifice by removing Golgotha, and I, at least, would support them thereafter in whatever ways I could to make up for that sacrifice.

I neither expect nor desire GW intervention. Let's simply look across the table at our friends and talk this out. We were doing pretty good there for awhile.

At this point, the possible outcomes seem to be either: unifying the community to a degree greater than it has been before or splintering it even further, as this topic is obviously one that just about everybody has a passionate opinion about.

Just my 2c

[He Who Speaks The Truth]

so let us start this by saying that i am a bit concerned by all of this.

when i look at pax they look like a large behemoth. a mega guild if that is the term you favour. that is a perception that is undeniable. from the onset they look gigantic. that is what it looks like.

this is all about perception if i am correct.

the perception is that pax is one big hulk of guild. like most guilds they have rules.

Quote:

1.4 ORGANIZATION GENERALLY: Pax is a perpetual organization, a federation of multiple guilds that operate in different games. The Community, as defined in Article II through Article IV, operates in support of the various gaming divisions and takes the lead on all cross-game and cross-guild relations. The Community is divided into individual guilds or divisions that operate within a specific game as further defined in Article III through Article V in fulfillment of the Pax Gamer’s Rights in Article VI.

now, that is a profusely large and grandiose document, so i did not read it all.

Quote:

A follow on question to that regards federations of guilds where several independent groups pledge to work together in-game. This is a bit of a corner-case but we would rather err on the side of engagement than in disengagement. So we are ok with federated guilds participating in Phase II, with the proviso that anyone who voted for a winning guild in Phase I is still ineligible to participate in Phase II. A "federated guild" is a separate organization of people organized primarily independently of a guild that won Phase I, not just a subset of a winning Phase I guild's members who want to have their own identity and take part in Phase II.

The last question we got involves members of a winning Phase I guild who did not vote in the Phase I poll. Technically, these people are free to participate in the Phase II promotion by affiliating themselves with another guild. The temptation to use this exception as a way to create a shadow guild to snag two (or more) spots in the Land Rush will be high, and we strongly urge you not to do so. If you don't plan to play as a member of another guild, we'd ask that you just not participate in Phase II of the land rush. There are so many potential special cases and exceptions within this aspect of the promotion that we can't write a hard & fast rule to cover them all. So we're asking for you to each use your individual discretion and best judgement: If it feels like what you're doing goes against the spirit of the promotion - getting new people interested and excited about Pathfinder Online - we suggest that you opt out of taking part in Phase II.

now if an official from pax would be so kind as to tell us if or when the last time their rules were revised i would appreciate it. if you could prove it that would be even better.

now ryan used the very same terms that are in their rules. federated guilds. and he said it was ok. now the last portion about a shadow guild... i don't think that pertains to golgotha. the point here is that ryan said to use your own judgement.

if i am pax gaming, i look at the instructions, i look at the pax rules, and it is as clear as day.

for the second time, i ask an official from pax to provide us with any information where they may have had a dialogue about their choice and how they came to it.

after a bit of rabble-rousing, we are at a point where it looks like pax did everything right. then some votes started getting crossed. i am not going to wade through 16 pages of bile for another round, but it does not look like they ever denied what was going on.

personnally, i do not agree with their choice. but there was a quote from a developer that stated everyone that was not part of the three winners was supposed to get a vote. the last time that i checked the land rush is a competition? i do not feel any of you would deny that.

if everyone is supposed to get a vote and this is most undoubtedly a competition, you should do things that are within the rules that tip the scales in your favour.

pax did just that. as someone recently said, "life isn't fair".

so in a game about competition, ryan mentioned something about having to form big alliances because of the nature of the game.

let us look upon that for a moment. it seems there are three alliances thus far. xelias, roseblood, and the awakening chaps.

so one alliance has a mega-guild structure and the other two don't. from everything that i have read it seems like there is an admin structure in place to moderate all of pax. i have seen no evidence to show that pax gaming controls directly or indirectly, the individual guilds of which it is composed, aside from the pax rules that is.

now as far as golgotha proper is concerned, i have seen an overwhelming amount of evidence to support that it was an independant guild, multiple guilds in fact, before joining pax. one was in the original land rush.

correct me if i am wrong, but ryan said those could vote so long as they did not place in the top three.

so golgotha joining pax.

what did that really change? in my opinion... as far as this game is concerned... nothing. Quite literally... nothing.

but now you have two guilds in a mega guild in the same game.

so why can golgotha not just join aeturnum?

one of the devs said some time ago that a settlement could be self-sufficient but reduced in efficiency. it would be most advantageous to specialize. so it is in the best interest of those two guilds to look upon the future with two settlements in mind. after all, ryan did say that alliances would be vital.

if a closer inspection of the conundrum at hand is taken, pax was just following the advice of ryan. form an alliance. the guild vs mega-guild aspect of this situation is really a non factor for me. you have two guilds that allied.

if the mega-guild aspect is a factor, then pax should not have been transparent. pax's tragic flaw is the very thing that some members of this community claim isn't worth the proverbial paper it was written upon. pax followed their rules. maybe they should not have.

others will not be so nice. i can attest to the fact that we will not.

so to conclude my diatribe, while initially they appear as one, if you examine the history of the guilds and the context of the situation, very clearly, I see "pax" as golgotha and aeturnum as far as anything where pathfinder online is concerned.

they are separate. you may have to look deeper than you like, but in the end pax is separate guilds.

i pose one last question to the community. what are you going to do when mega-guilds that do not follow a code, are not transparent, and care nothing about your community come to your game and utterly ravage you?

if we know nothing, we know that history repeats itself.

[Gol Morbis]

Quote:

I don't necessarily believe Pax is trying to game the system with Golgotha, but that will likely be the perception of newcomers. Pax would be making a noble sacrifice by removing Golgotha, and I, at least, would support them thereafter in whatever ways I could to make up for that sacrifice.

No. We will not be punished for the inability of others to do the most basic of research. We will not be martyred so that the 'community' can feel as if they are pushing off the Big Scary Goons. We will not suffer any more attacks on the legitimacy of Golgotha. We are done with this. Unless Dancey removes us from the leaderboard, Pax Golgotha will be continuing on as planned.

No more. This has gone on long enough. Finish it tonight.

[Gol Malik.]

Golgotha is its own entity, it needs its own settlement.

also, those guys should give Andius his guild back, and make him the leader.