For new small recent "guilds"

[Lam]

1) don't take my word. Contact [e-mail], but do not do that casually as that will slow development. Or come leave me a message at Keepers of the Circle, but I am only a lowly Keeper there.
These are not really guilds but rather a method to set up the first 33 settlements.
.
.

Many have taken this time to start "guilds" but those under 10 members will not achieve anything by themselves. If Guilds reassemble into larger groups or join some of the medium size guilds then you may influence choirs or at least have a settlement site to start EE.

You do not need to ask quickly. If you doubt, wait until after June 1st and see how sites are to be disposed.

Also note that during Alpha, which has not started, it will be a a much smaller area than EE. Basically the area along the Mosswater Road.

["The Goodfellow"]

I have said this before but will say it again to add it to Lam's statement above:

Remember that voting for a settlement does not mean you are locked in to that settlement. You should consider voting for a settlement you would at least frequent the most, but it isn't a set in stone requirement to be a member of that settlement.

For example, and I am not intending this as a "vote for me" post as it is a valid example, but there are few Chaotic settlements declared thus far. If you want to see those few have a presence, vote for one. If you would rather them be shut out and have lawful settlements rule the land, then vote for one of them.

But I am getting off the point.

The main thing I am trying to add is this: Voting for a settlement only increases the likelihood of that settlement gaining an existence in PFO, and does not require that you join that settlement or be a member of that founding guild.

[Darcnes]

Also very important to know, voting for a settlement does not disrupt your guild (now called a company) in any way. If you bought a guild pack during Kickstarter 2, it would more appropriately be termed company pack at this point, as you will be reserving the name of a company, not a guild.

End result of voting for a guild is that your company has assisted other companies and individuals in getting a settlement started. Nothing more. You would coexist with these others as part of the new settlement. It is intended that a settlement need several companies to run and manage the settlement as a whole.

[TEO Cheatle]

The real issue here is the terminology that was used with guilds, it has confused a lot of people.

I will reiterate what the gentleman have said: When you vote for a Guild/Settlement in the Landrush you are not actually joining their company, you are just helping them attain that settlement.

If you want to participate in the development of that settlement then you should ask around and see what those Landrush Leader board members are offering.

[Caldeathe Baequiannia]

On the other hand, small guilds of two or three or four at the start of the rush may well have a little more with which to leverage their support to other groups than any given individual does when June 1 rolls around.....

[KotC Carbon D. Metric]

Indeed that signing on to the Land-Rush under another "Guild" does not take away your company, and many of the larger Chartered Companies (Like the Keepers) are making attractive offers to help house, train, support, and develop smaller Chartered Companies who wish to work towards their own Settlements once the feature has been developed.

By the end of the LR, I simply hope most of the smaller "guilds" shooting for a settlement find a solid home instead of ending up disappointing that they hadn't done so sooner.

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

Smaller guilds should look into the possibilities of merging, for the purposes of Land Rush, with others relatively small, thus increasing the voting-weight of all. A few folks have begun thinking like this already, and the trend will grow.

[Nihimon]

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

Smaller guilds should look into the possibilities of merging, for the purposes of Land Rush, with others relatively small, thus increasing the voting-weight of all. A few folks have begun thinking like this already, and the trend will grow.

I agree with this, but I think it's also important to note that "merging" doesn't mean you become a part of someone else's "Guild". It just means that both of your Guilds are working to secure the same Settlement in the Land Rush. I expect that by Week 10, there will be a number of Settlements that have half-a-dozen or more Guilds working together, each retaining their own Guild identity.

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

You're absolutely right. I meant--and should have said--"merging votes"; Settlements run by groups of like dispositions and philosophies may turn out to be some of the strongest.

Hybrid vigour's a powerful force.

[Mbando]

Merging votes solely to get numbers for the Land Rush seems like a tempting but bad choice to me. If the only thing binding you together is a desire to draft higher, that's a brittle social structure--what happens the first time people don't agree on a contingent matter? Merging votes maybe should be contingent on a larger shared vision of working together in the game.

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

Given that I'm a member of a True Neutral organisation, all I can say is folks should be allowed to do what they will, as long as they have--and keep--their eyes open. This idea seems a worthy one for some, risky for others; that feels neutral-enough for me :-).

[Nihimon]

Mbando wrote:

Merging votes maybe should be contingent on a larger shared vision of working together in the game.

I completely agree. I have made a very conscientious effort, with the guilds who have approached me for advice or assistance, to direct them towards other groups who have similar shared values to see if they can forge a shared sense of purpose.

[FMS Quietus]

Mbando wrote:

Merging votes solely to get numbers for the Land Rush seems like a tempting but bad choice to me. If the only thing binding you together is a desire to draft higher, that's a brittle social structure--what happens the first time people don't agree on a contingent matter? Merging votes maybe should be contingent on a larger shared vision of working together in the game.

FMS is incredibly excited and honored to be working with Peace Through Vigilance to form Ozem's Vigil. We are also incredibly interested to work with other Companies and Free Agents to help make our unified vision a reality. People should see this more of a situation of coming together to build a city. This is not guild housing.

[Bluddwolf]

Mbando wrote:

Merging votes solely to get numbers for the Land Rush seems like a tempting but bad choice to me. If the only thing binding you together is a desire to draft higher, that's a brittle social structure--what happens the first time people don't agree on a contingent matter? Merging votes maybe should be contingent on a larger shared vision of working together in the game.

The issue is, this Landrush is taking place before the game and long before settlement vs. settlement siege warfare.

First order of business is to secure a piece of land. The other particulars can wait until the game mechanics are known. As many have said, come OE, much of the political maneuvering now will likely not be relevant then.

["The Goodfellow"]

This is mainly the reason Aragon was put up as a settlement and by that name, rather than as UNC. This way people know they are voting for Aragon the settlement, not UNC the company. If everyone did this, I think there would be less confusion. But that is just me.

[Lhan]

Agreed 100% Goodfellow. Sadly I don't think you can edit the name in the Guild Rush

[Darcnes]

"The Goodfellow" wrote:

This is mainly the reason Aragon was put up as a settlement and by that name, rather than as UNC. This way people know they are voting for Aragon the settlement, not UNC the company. If everyone did this, I think there would be less confusion. But that is just me.

If the majority of players read the forums, or had a halfway decent explanation of what it was they were voting on and what it did and did not mean for their own group. Yes.

["The Goodfellow"]

Darcnes wrote:

"The Goodfellow" wrote:

This is mainly the reason Aragon was put up as a settlement and by that name, rather than as UNC. This way people know they are voting for Aragon the settlement, not UNC the company. If everyone did this, I think there would be less confusion. But that is just me.

If the majority of players read the forums, or had a halfway decent explanation of what it was they were voting on and what it did and did not mean for their own group. Yes.

In my opinion, based only on the blog info concerning the land rush 2, if everyone posted as their desired settlement names and description as such, instead of as guilds/companies, I think there would be less confusion over what is being voted on, and why guilds are getting fighting over settlements when it should be proposed settlements fighting over spots, with 1 or more guilds/companies supporting each settlement.

Maybe in the description of the settlement, a list of supporting guilds/companies would be put, but the board should have settlements, not guilds. This way, without reading the forums (and I know quite a few that don't, but do read/watch the blogs to keep up with the game news) you can be aware of what is going on and what is being voted on.

Again, this is my POV and what I think would had been better. Either way, the majority of voters (I think) are aware, or are being informed by others, so things should be ok. Just posting my thoughts.

[Lhan]

Yep, makes total sense Goodfellow. However, total sense is rarely the arbiter of what happens, anywhere.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I will add this piece of advice to Lam's statement: Vote for the Mooncalves. We can still win this, people!

[Darcnes]

Goodfellow, that is a great idea.

We could help this issue somewhat by doing exactly that. Listing companies supporting a given settlement. It would help a great deal if we got the others to change names from company to settlement as well. So far, only 4 in the top ten are using a clear naming scheme.

[Lhan]

The problem is, while everything else is editable, it appears the name is not. Perhaps we could petition GW...

[Kobold Catgirl]

Ooh! Another signing thread? I'll get my complaints ready!

*Ding*

Aaaaaand there we go. That's my quota for pointless silliness for today. Tomorrow, if I have time, I'll try to catch up on the blogs. I really do regret not being able to legitly contribute right now. XD

EDIT: Also, is the Goblin Squad filled up now? I tried to see the options to become a member (not that I have money right now), but it took me to a broken page.

[Darcnes]

One would need to send a message to GW customer support to have name changed, if such a thing is necessary.

[Thod]

I'm one of these small recent guilds (Thod's Friends) and let me add my perspective:

Reading the message boards: keeping up takes a lot of time. I went into hibernation on this part of the board (I'm much more active in the Pathfinder Society section) and only just have come back. It has taken me the better of 1 1/2 days to read up all Goblinworks blogs from January 2013 onwards, watch their videos, scan the more important parts here, read through descriptions of guilds

Not everyone who pushes out a guild for the landrush is doing this. And in my case I actually did this only after I added my information. Will have to see how to change it now. I now know a lot better what I should have done ... The name of my guild might haunt me - but the first two members didn't come up with suggestions and I wanted to ensure to have my claim in before they closed shop - I think I sneaked in as number 85.

Recruitment for small guilds - I think small guilds will need to recruit elsewhere to gather followers. Standing out here on this board and gaining followers here will be extremely difficult. You either need to have enough followers to make it in the top 10 or you need a unique selling point apart of alignment X.

My own writeup and name certainly falls into that category or not overly appealing - but I'm working on that.

Self advertisement:
Currently I would see that I have 2 selling points: A - mainly UK based (100% UK based so far - but open to people from elsewhere). PFS (Pathfinder Society) based. The current members are 6 1-star - 5-star PFS GMs and I hope to get some more. There isn't any PFS based settlement so far and I hope to fill that void.

Contact: paizo add loesel dot freeserve dot co dot uk

[Darcnes]

Good feedback Thod. Did you get this info into CBDunkerson's list of landrush guilds?

[Thod]

Darcnes wrote:

Good feedback Thod. Did you get this info into CBDunkerson's list of landrush guilds?

CBDunkerson did add some bits straight away. At that stage I only had a single member apart of me (my son). We just joined the top 20 with now 7 members and I just send an e-mail out to all of them with a proposed charter, goals and preferred settlement slot.

This also went to other people who I know and who did pledge in the Kickstarter but who haven't joined yet (or who haven't told me that they can't because they are not EE).

It is only polite to give them a few hours to give input before I advertise it more openly here. But I plan to make a more detailed posting before tonight (UK time).

We started late but we seem to be doing fine right now.

[CBDunkerson]

Darcnes wrote:

Good feedback Thod. Did you get this info into CBDunkerson's list of landrush guilds?

I added Thod's Friends when they joined, but wasn't sure how to describe them (a common problem). I'll update the lists to stress UK & PFS origins.

It also looks like some guilds have dropped out. I'll go through and remove the inactive entries.

[Aou]

CBDunkerson wrote:

Darcnes wrote:

Good feedback Thod. Did you get this info into CBDunkerson's list of landrush guilds?

I added Thod's Friends when they joined, but wasn't sure how to describe them (a common problem). I'll update the lists to stress UK & PFS origins.

It also looks like some guilds have dropped out. I'll go through and remove the inactive entries.

Deathwatch has indeed "dropped out" of the the Land Rush 2, but only to join Phaeros directly (with all of our votes).

Even though we remain a separate company and we will be working directly with The Seventh Veil, we choose to take all of our votes and place them into their settlement. Some of the things we could have done would include placing our votes with other affiliated (Roseblood Accord) guilds, we felt that this was against the spirit of the contest, as we do intend to live within the confines of Phaeros.

I will be updating our forum thread shortly with details as to why we came to this decision.

[Thod]

CBDunkerson

I just send you a PM with more details. This isn't yet official as I wait for feedback from members - but feel free to extract the info you need for your listing.