To Ryan Dancey - One Player's Concerns


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 163 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Darcnes wrote:

I share several of Hobs' misgivings about this Ryan.

There is a rather fine line between polling the crowd for temperature and turning it into the Hunger Games of Paizo threads, even a comparatively mild one. The effect you ended up having was that of capricious Greek gods meddling in the affairs of us mere mortals.

If you want our opinion on something, be clear about it, from the outset.
"Community, what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? No, I will not throw anyone off a bridge as the result of this thread."
Then avoid rephrasing the question in such a way that implies the matter of bridge throwing may still up for debate after all.

You want to get the lay of the land before making a ruling? Fine.
You are just curious about something and want our thoughts with no further ramifications whatsoever? Great!
You have a mechanic you want our input on? Even better!

You want the community to tell someone 'no' when you have already given them tacit permission to ignore your preferences? Why in seven hels is the CEO of the game even asking the community to express their opinion for or against a player entity when they are not going to do a damned thing about it one way or the other?

You are making a PVP game. A competitive game. ** spoiler omitted **

You have told us that whatever is not forbidden is not necessarily permitted, but our first prime example does not reinforce this. What PAX did with those two settlements makes perfect logistical sense, it was fair, and it was against GW's wishes. I do not have a problem with the decision you made about not doing anything, I have a problem with the fact that you begged someone not...

I do not agree with this at all.

If you ASK someone not to do something, and they go ahead and do it anywas, you should not then put your foot down and tell them they canøt do it at all.

Then you should just tell them, to begin with, that they are forbidden to do it.

It was very clear from the beginning, to me at least, that there wasn't going to be a GW ruling on all this.
I am not sure how anyone could have thought otherwise.
Actually, I think the people that was most focused on if GW was going to make a ruling, was Pax. And I think that was only because they were worried.
Once they were reminded that GW wasn't going to do anything either way (and I say reminded, because it had been stated way before), all doubt about how Pax fells about the opinion of other were gone.

I think it was important training for the community to have that rather heated discussion.
Lines are being drawn, people are showing their true selves.
It is easy to hide behind a mask of niceness, when there is nothing to lose.
Now, it seems there is something at stake. It is only natural.

I do not think there was much toxic behavior in the thread.
Yes, there were a lot of statements and posts that I am very sure felt like attacks to some.
Get over it, it will get worse. I wonder what some people will do once they lose a settlement that they have spend months (years?) on building.

I do not feel it is GWs job to go in an solve these issues.
If they start, where does the line go?
This issue was mainly among the big players.
You might have felt it was most of the community, but that is a joke.
There were not thousands of people involved, only a small handful of the people that have already committed to GW in some way.

If GW have to go in and act like a judge in a case like this, should they then also go in and act like a judge if (when) the Pax union gets into an internal fight over some (probably stupid) political thing?
"Oh my god, this Pax officer raided the guild bank... RYAN RYAN RYAN... HE RAIDED THE GUILD BANK"

Now, I know you sit there and think, that it have nothing to do with it.
But it does.
Just because it was one of our bigger fights, doesnt mean that it is a fight among the whole community. Far from it.
You think you are the most important thing in this game right now (all of you) and as long as it is all on the forums, you are.
But, you are the not the whole community.

The Exchange Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
For the record: I do not have an opinion about Golgatha being on the Land Rush. I think there are persuasive arguments pro and con. I care more about the Community's opinion about the matter than I do about the matter itself.

I think that this is the very point that makes people uneasy. The community is teared and many would like to know wether YOU (or GW) are OK or NOT with Golgotha being on the Land Rush.


Armenfrast wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
For the record: I do not have an opinion about Golgatha being on the Land Rush. I think there are persuasive arguments pro and con. I care more about the Community's opinion about the matter than I do about the matter itself.
I think that this is the very point that makes people uneasy. The community is teared and many would like to know wether YOU (or GW) are OK or NOT with Golgotha being on the Land Rush.

The community is not teared.

Part of the community had a fight.

Goblin Squad Member

Cirolle wrote:
I do not agree with this at all.

You do not have to agree with any of it, it was directed elsewhere and I made it clear that I was speaking for no one other than myself.

I have no idea what it was you thought you were disagreeing with though, you said nothing that contradicted my stance. Might I recommend re-reading it with this in mind?

Cirolle wrote:
I do not feel it is GWs job to go in an solve these issues.

Here is a point I would like to expand on. It is not GWs job to solve our petty squabbles. Neither is it GWs job to have a hand in stirring them up.

Goblin Squad Member

Armenfrast wrote:
I think that this is the very point that makes people uneasy. The community is teared and many would like to know wether YOU (or GW) are OK or NOT with Golgotha being on the Land Rush.
RyanD wrote:

Let me try to be as clear as I can be.

Goblinworks is not going to remove Golgatha from the Leaderboard.

That's it. What Pax is doing is permissible, which means Goblinworks is OK with it.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

To me, the Golgotha argument didn't seem worth bothering with. This argument about how to apportion 'fault' for that argument... seriously?

People are going to find things to fight about. I find it implausible that people actually believe Ryan stepping in and saying, 'Golgotha is in' or 'Golgotha is out' before everyone had a chance to say their peace would have resulted in anything but a BIGGER argument. Heck, he let everyone have their say and people are still arguing about it... and whether he should have done that.

As to the OP accusation that Ryan can be insulting / dismissive. Yep, I've been on the receiving end of that. I have also seen him be exceedingly patient in trying circumstances. From this I conclude that Ryan is human... and behave accordingly myself. I didn't get all mad and start arguing when he shut me down... even though I was clearly right. :]

I could have stirred up a big argument. Rallied like minded board members to my cause and denounced the evil Ryan for being "snippy" with me. But, what would be the point? It wasn't the end of the world. The benefits of getting my way would be minor in the big picture, while the argument could have done untold damage. And that would have been on me... not Ryan.

At the very least, before making that first incendiary post ask yourself, is the issue at hand really so vital that pressing it outweighs any damage the argument might cause?

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry to my meddling in all this, but I have one very effective method to save my brain cells and nerves overall. When I see several of our community members who have best flamethrowers and fought so much in the past, and they start to aim at each others - I'm stopping to follow this thread. Immediately. As of now I have 912 unread posts in the "Concerning PAX in the landrush" thread and I like it that way.
Overwhelming majority of this community is smart and good with words. GW have bright and energetic brains at their disposal. Any disbalance at the start of EE will be insignificant compared to evolution of this game in the next 18 months.
Yes, I have my doubts and fears about PFO becoming Darkfall #2. Yes, I have my opinions about most of the discussed topics. But as long as there is no crowdforging and no real in-game moves my opinions are irrelevant. Only game will tell for sure what will happen. Take a pause guys - both sides, please. Save some fuel for in-game wars. You can't win argiment in thread 90% of the time.
Oh and I've spent around $250 on PFO - so I'm no less involved in this game than most of forum members.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It is really sad to see people blaming others and driving them away from these forums for the confusion in their own minds about things that were clear to most of the community from the start.

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.

First, my apology to those who have posted and who's replies I have not even had a chance to read. Already running late, I went straight to PMs, and in my reply to one, decided that person's concerns needed to be the only thing I had time for this morning. Then I thought, for those who have wondered about my motivation in starting this thread, I would simply post my reply to that other player.
-----------------------------------------------------------

No one in Pax asked me to write it. Aside from Pax and all of this latest turmoil, I am just simply fed up with all of this - the bickering, the poor management, the ill-conceived designs, the pitting one group against another - and sending it to Dancey in a PM would likely have changed nothing (not that his past stands and statements demonstrate that he'll be inclined to change his position on anything, whether the message had been delivered in public or private). I am not trying to attack him as a person - I don't do that and my record on these boards bears that out - but I am criticizing his performance as a paying customer and a concerned community member, both of which, you would think, a CEO would have at least some modicum of concern about, because if its more than one voice from many different styles of players, yet all with the same complaints, it might just have merit.

I have hardly posted anything even slightly negative for the year or more I've been on these forums because I've seen how constant flame wars can damage a community, but this has been a total fiasco, and I by no means limit it to just this latest issue. Watching it all unfold, something my school principal has said to me about members of my teaching staff rang true. "They complain to everyone but the person who can actually fix the problem...they gossip in little clusters, they whine and moan in the teachers lounge, they attack each other behind each other's backs, they complain to the union reps when the issues aren't contractual issues, all because they're too afraid to take the issue to the one person who has the power to resolve the issue." I decided, my reputation damaged by doing so or not, that it was time to take the issue to the person who is and will continue to be the largest cause of this problem and the only one, shy of Lisa, to actually be able to fix the problem.

I decided that this statement needed to be said in public because everyone who has complained to me about Dancey's performance needs to see that I'm willing to throw myself on the chopping block to make my point. I'm not attacking other players, this isn't a crusade to shape/force the community into what "I" think it should be, etc. This has nothing to do with any other player or group, swaying their opinions, trying to sway others against them, etc. I'm done quietly complaining to others about this and I'm going to the source, but like a handful who have been brave enough and taken the risk of airing their concerns publicly (such as Alexander Damocles), I'm showing Dancey that I'm not going to let the fear of his possible reprisals for my statement muzzle me. What can he do, besides ban me from the server and the game? Perhaps he would be saving me potential years of further frustration. And that action, banning a community minded, community loving player for finally voicing his grave concerns, might be worth my couple hundred dollar investment if it saves the game from the direction it's heading. I'm sure I've spent that much money on worse causes. I could live with that personal loss for that net community gain.

Goblin Squad Member

Marlagram wrote:
Save some fuel for in-game wars.

I've concluded that until PFO launches, these forums are the place of in-game wars for some. This is the pregame and groups are already breaking out the siege engines. Since they can't destroy each other in a 3D environment they are pooling all their resources to the forum game. When PFO launches it won't stop either. It might slow down at times but it will continue to rage on. Even after the game fades away the forum wars will continue on about what had happened.

Welcome to the start of a long and brutal war.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravenlute wrote:
Welcome to the start of a long and brutal war.

This is exactly what I alluded to before as a feature rather than a bug. Now that we have an Evil empire, a self-righteously LG hegemony and morally flexible mercenaries as power blocs we are all set for a powder keg of carnage, which is, I assume, exactly what Ryan and GW want going into Alpha and EE.

Goblin Squad Member

@Hobs. Was anyone, including Ryan, offended by your post? I disagree with your assessment, but like you I can only act and form beliefs based upon what I perceive and I...admittedly...have not had cause to feel upset at the way things have been handled.

...rest cut and moved to avoid waylaying this thread...

Goblin Squad Member

Honestly it's a cost benefit thing. Goblinworks could rule things with an iron fist and stomp out drama if they wanted but it's not really worth the effort. This forum community doesn't need help stirring up drama, which is the reason I spend more time ghosting than posting. If this game is a success then the people posting here won't even hit a single percent of those playing. They'll have little to no input into the whole game community unless some inspired and inspiring leader shows up and to be honest they'd be better off spending that exemplary talent changing the real world.

Could the rules been a little more cut and dry? Without any doubt. I count myself as a person of the highest integrity and I misread the intent of the land rush 2 rules. I thought the intent was the intrigue of "vote selling" in line with a settlement conflict game. I was expecting a LOT of shady dealings and in the spirit of the game it would have been fun to watch. It likely wouldn't matter anyway. If this game is a success I think it will be the rare EE settlement owner that maintains that ownership as groups like the Goons show up.

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to point out to all of you something:

First, it seems like this is the first MMO threads some of you have participated in.

I would like to point out, that, these types of games/forums are full of super negative, toxic, down right evil things at times. I have seen terrible things on Darkfall boards, worse things on EVE and Mortal, and sometimes Themeparks are much much worse....look at some aspects of the Blizzard forums...

Here is the point I want to make:

All in all, these forums are EXTREMELY tame compared to all of my past experiences. Other than maybe 3-5 people, everyone really tries their best to come out civil, even if heated. For some of you this may or may not be hard to see, but take it from a guy who has been in some very toxic situations; what I see in this community is refreshing by comparison.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TEO Cheatle wrote:


All in all, these forums are EXTREMELY tame compared to all of my past experiences. Other than maybe 3-5 people, everyone really tries their best to come out civil, even if heated. For some of you this may or may not be hard to see, but take it from a guy who has been in some very toxic situations; what I see in this community is refreshing by comparison.

QFT

I remember back when account security was of top priority as a RL in vanilla WOW, as competing guilds were just.... well lets call them hostile to say the least, and moreso on the forums than anything else. At one point the leader of an unnamed guild ended up phishing 2 other guilds into coordinating the raid only to ninja off with all of the goods. Then if became personal. Coming to this kind or debate is really quite inspiring, and useful in other cases as well since you get to see who has their head on strait, or can reason to some extent.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TEO Cheatle wrote:
All in all, these forums are EXTREMELY tame compared to all of my past experiences. Other than maybe 3-5 people, everyone really tries their best to come out civil, even if heated. For some of you this may or may not be hard to see, but take it from a guy who has been in some very toxic situations; what I see in this community is refreshing by comparison.

I'd argue that if we want it to stay that way or even get better the reaction to it should not be: "as long as we are not as horrible as some communities we are fine"

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Papaver wrote:
TEO Cheatle wrote:
All in all, these forums are EXTREMELY tame compared to all of my past experiences. Other than maybe 3-5 people, everyone really tries their best to come out civil, even if heated. For some of you this may or may not be hard to see, but take it from a guy who has been in some very toxic situations; what I see in this community is refreshing by comparison.
I'd argue that if we want it to stay that way or even get better the reaction to it should not be: "as long as we are not as horrible as some communities we are fine"

As long as we have specific people doing specific negative things, it is always going to be along those lines. Nothing we can do as a community, yet perhaps, that will remove those types.


TEO Cheatle wrote:

I want to point out to all of you something:

First, it seems like this is the first MMO threads some of you have participated in.

You can't teach me anything! I HAVE POSTED ON RUNESCAPE FORUMS!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are there MMOs with forums more rife with drama? Yeah. Sometimes I'd prefer the outright drama to the veiled passive aggressive. I agree with Papaver's sentiment. Usually the pre game release forum community is in the best state you'll see in an mmo's life cycle. From what I've seen they start off fairly well with a few outliers and get steadily worse as time goes on and a game is released and then ages. Just because they are worse doesn't mean I'd wouldn't like to see this one better.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really don't accept the explanation that this controversy isn't just the first of many, and that it's normal in a game like that.

No. It's normal to have a controversy around player established rules. It would be normal to have a controversy if T7V for example had a pact with PAX as a guild, but was in war with a company established in Golgotha : Then, I would call it meaningful human interactions around the subject of the perception of what is PAX.

Here, that is not the case. The problem is that the OOG supreme authority, GW, made a fuzzy rule, said they wouldn't enforce said rule, then asked fo a company somewhat potentially concerned by the rule to take its responsibility in respect of the spirit of the rule, telling that what's important is the perception of the community. They asked to the community to give their opinion about whether or not PAX was following the OOG GW rule, while saying that they wouldn't do anything about it... But still hoping for PAX to willingly respect the rule by themselves... BUT without, again, telling what "respecting the rule" would be.

No, no way I will accept that, to be called a "normal process in a sandbox MMO". It was maybe a normal process around a hill incidentally called Golgotha a few centuries ago for a legitimate authority to throw a guy to a mob, but not in a MMO.


I wonder what's happening with that Bone trilogy that's getting made...

Goblin Squad Member

This is unsettling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know, right? I haven't heard hide nor hair of it in, like, two years. A trilogy made by Warner Bros doesn't just vanish.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
TEO Cheatle wrote:

I want to point out to all of you something:

First, it seems like this is the first MMO threads some of you have participated in.

You can't teach me anything! I HAVE POSTED ON RUNESCAPE FORUMS!

My condolences to your soul.

Goblin Squad Member

I believe that the concern of Hobs is being missed. I will throw my 2 copper in and leave it at that.

It is not that the discussion itself is the problem. It is the fact that Ryan came into the thread and made multiple posts that eluded to the fact he and GW were deciding the matter. This has been done in countless threads.

First was the pm with pax saying that they would do nothing. Followed up by several posts saying that the matter was really in the hands of the community perceptions. Then finally telling everyone who has posted to stop posting so they could hear other peoples thoughts.

That to me was making a judgement on the matter. Not furthering the discussion, but Ryan deciding what GW was going to do about it.

Ryan, that is why everyone asked for clarification. You were bouncing around like you were going to make a ruling based on peoples opinions, and change your original stance that you told Pax.

My suggestion is... Make the first official statement then leave it at that. If the community continues to argue over it, it is on us. If you keep jumping in asking for opinions and saying how you do not like it... Then it is on you.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I agr... Ag... Agrrrr... I... I aggr... I agree with Xeen.

Damn you, GW ! D'you see what you made me do ?!

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:

I agr... Ag... Agrrrr... I... I aggr... I agree with Xeen.

Damn you, GW ! D'you see what you made me do ?!

I am a Mind Flayer, so you have no choice!!!!!!!

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have to say, I'm finding these forums both instructive and hilarious. I do not really post much in forums of the games I've played over the years, rather spend my time playing the game than writing about it. This is the exception because the game isn't ready yet and I keep looking to see what new updates are around. Like most everyone else here, I spent money helping the start up of this game, so I have some skin in the game.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't every single one of our settlements going to disappear after this early play testing is over? That they will not exist when the game goes live? The companies will exist but not the settlements when the game goes live. Or have I that wrong?

If I'm right, what does it matter that PAX or whoever is "cheating", taking more settlements than they should or whatever? I have no idea if they are or are not, I don't care. So let's say group Enigma does wind up controlling all 33 settlements in the Playtest because they have enough players in their group to split up into smaller but still large enough company groups to control all the playtest settlements. What is the result for the playtest?

Does it tell GW, "hey! We need more settlements" or "Hey, we need to limit how many companies can be in an alliance or how many players can be in a company" or "hey, we need to limit how many PCs can use a settlement" or "hey, we don't have any real PvP combat going on because only one group is in our playtest and they aren't fighting themselves" or "hey, our NPC settlements need to be as powerful and diverse as PC settlements because there are too many PCs who can't get a settlement of their own" or "hey, they are having a civil war and are not testing our crafting system, we need someone to test our crafting system now, not fight".

Whatever happens, GW will look at it and then make some hard and fast rules to make the game better [I hope] and more enjoyable to its players [customers].

After all, remember the saying "no adventure module survived contact with the players." Same for this game or any other game. That's what the playtest is all about. Break the system. Abuse the system. Force rule changes.

This is coming from a player who hates PvP and doesn't want any part of it and hopes that there will be enough other content in the game that he will be happy playing it for years and years and years while running away from any player who looks like they want to attack him. I'm a PvE player, not a PvP player.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xeen, you know, if the "r" word is forbidden here, I don't think that you are authorised to use your turgid tentacles inside of me.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:

I believe that the concern of Hobs is being missed. I will throw my 2 copper in and leave it at that.

It is not that the discussion itself is the problem. It is the fact that Ryan came into the thread and made multiple posts that eluded to the fact he and GW were deciding the matter. This has been done in countless threads.

First was the pm with pax saying that they would do nothing. Followed up by several posts saying that the matter was really in the hands of the community perceptions. Then finally telling everyone who has posted to stop posting so they could hear other peoples thoughts.

That to me was making a judgement on the matter. Not furthering the discussion, but Ryan deciding what GW was going to do about it.

Ryan, that is why everyone asked for clarification. You were bouncing around like you were going to make a ruling based on peoples opinions, and change your original stance that you told Pax.

My suggestion is... Make the first official statement then leave it at that. If the community continues to argue over it, it is on us. If you keep jumping in asking for opinions and saying how you do not like it... Then it is on you.

I think Ryan made it ridiculously clear, from the get-go, that they were NOT going to enforce any verdict one way or the other. He said all along that it was up to the community.

The only thing he DID enforce was to shut people up (like you) who have a tendency to rail-road other people, thus forcing them to keep their opinions to themselves for fear of reprisal.

Goblin Squad Member

And I disagree

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dazyk wrote:
I think Ryan made it ridiculously clear, from the get-go, that they were NOT going to enforce any verdict one way or the other. He said all along that it was up to the community.

I disagree too.

Goblin Squad Member

In my experience design is always messy. You have a great idea but constraints of other things already committed make coding impossible. You can code a great idea but in the end find you have gone down a blind alley and have to discard work you've already done. Sometime you just make mistakes.

Goblinworks has been very transparent about their design development process, both their successes and their re-do's, and that makes for a messy view of what is going on. I sometimes fall into the trap of really wanting something I like to be set in stone when it isn't even set in pudding.

This game isn't even a MVP yet and look at how we react. I love being abel to get glimpses of how this thing we call PFO is evolving. It will continue to evolve in EE and beyond into OE. I think that we can get so invested in our expectations that we get angry when we think we are not going to get what we want.

You know, sometimes that is just how it is. I often wonder what we are so afraid of that has us react so strongly to something that isn't even a reality yet.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:

I agr... Ag... Agrrrr... I... I aggr... I agree with Xeen.

Damn you, GW ! D'you see what you made me do ?!

I think it's gorram contagious. I agree with him as well ... every ... single ... word.

Nostradamus didn't say anything about today's date, right? Old Mother Shipton? The Maya?

Goblin Squad Member

You can disagree if you want, but the truth of it is right in this posts. The quote below is from the first post of Ryan's in the 'Conerning Pax' thread:

Ryan Dancey in 'Concerning Pax...' wrote:

...I'm not going to tell you that Golgatha can't be on the leaderboard. I can't and won't put myself into the position of trying to untangle the various organizational structures of the 3rd parties that are going to be a part of our community. Down that path lies an endless predator/prey feedback loop that I can never hope to "win" and that will only serve to antagonize the people that we are most vested in making happy in this game. It's a losing proposition for everyone.

What I will ask you to do is to consider if Golgatha's participation in the promotion is really in the best interests of the game, and of Pax itself. The Settlements allocated on the Leaderboard are a fraction of the Settlements that will be available once we begin play. Golgatha will have a chance to compete for one of those other spots via in-game activities just like every other organization, and if it is cohesive and strategic and effective it will get one. On the other hand, if someone like Goonswarm shows up and decides to completely game the Leaderboard, Pax itself might find that it has become surrounded by a linked network of hostile forces bent on massive disruption "just for the lulz".
Your community has a chance to set some baseline norms of behavior. I'd ask you to carefully consider your response in that light.

Goblin Squad Member

That is his pm, which I covered.

Goblin Squad Member

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Ryan was very, very clear from the beginning that he was going to referee the debate but he wasn't going to judge it. I dare anybody to find a quote to the contrary. It is up to the community to fight and settle disputes, it is up to GW to make sure it doesn't get toxic and to steer the punches "above the belt".

A precedent has been set. We will police ourselves and GW will step in only if we get out of hand or if somebody has flat out broken a rule (Pax did not). Bending rules, pushing fine lines and interpreting the gray areas is going to be up to us to police.

So, boys and girls, stop crying in your milk. Freedom isn't a bowl of ice cream. These tough and sometimes painful debates are the price of being given the power to set community standards amongst ourselves. If you don't feel comfortable with this public "voting process", find a representative to air your concerns, learn to be more vocal, or just stick to RP events...

But don't blame Ryan Dancey.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's almost as if when someone says that they are going to be capricious and arbitrary, people are worried that they might be capricious and arbitrary...

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
That is his pm, which I covered.

No where in any of his posts does he allude to making a judgement about the issue.

Some may have perceived it that way, but it clearly not the case.

And +1 to Avari. Well said.

Goblin Squad Member

Dazyk wrote:


Some may have perceived it that way, but it clearly not the case.

Didn't you hear from your own people? Perception is everything.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like Putin, infinitely superior to the messy politics of the Eu squabbles... like a ball of yarn in my kitten's paws.

Really I can't see what people get so antsy about, haven't people got their land-grabs? Well, then.

You're gonna get some large groups forming sub-groups; so long as they're not more than 3 or 4 and we have what 2 major affiliations that have split into sub-groups, it seems far from out of hand, there's a little honesty required in this process, hold on to it with both hands! Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...

At least you got a beautiful French saying out of reading this thread even if nothing made sense, especially this chef's signature dish.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Bunibuni13th wrote:
But, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't every single one of our settlements going to disappear after this early play testing is over? That they will not exist when the game goes live? The companies will exist but not the settlements when the game goes live. Or have I that wrong?

No. Sometime in the next couple of weeks Alpha testing is going to start. That will run for a month or two and then everything will be wiped... as if it never happened. After Alpha testing is complete the Early Enrollment period will begin. Some months after that the settlements won in the land rush will be added to the game. Everything done in Early Enrollment will be kept when the game eventually goes over to Open Enrollment some time around the start of 2016.

Goblin Squad Member

Bunibuni13th wrote:
But, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't every single one of our settlements going to disappear after this early play testing is over? That they will not exist when the game goes live? The companies will exist but not the settlements when the game goes live. Or have I that wrong?

The Land Rush settlements will be seeded in Early Enrollment (maybe 1/2-2/3 the way thru EE? I'm not sure, and it might not be set) and will remain in the game into Open Enrollment, until they are removed by settlement conflict.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

To me, the question that confronts the community is not the question of moving votes from one group to another. The question should be "is Pax one guild, or several?"

If it is one guild, then no member of Pax, regardless of the history or timeline of that membership should vote for any guild but Pax Aeturnum.

If it is several guilds, then there's no meaningful problem except in the case of people who voted for Pax Aeturnum in Phase I and subsequently shifted their votes in Phase II. It would be scrupulous for Pax Aterunum to clearly tell its members not to vote for anyone but Pax Aeturnum, but that's just optics.

And frankly, I don't necessarily think Pax' opinion about their structure is the defining one. Perception will be the reality in this case.

Hmmm, Nowhere did he allude to a judgement you say?

Perceptions and all...

If he is going to pose things like this to conversations, then he needs to be clear that this is just a discussion topic and not a judgement.

Goblin Squad Member

I can see both sides of the argument, but I find myself having a hard time pinpointing the exact quote of words in which Ryan effectively said, "We're going to ask the community to decide on this, and then we're going to act on that decision."

Before I can formulate an opinion on the matter in general, can someone (maybe Xeen? Audoucet? Someone else?) please point out something along the lines of my pseudo-quote above?

Goblin Squad Member

above you

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

To me, the question that confronts the community is not the question of moving votes from one group to another. The question should be "is Pax one guild, or several?"

If it is one guild, then no member of Pax, regardless of the history or timeline of that membership should vote for any guild but Pax Aeturnum.

If it is several guilds, then there's no meaningful problem except in the case of people who voted for Pax Aeturnum in Phase I and subsequently shifted their votes in Phase II. It would be scrupulous for Pax Aterunum to clearly tell its members not to vote for anyone but Pax Aeturnum, but that's just optics.

And frankly, I don't necessarily think Pax' opinion about their structure is the defining one. Perception will be the reality in this case.

Hmmm, Nowhere did he allude to a judgement you say?

Perceptions and all...

If he is going to pose things like this to conversations, then he needs to be clear that this is just a discussion topic and not a judgement.

Absolutely not.

People on both sides interpreted that wrongly, not Ryans fault. I saw and still see it very clearly as Ryan trying to push the debate into relevance. As long as we are debating relevant topics, they are going to let us have at it.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:


There's no grey area on the rules and admonitions. The only grey area is "Is Pax one Guild, or Several?"

If it is one Guild, Golgatha should not be on the leaderboard.

If it is more than one Guild, then nobody who voted in Phase I for Pax should vote for anyone but Pax Aeturnum, players who intend to play with Pax Aeturnum should only vote for Pax Aeturnum, and Golgatha is free to be on the leaderboard and recruit anyone else to vote for them except people who intend to play with The Seventh Veil and The Empyrean Order.

RyanD

Oh look, there is more.

So in his previous post I quoted, he says let the community decide.

In this one he says if they are all the same then Golgotha should not be on the leader board.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
above you

I don't want to start a fight with you (trying to remain as neutral as possible here (at least for the time being), if you haven't noticed)... but I really am having a hard time seeing any hint towards "action" in his statement in that quote. I see, "this is what should be done." - and even still, that seemed to be only directed at where PaxA's votes are going, nothing regarding, say, disbanding PaxG.

Again, I'm looking for something that says, "I/we are going to act in this way."

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Herdy dur mur flipty floopin. Yer der shmer dor her foomty, der shoopin flerpty dur.

51 to 100 of 163 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / To Ryan Dancey - One Player's Concerns All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.