Goblin Squad Member
|
Well there's this thing, that's what I was goin' off of. See that nice big ol' lake there? Looks like some prime fishin, maybe even make me a boat!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well there's this thing, that's what I was goin' off of. See that nice big ol' lake there? Looks like some prime fishin, maybe even make me a boat!
Does Pax have a lifeguards division? Do Dwarves even swim, or do they need floaties?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well there's this thing, that's what I was goin' off of. See that nice big ol' lake there? Looks like some prime fishin, maybe even make me a boat!
Glow Water Lake. Full of weird phosphorescent plants. Home of the "mutated" merrow (aquatic ogres) that destroyed the town of Mosswater.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well there's this thing, that's what I was goin' off of. See that nice big ol' lake there? Looks like some prime fishin, maybe even make me a boat!Glow Water Lake. Full of weird phosphorescent plants. Home of the "mutated" merrow (aquatic ogres) that destroyed the town of Mosswater.
Ooo! I've never fished for ogres before! Sounds like a good time, I'll have to get me a bigger fish club...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Roseblood Accord announces it is hereby changing its name to Tear Extraction And Removal Service [TEARS]. So we have a cooler name copy/pasted from EVE than you do :OP.
There was a Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, do you think they copied that from EvE Online?
Does the Roseblood Accord really make sense as it is described? What oppression is it shielding its members from?
If it's members feel non consensual PvP is oppressive, then PFO might not be the game for them. How long before your member companies / settlement get bored with having to wait to get permission to take the resources they want and or need?
How long before a pecking order isn't established and realized, and resentment will begin to fester and then boil over?
No one has to destroy the accord, it will implode all on its own, because it is an anathema of what PFO is being designed to be. PFO is not a game of settlements having a spirit of cooperation and mutual benefit. It is a game of settlement vs, settlement competition for limited resources through armed conflict in most cases.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFO is not a game of settlements having a spirit of cooperation and mutual benefit. It is a game of settlement vs, settlement competition for limited resources through armed conflict in most cases.
Well, look who has his pantaloons in a twist over player-driven emergent gameplay.
*tears extracted, can go back to being called Roseblood Accord now*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFO is not a game of settlements having a spirit of cooperation and mutual benefit. It is a game of settlement vs, settlement competition for limited resources through armed conflict in most cases.
That's a rather odd statement from a signatory to the Northern Coalition, which was announced in this thread with Aragon as a founding member using this description:
Through this treaty, all signatories agree to a stance of non-aggression, of mutual good will, and of bilateral friendship. Though this treaty does not establish a true alliance, we hope that we can foster a culture of true cooperation between our three states, spreading that culture to any others that choose to join us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A side question, meant in all seriousness as y'all know I don't participate in the polit-wars here...
Bludd if settlement cooperation is not in the spirit of PFO, how will the Northern Coalition exist?* I believe PFO can indeed be a game of cooperation and mutual benefit, right alongside being a game of conflict. The two can co-exist in the game, and individuals/companies/settlements can utilize one or both approaches simultaneously.
Further, non-aggression is a central tenet of the Keepers of the Circle. Would we be welcome as members of the Northern Coalition? We have no intention of attacking any of its members already, so having that returned in kind would be agreeable to the Circle.
*EDIT: And it seems others have the same question. Also, note that I'm not asking for the Circle to officially join--we'd need to have internal discussion and agreement to such. I'm just asking theoretically.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does the Roseblood Accord really make sense as it is described? What oppression is it shielding its members from?
If it's members feel non consensual PvP is oppressive, then PFO might not be the game for them. How long before your member companies / settlement get bored with having to wait to get permission to take the resources they want and or need?
How long before a pecking order isn't established and realized, and resentment will begin to fester and then boil over?
No one has to destroy the accord, it will implode all on its own, because it is an anathema of what PFO is being designed to be. PFO is not a game of settlements having a spirit of cooperation and mutual benefit. It is a game of settlement vs, settlement competition for limited resources through armed conflict in most cases.
Hey, look! Those people are becoming friends! That's so stupid! They'll eventually all tear each other apart!
Why are you wasting your breath trying to tear down the Roseblood Accord in this thread?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Indeed, I would appreciate some amount of restraint, if possible, on responses biased from past personal conflict.
My questions are open and honest, as I'm trying to understand how this coalition will function given it is critical to my character concept (diplomat/merchant). I've noted to Bludd and Goodfellow in the past that I appreciate their stated intent of being the "good" Bad Guys since that adds value to the game. I further think nations forming against one another can add value, and even further think that having individuals or groups that try to work all sides (whether in a sneaky/profiteering way, or in a true intent to foster peace) could be fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lol, how quickly you all flock to the words of "Bluddwolf the Agitator". So worried are you that he might say something, that the new passerby might take outside of your contextual view point.
Look to your own Proxima Sin of Blighthaven if you wish to see who sparked this discourse.
Now on an academic level, I see the difference between your accord and our coalition hinges on the difference between "mutual benefit" and "mutual support".
In my view mutual benefit is far more limiting than mutual support. However, I don't have the time to detail my thoughts on that now.
The other difference is that the Northern Coalition's non aggression is limited to not doing serious harm to settlement structures or excessive predation of resources at another members expense.
We can loot a corpse or Sad a caravan. We can rob from an outpost or a poi (even killing its NPC guards) and become criminal flagged for it, if illegal in those lands.
We can feud against each other if our self interests rise to the level that a feud is the only recourse.
But, settlement structures will be left intact and wars / settlement siege will not be waged. Caravans, Outposts or POIs will not be raided with frequency to do grievous economic harm. Nor will raiding be done on a whim, but only to fulfill a specific need.
I could be wrong, but I doubt the Roseblood Accord would allow for any of those activities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just for the record as to keeping with the transparent policy of UNC, I will agree that bludd's post AS WRITTEN was inappropriate for this thread, and that I also disagree with HOW he said what he said. If I may try to interpret what he MEANT by the post. (Haven't spoken with him in a few days as I have had a very busy weekend traveling on business)
Maybe instead of interpreting, I will answer the questions he posed in a way that I feel better gets what his intention of the post was.
Does the Roseblood Accord really make sense as it is described? What oppression is it shielding its members from?
I feel that the RA making sense is a decision left for its members. If it doesn't, I would expect them to leave the RA, if it does to them, then it stands. As the what oppression it is protecting it's members from, again I feel this is more of a subjective question. Someone might feel the UNC issuing SADs as a tax for using a particular road is Oppressive because they feel it is too high. Others might feel it is fair or even justified in some way and so it not oppressive. Protecting it's members from UNC "taxes" would meet this qualification of "protection from oppression." Though they would need to ACTUALLY keep us out of their lands in order to be successful at it, but that is another matter.
If it's members feel non consensual PvP is oppressive, then PFO might not be the game for them. How long before your member companies / settlement get bored with having to wait to get permission to take the resources they want and or need?
Kinda going to the above response, as with any accord/settlement/company/agreement of any sort, if any of the parties involved are no longer happy with the terms, they will leave and/or it will dissolve. As for "Not being the game for them" while this may be true for those that agree with your statement, that is again, for them to decide and choose to act on. Having to wait to get permission to do stuff is their problem and could lead to the above mentioned "leaving/dissolving for their agreement" in this case, the RA.
How long before a pecking order isn't established and realized, and resentment will begin to fester and then boil over?
I think this was a typo asking how long before it IS established, not isn't established as this doesn't make sense to me as written. That being said, while this again is "their problem" and I am sure they are looking to stop and fix any issues that arise as time goes on, as I expect everyone to be doing for their own company/settlement/ect. I am sure they thank you for pointing it our if they haven't considered it but the main thing is, it isn't our problem and doesn't concern us really. If they fall apart for ANY reason, then better for us. If they stay together, then we have to adjust to that situation.
No one has to destroy the accord, it will implode all on its own, because it is an anathema of what PFO is being designed to be. PFO is not a game of settlements having a spirit of cooperation and mutual benefit. It is a game of settlement vs, settlement competition for limited resources through armed conflict in most cases.
While I have noticed over the last 1.5 years of working with bludd that proofreading isn't his strong suit, or he is always typing in a rush and that leads to misunderstandings and typos changing the meaning of his posts, and I think this is another one.
I assure everyone, Bludd knows and understands that cooperation is an important part of PFO and is using it himself, as was apparent with the NC we joined and helped found. I think he was trying to poke at the difference between the NC stated "Non-aggression" terms vs the RA stated "alliance between members." RA have stated that everything done by their members towads their members will be "To the mutual benefit of them" as well as to promote positive game play experiences between them. I am taking that to mean that they will each come to each other's aid as needed, not only not attack one another, but raiding, SADing, and anything else not deemed "Positive gameplay" toward each other, and just generally be nice and helpful to one another. I take that to mean trade will flourish at reasonable rates between them.
The NC's non-aggression pact as it stands now ONLY protects each other from outright attacks and harassment from other members of such. We are not REQUIRED to help one another in times of war or if under attack, we are not REQUIRED to trade, let alone at any set price or anything. Not being REQUIRED to do these things doesn't mean it won't happen, but it doesn't have to in the point.
We feel that at this point in the development of PFO, as well as for all parties involved in the NC, this is all that is needed for each to be successful and strong in their own right.
IMHO (In my Honest Opinion) to compare the two is simply to say that the RA is an alliance of nations mainly in the south who's goal is to provide mutual protection and support to one another at the cost of competiveness (at least within themselves) and at the cost of the freedom to do their own things and compete for territory that isn't already claimed by their fellow members of the RA. The NC is mostly the opposite of that. We agree to not have open hostilities towards one another, but other than that we agree that each has the freedom to do as they please, what is in the best interest of them and their own. While this means everyone is friendly towards fellow members of the NC, it does not form an official alliance.
Please note that this is subject to change at any time agreed to by the parties signed into the NC, and an alliance in the future is possible, as is smaller alliances between members within the NC.
To wrap up this wall of text, I ask bludd to keep his mind about where he posts what, and to reread stuff before he posts as to help me do my job as UNoffical diplomat (AKA damage control) for UNC and Aragon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This, still, is settlement cooperation. Which I obviously don't see as a bad thing. And so my question still stands--would the Circle (or any member of another alliance) be allowed to join this coalition?
EDIT: And as a note for the Roseblood Accord, Goodfellow I believe you overstate a bit. Speaking for the Circle, at present we have no military alliances, and no trade agreements, formally declared with any RA member. Until such time as those exist, we are not in any of the relationships defined above. Now, with that said I do very much expect we'll have these agreements in place either before or soon after EE begins. But these will be on a CC or settlement basis, are subject to change as such, and in no way impact membership in the RA.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This, still, is settlement cooperation. Which I obviously don't see as a bad thing. And so my question still stands--would the Circle (or any member of another alliance) be allowed to join this coalition?
If you can agree to the terms we have laid out here, then yes, you would be welcomed to join the NC. If you have questions about anything, specific or general, concerning the NC and what is involved as a member, feel free to ask here, or PM any of the member leaders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ The Goodfellow
Yes, I have to stop posting from work or in the very early morning. Sometimes I have posts that are half written and then get sent an hour or more later.
I am also not as silver tongued as you my friend, which is good, because we can always use a counter balance to our messaging.
I would note, I would not have brought up the RA, if it were not for Proxima's post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An interesting option, then. I will take this to the Circle for consideration. Do note the EDIT in my earlier post, as I want to be sure the actual nature of the Circle's involvement in the RA is understood. If, in some future state, various SE members of the RA joined into an actual Nation, that would more directly reflect the state described of mutual military and trade support between settlements under a single agreement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Look to your own Proxima Sin of Blighthaven if you wish to see who sparked this discourse.
It's true I posted giving a friendly ribbing (to the guys who always talk like they want to make this game exactly like EVE but with swords and dragons) for outright copy/pasting the highly recognizable flagship name of a group from EVE to use as their own here. That is completely, 100%, totally related to the title of the thread, sort of. Close enough for a gnome.
Bludd derailed himself having a soliloquy about the Roseblood Accord.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Congratulations to the members of the Northern Coalition. It's good to see so many organizations that will be established in Early Enrolement are invested in the concept of good sportsmanship in gameplay. I think we all get the concept that conflict as well as cooperation are core elements of PFO. As such there will be all sorts of alliances and power blocs formed, wars waged, raiding, banditry, taking of territory, etc. However, it's good to see that everyone is commited to doing so in the spirit of playing the game and everyone having fun... win or lose (and how can you even really "lose" in a game that has no defined and or "victory conditions")... rather then just going out with the express purpose of ruining someone elses play experience. While I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunity for conflict between the players in the various power blocs that will emerge in EE...I also expect we'll all be pretty busy PvP wise with griefers and random bomb throwers once OE rolls around.
Edit - I find the concept of anyone being afraid of anyone in a computer game pretty odd.... annoyed maybe, but that's about the extent... your Rook captured my Bishop, I'm traumatized!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO (In my Honest Opinion) to compare the two is simply to say that the RA is an alliance of nations mainly in the south who's goal is to provide mutual protection and support to one another at the cost of competiveness (at least within themselves) and at the cost of the freedom to do their own things and compete for territory that isn't already claimed by their fellow members of the RA. The NC is mostly the opposite of that. We agree to not have open hostilities towards one another, but other than that we agree that each has the freedom to do as they please, what is in the best interest of them and their own. While this means everyone is friendly towards fellow members of the NC, it does not form an official alliance.
Either you are misunderstanding the nature of the Roseblood Accord, or I am badly misunderstanding the nature of the Northern Coalition.
Here is the synopsis of the NC as posted in this thread:
Through this treaty, all signatories agree to a stance of non-aggression, of mutual good will, and of bilateral friendship. Though this treaty does not establish a true alliance, we hope that we can foster a culture of true cooperation between our three states, spreading that culture to any others that choose to join us.
Here is the description of the RC in its debut thread:
The Roseblood Accord is a group of sovereign player organizations united not under central authority, but in our agreement to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members.
If I swapped the names, could you even tell the difference? Does "Mutual success" seem more likely to impair "competiveness" than "Mutual good will and bilateral friendship"?
I can tell you for a fact that Forgeholm has never needed to "wait for permission to do stuff" or to not "compete for territory" because of its membership in the Roseblood Accord, and we don't anticipate that changing once EE starts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While the original text of both the RA and the NC are pretty vague, I think members of both have chipped in with their interpretations that are significantly more specific. Quoting the original text is like quoting the US Constitution and pretending there are no amendments or judicial decisions on the text therein applied to specific situations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While the original text of both the RA and the NC are pretty vague, I think members of both have chipped in with their interpretations that are significantly more specific. Quoting the original text is like quoting the US Constitution and pretending there are no amendments or judicial decisions on the text therein applied to specific situations.
Indeed.
For example, this is a very significant point of difference between the two:
... all future signatories are approved by the leadership of the signatories. Such a vote needs to be unanimous.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does "Mutual success" seem more likely to impair "competiveness" than "Mutual good will and bilateral friendship"?
Seriously. It takes Masterclass level skill in hairsplitting & bias to read as much into the RA as some people here have, while not leveling the same criticisms at the NA.