The PfO Summit and Oversight of Nations and Guilds


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like to bring up a few issues I feel need to be decided upon

1) We need a central location, much like the UN, where the oversight committee(s) (myself for now, I guess), as well as all nations, as well as all guilds, can meet and discuss global policies at routine times.
I'm talking things like "the Treaty of Rovagug" and other things. We are going to need to instigate some global laws that protect, hinder, whatever and to set the baseline to avoid unwarranted abuse and other such things.

2) We need a central location where we can display the current treaties, laws, etc. as well as who signed them, so to provide better access to the public.

3) We need to establish some form of international court/trial whereby peers can bring forth any party that violates a signed treaty before the oversight committee (once again only me for now). In this case, the parties will be guilds and nations, this will not be a court for individuals except in the most unique of cases.

4) We need to establish the official status and power of the oversight committee, and more importantly of the summit and it's treaties/laws.

5) We need to establish what powers the Summit and the oversight committee have, and what the enforcement of those powers should look like, as well as the different levels of violations, local, regional, global, and what punishments should be attributed to what crimes, or if it should be case by case.

6) We need to determine the Representation each member of the summit should have.

Please either state assent or dissent and a VERY brief statement of why. This thread is only for agreeing or disagreeing on the NEED for a Summit/Oversight, not as to what said institute should look like, so please don't argue about policies/implementation etc. just yet.

That said, and directly ignoring my previous statement, here are some of my thoughts:

Representation/Membership: The Summit will be open to all nations and guilds. I am a fan of one rep per company, two reps per kingdom. I feel that individual Settlements and those merged as Kingdoms should should be treated as the same type of entity and thus have the same type of representation (thus city-state which is one independent settlement has the same representation as a kingdom of two+ settlements). The Oversight Committee(s) will be open to the same, and will have the same principles, but each party will have only one rep whatever the type. Further, the Oversight committee(s) shall not exceed more than seven members (thus seven different parties). Each month(or case, to be determined at the inception of this institution) the "judge" shall rotate, while the remaining six shall act as the jury. This is to facilitate quicker resolution to problems, as well as ensure little to no gridlock.

Voting: To keep with the lack of gridlock, all Summit votes shall be cast as a simple majority. Should this result in a tie, the members of the Oversight Committee(s) shall cast a vote on the issue again as a simple-majority. Should this result in a tie the current "Judge" decides. If the current "Judge" is not present, the next in line decides (and so on and so forth).

All Oversight votes shall be determined solely by the current "Judge", with due consideration given to the current "Jury". If, however, the "Jury" votes at a 3/4 majority contrary to the "Judge's" decision, then that decision is overruled in favor of the Jury

Enforcement: Each member of the institution shall give its own forces as able to the Enforcement of the Laws.

Notice: In this setup the Oversight Committee(s) and the Summit are two joint-entities. The Summit can make the laws and the Oversight Committee (s) act as the judiciaries, and together they perform enforcement. No party should have representatives in both entities. This means, effectively, The members of the Oversight cannot be part of a faction that also has members in the Summit, and vice versa.

Closing Statement:I understand that currently Pax is the major area to converge and discuss these things, but that is like holding the UN at the American Embassy. This process deserves its own location with its own forums/organization.

Thank you!

tl;dr: if you didn't bother to read this in its entirety I would recommend either doing so, or going to a different thread. But basically PfO version of the UN. Well the way I have it is more like the League of Nations, but same dif.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see how a UN or League of Nations will fit into PFO which will rely heavily on war and settlement controlled resources.

The UN and League of Nations in the RL major purpose was to prevent wars and frankly they are both dismal failures. The LoN was dissolved because it was such a failure and was also corrupt.

The UN is a failure because it is perhaps the most corrupt organization in the world now. Only the US Congress might have it beat.

Goblin Squad Member

I understand this. I am arguing for treaties based on meta-game effects for the most part, such as griefing. I used the UN and the LoN as examples simply due to the structure of those organizations, not the practices.

Whether or not the "institution" does become a real thing, I still feel we need a central location to display all the treaties, meta-game and otherwise, that will have major impacts on the game.

This shouldn't be viewed as a peacekeeping outfit, but rather a diplomacy/politics hub. I'm just giving the institution the ability to enforce those metagame policies in-game.

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:

I understand this. I am arguing for treaties based on meta-game effects for the most part, such as griefing. I used the UN and the LoN as examples simply due to the structure of those organizations, not the practices.

Whether or not the "institution" does become a real thing, I still feel we need a central location to display all the treaties, meta-game and otherwise, that will have major impacts on the game.

This shouldn't be viewed as a peacekeeping outfit, but rather a diplomacy/politics hub. I'm just giving the institution the ability to enforce those metagame policies in-game.

Why are you going all "can of worms" on us? ;)

Goblin Squad Member

This was my intention when I developed this character XD

maybe not this grandiose, but hey!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Griefing will be handled by Goblin Works, in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner.

If I feel I am being griefed (ie respawn camped), I will:

1. /report the offender

2. Send a mail to the members of my company or player group, warning them.

3. Prepare for a means to exact revenge (Bounty, Assassin, Death Curse or unleash the "Monsters in our Basement" and send them out as a (Suicide) Death Squad).


hmm not sure about it.i think that something like that is created or used by major powers to force their laws and will to others.
also it will limit player options so i am against it.

The only thing we can do as whole community is to put some general laws like no griefing,dont use exploits etc.in general things that are an offence for GW and whole community.We can have a stone on started towns to let new players know that breaking this rules is a reason for ban etc.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I suppose I will go against the flow and say that I find this an interesting concept. Whereas I may change the 'Need' statements to 'desirable to have' claims, the spirit is a good one. At the moment, diplomatic and political discussions occur between groups and are typically kept private between them. The rare Global treaty proposition is usually discussed on this forum and typically does not go very far before naysayers and those who feel threatened by the context tear it to shreds.

I think it will be a long time before we see global treaties. The closest we would get is if Pax, T7V, and TEO all formed one as together the groups may have the strength to enforce it (at least as of Month 1) upon other disparate factions.

I think the private treaties are where this idea really shines. Privately protected treaties that are dishonored can become one party's word against the other's word that something went foul. And if the wronged party lacks the strength to make the other party suffer for their betrayal, then nothing really happens. Unless the treaty-breaker does it a lot and loses all of their friends, the occasional breakage would be relatively harmless.

By putting private treaties in the public eye, it helps ensure behaviors are on the up and up. When a party breaks a treaty, they may face economic censure, future diplomatic difficulty, or based on the nature of the break some form of military action against them. It can provide teeth to an agreement. This would definitely be an avenue favoring the smaller groups who may not be able to go against larger groups if they are mistreated.

Not all private treaties need be put on display. You would be free to continue your back-room dealings. But you would not get any higher level oversight or cooperation in enforcing the terms of your treaty should someone go back on their word.

Goblin Squad Member

Good points all.

@Bludd: While GW is responsible on any griefing claims, I for one am not going to sit idly by while it gets filled out. And there are more issues than just griefing that can be discussed.

@Tolath: These are global only to those who sign the treaties. If you don't like the law then don't sign it. You can't be tried if you aren't included in the contract and thus cannot break it.

@Lifedragn: Good point. I'll revise my earlier comparison to the UN or LoN. While the organizational structure is like this, I guess the working system is closer to a World Court.

Basically I want it to be known the major treaties between the major nations, and I want those treaties able to be enforced should they be broken. They don't "need" to be, but I was speaking IC, and my character thinks the major nations need to be kept to their word and have oversight working on them.

I just wanted an official institute that can display treaties that people want to display and that has more than just myself working to ensure those treaties carry weight. Obviously the parties in the treaty will generally want to, but IC my opinion is that people are corrupt, and so people will try to take advantage of the system, and so an arbitrary court/judge needs to be in place, and the treaties that are opened to the public need to have weight.

Goblin Squad Member

And also to let people know who got tried by whom and if they are guilty or not.

This can become a major political point in-game, and just the pressure of this might keep people to their word. If the people IC hear that X company violated an alliance treaty with Y company for Z amount of wealth, that could (and should if we are all playing IC) have some form of repercussions in X company's politics. Sort of a meta-game reputation system that is controlled by players, not by a game mechanic. Sort of.

Goblin Squad Member

I understand your intent for this and I wish you the best of luck, however, I don't see it working the way you are intending it to. As bludd said, I think that an "unspoken" law against griefing (Which for the most part I think we all agree on this stance anyway) will be enough, coupled with GW's attempts to curb that type of behavior.

If this does come into being, why not use one of the NPC towns as the location, since it will be "Neutral" and uncontrolled by any PC faction. The one big issue with that is the idea that, unless people use an alt that isn't actually played or possibly even leveled (gaining exp actively) not many will wish to travel to this central location every so often for a meeting. I just generally don't think it will work. Good idea, just not feasible IMHO.

Goblin Squad Member

@Goodfellow.

You may be right. I wasn't thinking of having a fixed location, but an NPC settlement might work.

The feasibility of this design basically boils down to if people decide to join in and try it or not. Either way, I'll be doing the same thing. It is just this is a way to make it official and let everyone have a say if they desire.

Good ideas all around though

Goblin Squad Member

@ BrotherfromAnotherMother

Seriously, this is not a bad idea, so long as it does not go from good intention to bad results.

I am not positive about this, but I believe that when the U.N. does get off it's rump, it deals with naughty nations regardless of membership. Do you see any problems in your proposal concerning whether anyone likely to go against the community, will not be a member anyway?

I do like that membership would give other nations an idea about who would and would not most likely keep their promises...


I mainly agree with the consensus, though if something does come up (like one particular alliance threatening to pull a Goonswarm) a Summit may be very handy. I certainly see nothing wrong with a little "neutral ground".

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I mainly agree with the consensus, though if something does come up (like one particular alliance threatening to pull a Goonswarm) a Summit may be very handy. I certainly see nothing wrong with a little "neutral ground".

I see no problem with having a "neutral" settlement, where the server population can have a "summit" to talk, but I'd much prefer it be a social and celebratory event.

The first day of EE Launch should be a day recognized. The same could be done for the first day of OE.

As for discussions involving the actions of a company, settlement, kingdom or alliance, that are within the rules of PFO, this should not be done. Since the example of Goonswarm was brought up, there was nothing they did in game that violated any rules of the game. Quite the contrary, it was the Band of Brothers along with a couple of CCP employees (Devs) that violated the rules.

This I think leads to the slippery slope argument, and legitimately so. No group should be singled out by the community as a whole, so long as they are playing within the rules of the game. That means they could if they wish try to dominate the entire world if they wish. If they achieve that goal (nearly as impossible as that might be) they could then decide to be as oppressive as they wish, or as they can enforce.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not talking about Goonswarm's OOC shenanigans. I'm talking about a group that sets out to take over, and proves itself too unreasonable to ally with. This is a matter that would be handled in-character, ideally, with Companies and settlements loosely cooperating to drive the invaders off.

Not to mention escalations that get too out of control. Say three cycles reach their peak at the same time, for instance!

Bluddwolf wrote:
This I think leads to the slippery slope argument, and legitimately so. No group should be singled out by the community as a whole, so long as they are playing within the rules of the game. That means they could if they wish try to dominate the entire world if they wish. If they achieve that goal (nearly as impossible as that might be) they could then decide to be as oppressive as they wish, or as they can enforce.

If you're saying that the River Kingdoms should not ally to stop this would-be empire because "they aren't breaking the rules", I don't know what to make of your position. How does that make sense?

EDIT: Bolded my little clarification. This isn't a matter of "We don't like these players", it's a matter of, "You wanna take over, you've got a heck of a fight on your hands."

Goblin Squad Member

Fair enough. I think we've reached a sort of consensus:

1) We'd like a place of neutral territory where people can meet to discuss things (public or otherwise) whatever the relations.

2) We'd like the ability to enforce those treaties (or not) on our own terms.

3) We do not want a global body.

4) We do not want an official "Summit" which forces issues and can be forced.

5) We do not want to single out a faction, nor do we want to be singled out.

6) No "universal police" who enforce "universal laws".

My question is:

Do we (the factions/people of the Two Rivers) Still want a neutral body to arbitrate any disputes as requested? Namely, two large factions that would cause a global war if negotiations break down cannot agree on demands, and look to the neutral body for arbitration.

Concerns:

How do we ensure this neutrality?

Where do we locate the neutral land?

Despite what you may think, I believe that we are going to need a universally accepted neutral-ground and neutral arbitration. These are both to be permanent fixtures, but should only be used if desired, not to be called down upon for every petty dispute.

The neutral territory is safe ground, period. No faction fighting ever.

The neutral arbitrator(s) is only a recommendation, not the supreme authority on any decisions.

Goblin Squad Member

6 people marked this as a favorite.

On an aside, I find it interesting how every time mechanics are discussed to help manage player behavior everyone shouts out "No more mechanics! Players can police other players!" And whenever someone proposes a System through which players may be able to police other players, we get a lot of "This will never work" or "This should not be done".

Edited to define everyone in these contexts as an exaggerated term and not a literal one.

Goblin Squad Member

@lifedragn

truth

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Tony's Totally Legitimate Breadmaking Business is a great place to discuss these things. There is forums for venting, anti-griefing, information gathering, contracts, black market and more. Register and stop in.

Goblin Squad Member

Brother Zael,
While it may be good within this group, Steelwings has pointed out, rightly, that the OE community will not be a Pathfinder community, but a MMO murder simulator community. Whatever EE sets up will be overwhelmed by OE.
On side of your concepts, EE could be more coordinated than OE.
1) There are two types of companies, venture and charter. they may be 2 to 50 (or inefficiently more). Do they all get 2 votes, VC and CC? of 2 members, 5 members or 50?
2) Settlements are next level. This is the level at which ownership happens (though a settlement may aloo a company to own a small position. You give them no votes.
3) A gathering of settlements may be a nation. You give them 1 vote (at OE they may not exist --Why do they get vote and settlements don't?)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lam wrote:
While it may be good within this group, Steelwings has pointed out, rightly, that the OE community will not be a Pathfinder community, but a MMO murder simulator community. Whatever EE sets up will be overwhelmed by OE.

Balderdash.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Lam wrote:
While it may be good within this group, Steelwings has pointed out, rightly, that the OE community will not be a Pathfinder community, but a MMO murder simulator community. Whatever EE sets up will be overwhelmed by OE.
Balderdash.

Humbuggery!

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I support the idea of a neutral meeting ground to display the current treaties and a location for hostile parties to meet without violence. However, I do not support the creation of an oversight committee to enforce treaties. Dozens of guilds would be created to inflate a group's voting bloc, and some would create fake characters just to create even more guilds.

Further, such a location would almost have to be a NPC town, because a player settlement would draw competition (markets, resources, territory, etc).

This almost sounds like something to be handled out of game, such as a dedicated website to list current guilds/companies/nations/settlements (whatever term we're using this month) and their mission statements, and the current alliances/war status of said groups.

Goblin Squad Member

@Lam

1) the system I originally proposed is on the far backburner-cum-trashheap but yes. everyone gets the same votes. this is "fair" and "not fair" but IC Zael sees it as the only logical way. Each company only gets one vote in that system

2) Lone settlements, as stated, are treated as city-state entities, or a similar independent sovereign, and thus get the same votes as a nation of more.

3) see above.

@Alexander

It would seem people assume it had to be in a settlement. I for one am against this, and would rather it be in another, non-settlement, completely open location. This, of course, has problems associated with it, but that is an argument for another time. This is merely to express whether or not you think such a neutral gathering to display information should be a "thing" or not.

I am pushing for it to be handled out of game, and whether or not there is an in-game zone for it or not, I want the out-of-game.

In-game location for this is, of course, rife with flaws. I am speaking from Zael's position. He is a zealot and an extremist when it comes to these things, and he will always act in what he views as the River Kingdom's best interest (in terms of equality and freedom). Yes, his logic is flawed, but that is an inherent trait I gave him to add some flavor.

To summarize, I just want to get a posting board for the different alliances, nations, guilds, and their current treaties that are public, as well as a safe place for them to discuss this. I want this to be out-of-game so it can be accessed any time, and I would like it to be in-game for purposes of RP.

@all

I've set Zael up to be an oversight committee. Whether he is an effective one or not is yet to be seen. Whether he is corrupt or not... well I'll leave that up to you guys to determine. It is fine if we only have myself and my (small) guild/friends doing the oversight, and that it be relatively in-effective. That isn't the main point, and if you wish to discuss it we should probably either do it via pm, or make it a thread of it's own, because that is a highly political issue and I think it deserves to be separated from this one ^^ or that might just be my martial pride and gigantic ego ;)

no offense meant to any parties.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lam wrote:

Brother Zael,

While it may be good within this group, Steelwings has pointed out, rightly, that the OE community will not be a Pathfinder community, but a MMO murder simulator community. Whatever EE sets up will be overwhelmed by OE.

I think I should point out that the bolded part wasn't something I said. I did point out that the kickstarter people are going to be an insignificant proportion of the game community if Dancey hits his target. In addition I would expect more of the OE enrollers (that stay for more than a month or two) to come from Eve and other pvp sandbox territory domination games rather than tabletop or themepark games

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Lam wrote:

Brother Zael,

While it may be good within this group, Steelwings has pointed out, rightly, that the OE community will not be a Pathfinder community, but a MMO murder simulator community. Whatever EE sets up will be overwhelmed by OE.
I think I should point out that the bolded part wasn't something I said. I did point out that the kickstarter people are going to be an insignificant proportion of the game community if Dancey hits his target. In addition I would expect more of the OE enrollers (that stay for more than a month or two) to come from Eve and other pvp sandbox territory domination games rather than tabletop or themepark games

I think the OE has the strong potential to overwhelm those of us in EE. How much will determine how well we setup the Settlements and economy during EE plus our commitment to remain in control.

Goblin Squad Member

Hold strong comrades

Hold strong

;)


Banesama wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Lam wrote:

Brother Zael,

While it may be good within this group, Steelwings has pointed out, rightly, that the OE community will not be a Pathfinder community, but a MMO murder simulator community. Whatever EE sets up will be overwhelmed by OE.
I think I should point out that the bolded part wasn't something I said. I did point out that the kickstarter people are going to be an insignificant proportion of the game community if Dancey hits his target. In addition I would expect more of the OE enrollers (that stay for more than a month or two) to come from Eve and other pvp sandbox territory domination games rather than tabletop or themepark games
I think the OE has the strong potential to overwhelm those of us in EE. How much will determine how well we setup the Settlements and economy during EE plus our commitment to remain in control.

There won't be enough of you to stay in control.

Currently there are a mere 8000 or so kickstarters. It is reasonable to expect an attrition rate of 50% over the course of EE (using a figure on the low side of new mmo attrition rates due to the kickstarter buyin however we will have a clearer view once we get past the four month mark and most have to start paying a subscription).

So assuming Dancey hits his target of 50000

At best the kickstarters are 16% of the server population and more probably 8% or less of the server population.

A year after OE assuming the population continues to grow you are going to be an even smaller proportion.

What will matter therefore is the rate of addition post OE and where those new subs come from.

On OE launch if you get 30000 subs from null sec Eve players the game is going to look very different from getting 30000 subs from Hello Kitty online.

Likewise a slow addition rate gives you chance to potentially "housetrain" the new additions. Though frankly some of the posters who advocate for the "community" approach are more likely to turn new players into the kill everyone camp if they use the approach I received when I started posting here

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's all about the community standards that take hold in the beginning, which will be very heavily influenced by the Kickstarter backers. And Ryan is stacking the deck to avoid a "toxic" and "degenerate" culture.

A lot of folks will come here from EVE expecting PFO to be "EVE with Swords". They're going to learn hard lessons about consequences. I expect most of them will quickly abandon their attempts to make PFO into "EVE with Swords", and to embrace PFO for what it actually is.

Goblin Squad Member

I actually expect the truth will be somewhere between that expected by Steelwing and Nihimon. I do not think it unprudent to prepare ourselves for Steelwing's scenario (even if only hardening our resolve to rebuild if the worst occurs) while continuing to pursue Nihimon's.

Goblin Squad Member

@Mr. Steelwing,

I think you are understating the value of the EE advantage. We won't be all-powerful sure, but we will have set the economy, and we will know how to work it. Newbs at OE won't. It'll be a merchant field day for some.

We will be the settlements and kingdoms, not the newbs. We of the EE will have the set in seats of power and position. Those newbs will start in looking for guilds, nations, places of training, etc. Those of the EE will be at a major advantage. The ones who become Settlement, Nation, Company, and Sector (as in trading, military, harvesting) masters during EE will have SIGNIFICANT amount of weight and power during OE, at least for a few months until things settle down.

8% is still a significant proportion of people. If we consider only like 1 or 2% of the total pop in OE are going to be the "ruling class" and the fact that it will be already set in during EE (maybe). you see where I am going.

We will just have to wait and see. Lots can happen between now and then.


Nihimon wrote:

It's all about the community standards that take hold in the beginning, which will be very heavily influenced by the Kickstarter backers. And Ryan is stacking the deck to avoid a "toxic" and "degenerate" culture.

A lot of folks will come here from EVE expecting PFO to be "EVE with Swords". They're going to learn hard lessons about consequences. I expect most of them will quickly abandon their attempts to make PFO into "EVE with Swords", and to embrace PFO for what it actually is.

Your community standards will become those of the minority when the OE flood gates (or at least Dancey hopes the word floodgate is apposite). You really think that the 20000 to 30000 new players are going to be either caring who the kickstarters are or paying any attention to their demands on behavior?

As to the Eve community learning hard lessons.Well I shall watch how that works out with amusement.

Keep hoping all you like but I have been in a few games prelaunch which have had nice communities, come launch day however it never stopped them turning into the normal mmo community cesspool.

I see no reason to believe PfO is going to be any different frankly and I would say in some ways there are already plenty of fracture lines in the pre game community already so I do not really expect any sort of cohesion in any case.

Time is the only thing that will prove either of us right. However I come down on the side of past experience over Dancey's magic wand.

Goblin Squad Member

I did not quote Steelwing. And his summary above is congruent with what I beleive he has said. Come OE, the Kickstarter members will be out-numbered. And there have been suppositions that the sandbox players out there will look for an experience -- often those have been under simulators, if even only 1%.

Nihimon points out that GW will attempt to make these player unhappy and go elsewhere.

My combination of the 2, some players will enjoy making the experience a bad experience for others. Ryan and GW will attempt to keep those experience to only significant interaction. That does remain to be seen. It is an interesting concept. If they fail, the 1% may drive out the others to a wolf fest, where upon they will leave. But if Ryan succeeds, this may result in new paradigm.

We shall see. The question: How hard should we challenge the system in EE to see how to break GW plans? Initial EE play is MVP, and just getting around, exploring, sand fighting. I am uncertain of the anti-griefing will be part of MVP. At some point it ail be part of the product. Will it be "safe" to test that in EE? How and when can we Intentionally misuse the system to see if is robust? WIll that testing result in expulsion? There was talk of wild Tuesday where effects are not permanent. That may be a monthly need in EE.

If not tested, how do we know it works? If not imaginatively tested before OE, other minds will find the holes in the plan.


BrotherZael wrote:

@Mr. Steelwing,

I think you are understating the value of the EE advantage. We won't be all-powerful sure, but we will have set the economy, and we will know how to work it. Newbs at OE won't. It'll be a merchant field day for some.

We will be the settlements and kingdoms, not the newbs. We of the EE will have the set in seats of power and position. Those newbs will start in looking for guilds, nations, places of training, etc. Those of the EE will be at a major advantage. The ones who become Settlement, Nation, Company, and Sector (as in trading, military, harvesting) masters during EE will have SIGNIFICANT amount of weight and power during OE, at least for a few months until things settle down.

8% is still a significant proportion of people. If we consider only like 1 or 2% of the total pop in OE are going to be the "ruling class" and the fact that it will be already set in during EE (maybe). you see where I am going.

We will just have to wait and see. Lots can happen between now and then.

@brother Zael

There is nothing planned that is significantly going to phase eve players. Many of the systems so far outlined bear more than a passing resemblance to how eve in general works such as local markets etc.

Eve players (the ones to worry about) will be joining as part of large established blocks who are used to cooperative play to forge their star empires. They will have already a lot of the systems in place to cope with the things PfO will need (phone trees being an example that has been widely discussed).

I suggest a read of the 3am thread to see where the problems lie for the EE community here. As to the 8% well that only works if that 8000* is pulling together in one direction which quite frankly it isn't. Also consider that the 8000 are so caught up in the game that all but 7900 of them are regularly posting on the boards and working hard at building a community consensus. Assuming they are all going to follow the one true way is a bit farfetched

*8000 used to take the best case retention figure

Goblin Squad Member

They are going to follow one way though, is my argument. They are going to follow the way to help strengthen their own position, is my argument. I'm not saying they will stay the top dog forever, but they will remain a major force to be reckoned with.


BrotherZael wrote:
They are going to follow one way though, is my argument. They are going to follow the way to help strengthen their own position, is my argument. I'm not saying they will stay the top dog forever, but they will remain a major force to be reckoned with.

Settlements will only be coming into the game shortly before OE, in fact I believe it was mentioned as the go signal for OE to commence.

Come OE most of the settlement holding groups will have had their settlements for a matter of a few weeks only and will only be holding them because they were gifted them in the landrush poll and not because they are able or organized. I fully expect at least 50% of these settlements to be kicked over within 6 months of the landrush grant.

Most of the little groups which abound on these forums aren't looking for alliances currently they are wait and see mode and I expect little change in that attitude before the arrival of settlements. Most people will spend most of EE doing little in the way of forward planning. I am supremely relaxed about waiting till OE for our group to join (assuming we decide to) and quite confident that we can find the keys to a settlement somewhere lying around for the taking in short order.

Goblin Squad Member

The ones that are good will climb to the top, be knocked down, reorganize, and then climb back. Been there done that. That is the game!

Goblin Squad Member

Oh ye of little faith xD


Lam wrote:
The ones that are good will climb to the top, be knocked down, reorganize, and then climb back. Been there done that. That is the game!

Indeed they will. No one is immune to losing settlements and the ones that come back will come back better. I was merely refuting the idea that by OE the kickstarter crowd would be either cohesive or pulling together. Their undoubtedly will be a few groups that get their act together but a lot of the groups currently posting seem to be working on the assumption that because they get a head start they will be unassailable.

Goblin Squad Member

Well then we shall agree to disagree. I don't think anyone is unassailable. I just think you are not placing in the determination of certain parties (read: pax) to maintain their position. I'm not saying as a whole.


BrotherZael wrote:
Well then we shall agree to disagree. I don't think anyone is unassailable. I just think you are not placing in the determination of certain parties (read: pax) to maintain their position. I'm not saying as a whole.

And if you read what I said it wasn't "all groups" it was most groups. Pax is indeed better organized than most groups on the boards currently and they also seem to have realized the logisitics involved in not only starting a settlement but also running a settlement and holding it. Also they have going for them their size and longevity. For a gaming guild to hold together for 12 odd years (think I got that right but sure Pax Someone will be popping along to correct me if not) is no mean feat. I fully expect them to be one of the more successful groups currently represented on these boards.

Other groups sadly seem to not be looking at themselves and going hmmm while we are in the top 15 on the landrush there is currently only 20 of us and I think we may need a few more to run a settlement lets get some other small groups to come pitch in with us. Compare this to Pax and TEO both of which have been actively courting partners.


One of my theories goes kinda like this:

  • EE. Companies and settlements get formed. People get their footholds.
  • OE. Newbies flood in, but most of them join our preexisting alliances because it's simply more obvious.
  • Progression. A lot of newbies start to leave our alliances and join less strict new ones formed by external communities--the "Goonswarm Scenario".
  • Our old evil companies start to fall apart as their players start to focus more on good-aligned characters, as their "RP evil" companies are now being drowned out by "actual evil" foreigners. The old community reforms behind several more ethical or moral organizations, comprised mainly of Paizonians and friendly newcomers.
  • Things more or less get evenly split between the newly engorged alliances like TEO and Golgotha and the newcomers.

    This is just one of many theories, of course. I'm fairly confident the community will do even better than this particular theory suggests. ;)

  • Goblin Squad Member

    @Steelwing

    as did I .--.

    @Kobold

    .......yeeeeeeeahp

    Goblin Squad Member

    Steelwing wrote:
    Your community standards will become those of the minority when the OE flood gates (or at least Dancey hopes the word floodgate is apposite). You really think that the 20000 to 30000 new players are going to be either caring who the kickstarters are or paying any attention to their demands on behavior?

    It will not be quite like that though. 10,000 new players will not be entering the game all at once. And of the 3000 new players per (month?) that gain access I expect a portion will not be Eve players.

    There is a good chance that the tone of the game set by Alpha and EE folks will moderate the theme of what follows. This isn't to say you are wrong, Steelwing, only that the impact of 10,000 to 20,000 Eve players may not be as overwhelming as your post suggests.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Steelwing wrote:
    BrotherZael wrote:
    Well then we shall agree to disagree. I don't think anyone is unassailable. I just think you are not placing in the determination of certain parties (read: pax) to maintain their position. I'm not saying as a whole.

    And if you read what I said it wasn't "all groups" it was most groups. Pax is indeed better organized than most groups on the boards currently and they also seem to have realized the logisitics involved in not only starting a settlement but also running a settlement and holding it. Also they have going for them their size and longevity. For a gaming guild to hold together for 12 odd years (think I got that right but sure Pax Someone will be popping along to correct me if not) is no mean feat. I fully expect them to be one of the more successful groups currently represented on these boards.

    Other groups sadly seem to not be looking at themselves and going hmmm while we are in the top 15 on the landrush there is currently only 20 of us and I think we may need a few more to run a settlement lets get some other small groups to come pitch in with us. Compare this to Pax and TEO both of which have been actively courting partners.

    Firstly, thanks for spelling Pax correctly :)

    Twelve years is close, we are at 13 years. Est 2001.

    Think I got everything, let me know if there are other points to clarify,

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Steelwing wrote:
    Lam wrote:
    The ones that are good will climb to the top, be knocked down, reorganize, and then climb back. Been there done that. That is the game!
    Indeed they will. No one is immune to losing settlements and the ones that come back will come back better. I was merely refuting the idea that by OE the kickstarter crowd would be either cohesive or pulling together. Their undoubtedly will be a few groups that get their act together but a lot of the groups currently posting seem to be working on the assumption that because they get a head start they will be unassailable.

    The groups that exist at the end of EE will bear only a passing resemblance to the groups that currently exist.

    That's my prediction and expectation.

    Goblin Squad Member

    DeciusBrutus wrote:
    Steelwing wrote:
    Lam wrote:
    The ones that are good will climb to the top, be knocked down, reorganize, and then climb back. Been there done that. That is the game!
    Indeed they will. No one is immune to losing settlements and the ones that come back will come back better. I was merely refuting the idea that by OE the kickstarter crowd would be either cohesive or pulling together. Their undoubtedly will be a few groups that get their act together but a lot of the groups currently posting seem to be working on the assumption that because they get a head start they will be unassailable.

    The groups that exist at the end of EE will bear only a passing resemblance to the groups that currently exist.

    That's my prediction and expectation.

    I agree with Decius. The game mechanics alone will probably have a big impact on how groups work and play style. Then you will have other things that will impact groups as well.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    It's also worth keeping in mind that if this game does become a "murder simulator", Goblinworks will take action. There's a bottom line here.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Hopefully it will never happen. If GW does become a "murder simulator", its reputation will be severally damaged as some players will leave and others will never give it a try.

    1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / The PfO Summit and Oversight of Nations and Guilds All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.