Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

In the "Player Groups" section

Fanndis Goldbraid
…either put all player settlements in the list by name, or none of them. Several should be grouped, or ungrouped. GW is providing a recruiting advantage to any settlement listed by name, while others are not.
Edam
It is only really PFU that has an advantage.

Pathfinder Society is not recruiting in game at all - the PFS company are all VOs and VCs who run games for the TT organised play that have come in from outside as a single group to review the game.
Tink says Stab
As far as I am aware, each group got the name that they requested. If a group is listed as a group, they asked to be listed as such.
Tink quivers in sheer euphoria as the dank memes course through his fedora
Edam
Tinkerton
As far as I am aware, each group got the name that they requested. If a group is listed as a group, they asked to be listed as such.

Oh … I thought the post was about PFU and PFS being at the top.

There is probably a meaningful choice here.

If you are a very small settlement you need to decide do you list under your settlement name and see low activity unless you deliberately bump your threads - or do you go with groups for your alliances and see more activity but less profile for your settlement.

One possibility if it gets out of hands is separate subforums for companies, settlements, alliances etc.
Hobson Fiffledown
I think there was talk somewhere about a minimum number of people needed to have a GW settlement forum channel. Some settlements had it on their own, some needed to form groups.
This space for rent.
Wylder
Surprised someone hasn't put in a Player/Account on the list so that player's multiple characters can talk to each other. A player with 6 accounts (DT Guild level) could potentially have 18 characters. That's a lot of potential for discussion. A multiple personality could go to town.

[Obviously this is satire. But, how is this different than what's happening in game?]

I don't care if every player character had their own subforum. At this point areas of these forums are pretty dead or unused. PVP subforum has been a ghost town for a long time aside from the occassional whine post. Many settlements have their own websites and forums. Perhaps a subforum that referenced these sites would be more beneficial?
Duffy Swiftshadow
@Wylder

One of the constant larger issues in this game is communicating a settlement or power bloc's political decisions to the public, having someplace you can easily go and find them without having to find and register on yet another site is quite refreshing. We're using ours as a public info dump, I don't expect a lot of conversation to happen in there unless one of our decisions or announcements generates substantial interest.

Moving more potential for conversation off to private sites and forums is certainly not going to create more activity here. You're also assuming there needs to be activity for something, I kind of like that we aren't bombarded with inane topics like most forums. It's just a matter of population of course, if/when the game gets big enough that will certainly end, but for now it's kind of nice.

We choose to specify our alliance over our individual selves partially because of the numbers requirement but also to do something most other alliances aren't, presenting a unified front to the public.
Wylder
What if there was an in game gazette to make such public announcements rather than expect people to delve through the forums a lot of people don't even bother with? They've sort of started this recently and sent it out via email. Expanding on the idea and maybe making it available at each settlement or tavern would be kind of cool.

Are you saying we don't need to point people to other sites in order to keep activity on these forums, activity that you're glad we don't have?

Who is we? You and I? You sure you know what we choose?

Guess satire doesn't go over well here.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Unreliable, nor the place to cover every single minute action by all the player groups, especially as the game grows larger. A lot more annoying to look up later for reference or keep abreast of any changes or ongoing topics.

As to my previous comment I'm glad we don't have activity for the sake of activity, inane posts about nothing dominate larger game forums. That opinion does not exclusively contradict my opinion that pushing people to private forums for some discussions is bad, I would rather keep the level of discussion we have with a few extra sub forums that can be utilized when relevant topics need discussion.

The 'we' is referencing 'our alliance' not the greater population, it's an indicator that a group of us came to a conclusion based on my paragraph's construction.

It's hard to determine if everything you say is satire or not, I assumed your 2nd part was not since it was after the satire tag and that's what I thought I was responding too.
Atheory
@Wylder - don't you pay no nevermind to those old fuddy-duddies.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post