Neutral PVP tag: [was] Kami vs Karavan vs Neutral

[iphdrunk]

Spin-off of thread Population - Kami vs. Karavan vs. Neutral

as well as being to PvP tag up if they so choose (which they can't at the moment).

Out of curiosity, what would be the game mechanics allowing this? would tagged neutrals be able to attack at will and risk being attacked by any other player, regardless of faction, including other neutrals?. Would they be affected by AoE attacks? would they be able to heal any player, regardless of faction? (this seems a must) would they be able to team up with other tagged players, regardless of faction? could any given player heal and attack the same neutral tagged player? where would they be able to respawn?

It is an interesting gameplay addition, to be honest I'm rather for this, just trying to figure out the feasibility.

Or, are you suggesting (imho a simpler approach) that they should be able to temporarily side with one faction or another? I guess in some cases this may not fit neutrality, and if a given neutral does not "balance" its tagging, wouldn't it be a bit bordeline?



ps: yes, this is "YATAP" Yet another thread about PvP, but in my defense, this is about the discussion of a gameplay mechanic favoring the inclusion of the neutral side in the current game faction PvP system. Please stay focused

[aardnebb]

The original suggestion we have been kicking around was that you effectively got to pick sides when you tagged. You'd stay tagged as that side for a minimum time as per normal tagging, then you could turn it off/change sides.

Healable/Attackable by all would be problematic due to bombheals/bombnukes.

I'd like to see it implemented though.

EDIT: on the respawns thing, you would spawn based on fame as normal I guess...

[grimjim]

It's not something I actually want (personally - but I think it would be fair), but, either...

1 - You're able to pick the faction you're fighting for.

Or.

2 - Free for all the help or hinder either side.

Would, I think, work best.

1 is easy, 2 creates complications with AoE spells, but that could be handled a couple of ways like only healing people of the side you target, or ignoring it and letting it heal all sides

[katriell]

At first glance, #2 sounds better to me. With #1, I don't see any reason why you couldn't just keep your fame with the faction you help most often at 30 and temporarily leave your neutral guild to take the rite and be in that faction for the duration necessary. The only mechanical difference with having #1 is not needing to powerlevel fame if you wanted to temp. switch to the other side, and not needing to leave your guild.

However, from an RP perspective, #1 makes more sense than the current work-around. Why wouldn't the kults allow neutrals to help them at will (maybe not having access to the "kultist consciousness"/faction channels, though, since that could potentially reveal compromising information to neutrals and thus potentially to the opposite side)? They'd probably rather not deal with homins bothering the rite-giving officials again and again for joining and leaving factions.

[naratuul]

My thoughts on the "neutral tag" is there shouldn't be one at all. If you are an undeclared homin attempting to heal a tagged combatant you should get a message stating that this would make you a combatant and allow you to cancel the action. Proceeding with the action should give you a "temporary enemy flag", in effect tagging you as a combatant Kami should you heal a Kami player. A neutral should not be able to initiate factional combat AT ALL until they have become "teffed" by conducting a benificial action such as healing.

As far as healing is concerned, a declared factional player should not be able to heal a PvP tagged player of the opposite faction under ANY circumstances. This doesn't mean you could never group with your Kami friends if you were a karavaneer, just that you could not group or heal your tagged Kami friends.

This temporary flag could be handled in a couple ways:
1) just treat it the same as the current pvp flag. 30 minutes before you can take it off, with a ten minute non combat window required.

2) 30 minutes to take it off, it goes away automatically when the flag goes green after the 30 minute window has expired.

If this idea sounds suspiciously like the old SWG factional system modified to fit the current SoR pvp rules, it's because it pretty much is... and it works.

Edit: I'd also like to add the thought that a bomb heal from a neutral would only heal non pvp tagged players, the "tef" would have to come from a concious decision to provide aid to a combatant. once you became a combatant your bomb heals would only heal neutral and tagged players of the faction you are assisting.

[sluggo0]

Neutral = not involved in a conflict... at least usually. If a neutral wishes to join a side to help out, they may do so possibly using similar rules to PVP, but there were already enough hard feelings over neutral healers who were invulnerable healing PVPers, I think it would be dangerous to introduce so many potential bugs, with what benefits really?

If you choose neutrality, you choose a harder road in some regards in that there are some severe limitations, but you also grant yourself a greater freedom, you are existing aside from the conflict between the factions (when spires come in).

I really think Nevrax has allowed neutral players to participate in some forms of PVP (outposts), and if a neutral really wants to aid one side repeatedly, they are free to declare a faction allegiance, gain access to formerly TP free zones, and still remain neutral in stance (Fluffy Bunnies is sort of like this, they have a Kami tag available if they choose, tend to be siding with their friends many of whom are Kami, but are not one sided in their friendships in any way -- and neutral in attitude). So, rambling way of saying, I don't see where there's a need for 'neutral tags', as by your abstaining from declaring one side, you are in theory saying you are not participating in faction vs. faction battle to begin wiht which is what hte tags represent in the first place ( enemy factions engaged in global war).

I dunno I just don't see how it fits ... seems illogical to say you're neutral in a war, then be involved in it, doesnt it?

[grimjim]

I dunno I just don't see how it fits ... seems illogical to say you're neutral in a war, then be involved in it, doesnt it?

Neutral covers a broad spectrum of players and different attitudes. The sacrifices that it makes in some regards should be balanced with more freedoms that allow for the great range of people in that category to act more freely.

[brithlem]

I'm of the mind that if a neutral "faction" was to be implemented that neutrals would be able to be offered teleport pacts by the god of the neutral "faction," (i.e. none what-so-ever) thereby creating the same rules governing neutrals that also govern Kami and Karavan (you can use your faction's TPs but not the others).

If one wants to officially swear no allegiance to any major religion... let them be supported by the same higher powers that they, in return, support.

To me, from a hardcore role playing standpoint, it makes complete logical sense... why would a character want aid from a higher power that they do not feel is officially worth representing? I know I wince every time I walk past a Karavan teleporter...

But I'm going to stay neutral on this debate for now,

[martl]

I know I wince every time I walk past a Karavan teleporter...

Me too... ugly tincans spoiling the otherwise beautiful scenery...

G.

[grimjim]

To me, from a hardcore role playing standpoint, it makes complete logical sense... why would a character want aid from a higher power that they do not feel is officially worth representing? I know I wince every time I walk past a Karavan teleporter...

But I'm going to stay neutral on this debate for now,

Well they're not really 'higher powers' and there is no alternative.