Ok, I've being playing a few months, but there a re a few questions that slip to me in this thread. Maybe a newbie and "outside" view can bring some light to the issue. Or maybe just someone can explain me the words "between the line" in this thread.
Is this about Factions, or is about PvP?
In the first, anyone can take any faction without have to fight PvP. That's sure. And you can take some advantages from it, so no problem. Being neutral, I suposse, could be hardest at high level. I thin that be neutral could be a a great option, so it culd be fine if it's more balanced. I think, from outside, that it is a bit unbalanced. At least, by mechanics, not by lore, it appears a bad option from an outside view.
In the second, I don't understand the PvP problem. If you like PvP, you take the tag, and lose a lot of time figthing for no XP and no loot. Fine. If is a GvG, you loose a lot of time with no XP to bring your people some advantages (Outpost related).
That's fine, because the only player affected by this are the PvP players. Except, I think that the PvE only players have a feeling of abandom, I suposse, because the last developments has been about PvP (Outpost, spires, etc...). Well, fine they tell they conplaints, the devs will take their choices.
But, I don't understand a thing at all: Why a neutral can't be PvP tagged? That's a freedom cap, a very big freedom tag. Why I can't be a neutral mercenary who helps guilds or factions for money an materials? That could bring a more vibrant society (Secret pacts, allergiances, more diplomacy than a simply I-hit-the-damn-kamy-pretty-hard), and could be helpful for the more problematic side of the game, the high level economy, bringing the most expensive good, the players, with a new service... much more expensive than a guild apartment, or build a temple.
Maybe this is stupid; it doen't look to me like that. So now, if it is, i'd like an explanation. Remember that I'm a rookie, after all
imo...
