Ryzom

grimjim wrote:Well they're not really 'higher powers'...

When I go to the Ryzom main page... http://www.ryzom.com... and on the left side of the screen click on "higher powers"... would you like me to explain what two major groups' information comes up?

Now I know that's only the developers thoughts covered in the section entitled "lore," so yeah... who cares about what *they* think anyways...

grimjim wrote:... and there is no alternative.

...and since we're on the main page looking for information on alternative means of transportation that has no actual backing by the "higher powers"...
http://www.ryzom.com/documentation/Tuto ... nd-mounts/

brithlem wrote:When I go to the Ryzom main page... http://www.ryzom.com... and on the left side of the screen click on "higher powers"... would you like me to explain what two major groups' information comes up?

Lore is default knowledge or conventional attitudes to what is there. It isn't set in stone and characters are free to draw their own conclusions. Experiences in game with the difference between words and actions of various groups can lead one to reject their claims, but many will still accept their claims at godhood, others are a touch more agnostic/atheistic on these claims.

Tryton would be the better alternative.

That would be 2 posts in a row I have been quoted and then the reply to said quote has had absolutely nothing to do with the quote what-so-ever... other than purely commenting in some attempt to maintain footing. I'm trying to offer my thoughts on this matter and would truly love input regarding said thoughts other than merely changing the subject or nitpicking on definitions / lexicon.

Example:

grimjim wrote:...others are a touch more agnostic/atheistic on these claims.

This is exactly what my opinion centers around... if people want to be atheists... more power to them (so to speak). I'm all for freedom of religion so long as the benefits equal the costs. If a faction can heal anyone with any faction tag on... that is a benefit. If a faction can be healed by anyone with any faction tag on... that is a benefit. They both can be argued (and I would say rightly so myself) as completely appropriate in regard to a neutral "faction." If they can heal everyone... can they attack everyone? There could be non-aggressive neutrals (AKA Bodoc Neutrals) and aggressive neutrals (AKA Mother-Kipucka Neutrals) perhaps. The "Bodocs" being able to heal others but not be harmed and in turn not harm back... and the "Mother-Kipuckas" being able to harm everyone but in turn not be healed by others not of the same "Mother-Kipucka" tag? No matter how played... it is a tricky balancing act to include those who can interact with everyone, everywhere because it opens a lot of doors that are perhaps best left closed. Imagine Audrey with the ability to hit everyone... for example.

All current factions (Kami and Karavan) forfeit the ability to positively (heal, rez, use teleporters of) interact with other current factions. As long as this standard was upheld I am all for neutrals getting their own tag... should this standard be thrown to the wind for people that wish to (admittedly) role-play outside of the lore... then I could only shake my head ashamed.

On topic,

brithlem wrote:All current factions (Kami and Karavan) forfeit the ability to positively (heal, rez, use teleporters of) interact with other current factions. As long as this standard was upheld I am all for neutrals getting their own tag... should this standard be thrown to the wind for people that wish to (admittedly) role-play outside of the lore... then I could only shake my head ashamed.

On topic,

There isn't anything really 'outside of lore' except the truly whackiest of things. There are interpretations of the lore and from events, why should this 'standard' as you put it, hold for a group that choose to walk the line down the middle and take the hits that go with it, there should be a compensating factor.

Not choosing a side, or choosing to defy both sides, doesn't take one outside of lore (again, Tryton provides something of an example) it's just a different interpretation of the meaning of it, through the lens of how the game has developed.

grimjim wrote:...why should this 'standard' as you put it, hold for a group that choose to walk the line down the middle and take the hits that go with it...

The "standard" is that of current game mechanics ('All current factions (Kami and Karavan) forfeit the ability to positively (heal, rez, use teleporters of) interact with other current factions;' -Brithlem, August 13th, 2006, 11:11 AM).

To me... current gameplay mechanics set the standard for current gameplay mechanics.

And again... as long as the neutral "faction" is held to the same rule set as the two current factions are held to... I would gladly welcome them. If people continue to argue that neutrals should have some manner of benefits for being non-conformists and playing with hardships and whatever other rhetoric is thrown out there... I can only compare it to one great anecdote made some days in the past on these very forums...

I am almost certain Lian-Chang (and if mistaken apoplgies to the correct author) once wrote:
"I am rock, scissors are fine, nerf paper!"

Cheers,

brithlem wrote:The "standard" is that of current game mechanics ('All current factions (Kami and Karavan) forfeit the ability to positively (heal, rez, use teleporters of) interact with other current factions;' -Brithlem, August 13th, 2006, 11:11 AM).

To me... current gameplay mechanics set the standard for current gameplay mechanics.

And again... as long as the neutral "faction" is held to the same rule set as the two current factions are held to... I would gladly welcome them. If people continue to argue that neutrals should have some manner of benefits for being non-conformists and playing with hardships and whatever other rhetoric is thrown out there... I can only compare it to one great anecdote made some days in the past on these very forums...

I am almost certain Lian-Chang (and if mistaken apoplgies to the correct author) once wrote:
"I am rock, scissors are fine, nerf paper!"
Cheers,

I can't help but feel that you're not getting the point.
The Kami or Karavan people pick their faction, get much less restriction (in context these things are benefits).
The neutral people get nothing, and lose the most.

Neutral takes in a great many playstyles and the compensation for that choice should be greater freedom at the expense of the rewards that the others get. If more rites etc come in the factioned people will be getting those, the benefits/drawbacks of spires and so forth.

Neutrality encompasses pacifists certainly, but it can also encompass rogues, bandits, mercenaries etc who should be free to choose - without picking a side - to involve themselves, wrangle, predate etc on either, or even each other. Not the sort of thing I'd indulge in or particularly want but I'm trying to take in a broader view.

Staying neutral should be as viable and compensated for by that freedom of choice.

It's got bugger all to do with 'nerfing' anyone.

I really don't think neutrals *lose* very much... PR yes.. But 250 zones we (Kami/Kara/neutral)never had before the factions so you didn't actually *lose* them ... Where as a Kami has lost all Kara TPs and a Kara has last all Kami TPs... I think in many ways the loses are pretty even... The gains are a bit uneven but Factions should have more gain then neutrals(IMO).

I agree pretty much with brithlem... And I don't think its Brith thats not getting the point... When I read what you guys are saying you keep saying the same thing in different wording pretty much... It doesn't seem to me that you even read what he says and think about it... You skim thru see he did not change his view and say it again... Anyway sorry for off topic...I think I agree most with Minou... But I do see that *some* points of view from neutrals would be better with a PvP tag...

None of this is meant to flame(if it seemed that way sorry,Just woke up.) or anything just my point of view on whats been said.

(P.S. When I did spell check it wanted me to change brith to broth lol... *ahem* I laugh easy in the morning*nods* )

raven41 wrote:I really don't think neutrals *lose* very much... PR yes.. But 250 zones we (Kami/Kara/neutral)never had before the factions so you didn't actually *lose* them ...

Actually, before the factional 'patch' there was access to GoC, which is a 250 zone, and is also the most "inconvient" zone to get to. (I suggest "storing" a mount at the karavan teleport in Knoll of Dissent, and using that if you have to go up there).

When I was a neutral player (going from karavan to kami), I missed not being able to pvp. It isn't something I do often (unless my guild at whatever time is tagged and fighting), but I like having the choice to PvP-I dont like "game mechanics" telling me, "No, person who pays for this game, you cannot fight against other players because you have a neutral faction alignment."

Honestly, I would have let Keiko go neutral when she (we) left KoO (before TS), but simply because she (we) cannot PvP when she (we) want, and against who she (we) want to, kami it was. (Although, that was a good thing, becuase I like TS).

/mucho ooc/ Hope that last paragraph wasn't confusing..but I didn't want it to seem like I was rping /ooc/

Ok so you lost 1... The losses are still pretty even overall. And as I said the gains *should* be greater for a faction aligned player.[edit]- I say this because you don't have to do missions over and over to be neutral.[/edit]

I don't even know where to begin with you...

grimjim wrote:I can't help but feel that you're not getting the point.
The Kami or Karavan people pick their faction, get much less restriction (in context these things are benefits).
The neutral people get nothing, and lose the most.

We don't just "PICK" a faction, we work hard to achieve the fame needed to serve our faction.

You don't have to do anything to be neutral... nothing, nada, zip ! Neutrals get too much already by getting so many 200< TP zones.

Neutral takes in a great many playstyles and the compensation for that choice should be greater freedom at the expense of the rewards that the others get. If more rites etc come in the factioned people will be getting those, the benefits/drawbacks of spires and so forth.

Rites are rarely faction oriented... Those that are acquired from a faction rep should require XX fame to do. As for your "great many playstyles", which of them should benefit from their choices ? The atheists, pacivists, disenchanted, role players, those that agree with you... Which new class do you want to get this benefit without risk ?

Neutrality encompasses pacifists certainly, but it can also encompass rogues, bandits, mercenaries etc who should be free to choose - without picking a side - to involve themselves, wrangle, predate etc on either, or even each other. Not the sort of thing I'd indulge in or particularly want but I'm trying to take in a broader view.

IMHO, everytime a neutral sides either way in an OP battle, they should get fame imposed on them according to the roles of the guilds holding the Outpost. When you are not playing neutral and merely claiming neutral, it should cost you in fame. You want the freedom to choose a side without the restrictions we get with only using a portion of the TP's available to a factionist.

Staying neutral should be as viable and compensated for by that freedom of choice.

It's got bugger all to do with 'nerfing' anyone.

I agree, you should get Kami fame (compensation) for your freedom to join into all the Kami battles you've been involved in. You want to "nerf" those of us that made a viable game choice, when in fact neutrals have more surface (bark) teleport options than those following the gameplay/factions.

Like Brithlem and others pointed out earlier, you spread your propoganda with the least amount of validity in response to others concerns for your playstyle. Because you wave a magic wand and change our lore to fit your RP, it does not change what is written into the lore or the game mechanics. Though I might agree everything is not black and white... your rose colored glasses might need a cleaning, you see things the rest of us don't.