Ryzom

raven41 wrote:Which 250 zones did you have before there was Faction wars and new TPs? other then GoC.

All of them, and the PR.

So you had a void TP and a scorched corridor TP and a Loria TP? before they existed... Very nice... You can't lose something you never had...

naratuul wrote:This thread has become interesting, yet off topic. Why is it that whenever neutral options for pvp is discussed the subject always drifts to the "unfair treatment of neutrals" by the devs?

Because they're interrelated subjects.

naratuul wrote:The existing Factions would not be running around agressively attacking the neutrals because thats not what they do.

No, nor (with a tag system) would that be what would happen. Of course, some fanatical members of one side may well do precisely that, seeing anyone that isn't on their side as an enemy. Equally theoretical bandit gangs might want to keep people out of 'their turf' regardless of their faction and so forth.

naratuul wrote:Why complicate matters and introduce even more ghosts to the machine? A simple temporary enemy flag for those moments when a neutral intervenes in factional business should suffice.

Because people should be excluded from options as little as possible and the temporary flag doesn't properly represent or facilitate the freedom needed.

naratuul wrote:The "penalties" for neutrality were put there for a reason. Simply stated, the devs WANT you to choose a side, if you decide not to choose a side that is within your right, but beware of the suspicious eye of the factions themselves.

And when you start trying to force people into one particular way of doing things, that's when it all goes wrong and you start breeding resentment and making a rod for your back. The suspicious eye of course is fine and a natural, community RPed reaction (in those with the maturity to play it out sensibly).

naratuul wrote:With all that said there is always a place for those that decide not to choose a side, but its like a supporting actor in a movie...

Not at all. Most heroes are iconoclasts, rebels or unconventional in some way, shape or form(1). Ryzom particularly is not a black/white background but shades of grey much more involved than a more simplistic or cartoonish reading.

On the topic of the tag, a temp flag would be a temporary solution but, so long as tagging up remains a choice the best and most flexible option is to allow Neutrals a PvP flag capability that enables them to help or hinder either side and to be helped or hindered by either side, making them an unpredictable element with maximum freedom to determine how they act by the way they choose to play within that spectrum of neutrality.

(1) Like, say, Batman.

raven41 wrote:So you had a void TP and a scorched corridor TP and a Loria TP? before they existed... Very nice... You can't lose something you never had...

Bad information.
We did have the towns however.

raven41 wrote:So you had a void TP and a scorched corridor TP and a Loria TP? before they existed... Very nice... You can't lose something you never had...

Mind you, if everyone else gets a cookie and you don't, that's pretty much the equivalent of -1 cookie come to that.

Not to bad a run except Tryker lands. and fyros... but you can still use Fyros lands TPs... So you only have one land thats pretty bad the rest are easy/short/safe runs... I have always been against losing TPs that I once had (All Karavan TPs) But at the point of my leaving I had gotten used to it and its not really that bad... And this is for someone who hates change with a passion.

So Bottom line is... You didn't lose much more then anyone else... You didn't gain as much as the people who grinded fame for it and thats how it should be... Its how it is and I have to say... I think its fine like it is... As for a tag that allows you to help or hinder whom ever you want... What a great thing for gankers.

I have to say that I have lost some respect for you after reading some of the things you say... You want things easy for YOU and it doesn't matter if other people have to work harder to get the things they have ... you think you should have it too... Now most likely you will reword the same thing you just said before and say it again because I do not agree with you... But quite frankly you complain way to much... Sorry. I don't mean to come off rude... But damn take a step back and think about this all...

Its the Dev's game ... They came up with the Idea for the game and its there right to try and continue the game *they* made the way *they* want... Its nice when they listen to players and change things for the better... But it is not for the better to give everything to neutrals then take away from them when they work there fame up and join a faction.

Once again sorry for sounding rude or harsh but you need to start accepting other peoples views a bit and stop trying to force yours on everyone else.

danolt wrote:What would the neutrals be fighting for?

How would it be different then what is already offered by either faction?


As a side note Jyudas has already described what faction the samasara lean and placed it in the official lore.

'The fearless leader of our mercenary band feels a little differently to me, most of us will side with the Kami when push comes to shove, of which I am sure you will approve, but it takes a little less shoving to make Kostika see their side."

http://chronicles.ryzom.com/?page=news&startnews=110&startfeatures=&startopinion=&id=1324

I think these links go bad when they update the chronicles, this comes from "A Tangled Web" currently on page 23.

Pero

I'm gonna say this once again.

We are not the only neutral guild on the shard. We are not the only ones with a view here or a stake in this.

As for attacks on my guild. We are not Kami. That quote is from 7 IG years prior. Seven years is alot of time for opinions to change. Yes my guild used to be a Kami guild. Then things happened and the world changed and we became neutral. What my character believes and what the guild as a whole believes are very differant things. We are a neutral guild. Whether you like it or believe it, I don't care.

And don't blame J about the misinformation about the lvl 250 TPs. He asked me a question and I misunderstood him and gave him the wrong info.

grimjim wrote:Mind you, if everyone else gets a cookie and you don't, that's pretty much the equivalent of -1 cookie come to that.

If everyone else did work(missions) to get there cookie(fame/High lvl TPs) and I didn't then I shouldn't get a cookie... if it worked the way you say I should have a Ferrari in my driveway even tho I have no job atm.

[edit]Ahh okies so it was your fault Kos Either way my point stands ... ask anyone who has worked fame up to 60 how long it took them(esp if they did only missions now that guards don't work) I think they *deserve* to have a bonus that people who did nothing(you start the game neutral) don't have.

raven41 wrote:So Bottom line is... You didn't lose much more then anyone else... You didn't gain as much as the people who grinded fame for it and thats how it should be... Its how it is and I have to say... I think its fine like it is... As for a tag that allows you to help or hinder whom ever you want... What a great thing for gankers.

Actually, we did lose much more than anyone else. There are two teleports kami/Kara, if you picked a faction you retain access all areas, neutrals are the only one to not have access to certain areas. Your choices of individual sites is halved, but your access to zones remains complete.

The tag isn't something I would use myself, but I believe in the maximum choice for the maximum number of people. Since tagging up IS a choice (though they could do with Kami/Kara/Neutral titles for people to show designation without tagging) the ganker's paradise is extremely unlikely, especially since the proposed tag would be vulnerable to both sides.

raven41 wrote:I have to say that I have lost some respect for you after reading some of the things you say... You want things easy for YOU and it doesn't matter if other people have to work harder to get the things they have ... you think you should have it too... Now most likely you will reword the same thing you just said before and say it again because I do not agree with you... But quite frankly you complain way to much... Sorry. I don't mean to come off rude... But damn take a step back and think about this all...

I am thinking about it from a step back because, quite frankly, this isn't something that would interest me or that I would use, but I think it should be there because I believe that you need to accomodate as many playstyles as possible that can be compatible.

It isn't a matter of 'easy', neutrality retains sacrifices when you adhere to it as a position, some of these I don't think make sense in context, some do. There's the fame sacrifice in amongst all the others. A 'requirement' of neutrality could even become maintaining your fame between certain values and you losing it if you go too far one way or the other.

From my point of view all I'm seeing is people whining that if other people get toys too, that somehow devalues THEIR toys. To me that says that THEY want their lives to be easy and don't want others to be on equal footing with them.

raven41 wrote:Its the Dev's game ... They came up with the Idea for the game and its there right to try and continue the game *they* made the way *they* want... Its nice when they listen to players and change things for the better... But it is not for the better to give everything to neutrals then take away from them when they work there fame up and join a faction.

As a game writer myself I have to tell you this simply isn't so. Not with ongoing interactive games. Once the game is out there is isn't yours any more. To borrow a cyberpunk phrase...

'The street finds its own use for things'

Once your game is out the door it isn't yours any more, it belongs to the players, they make of it what they want and if you don't enter into a dialogue, shift into a more reactive role and take note of that feedback (or keep providing additional tools) you're buggered.

Giving things to people doesn't necessarily take anything away from others if you're 'sharing the wealth' and evening out inequities. I'm not talking about a grey mush where everything is the same but the overall level of advantage and disadvantge needs to be roughly equitable, that not being the same thing as identical. I don't think anyone, me especially, is talking about giving 'everything' to neutrals.

Staying on topic with the PvP flag aspect a free choice doesn't take away from anyone else, doesn't belittle their efforts they've made to show their alliegence (which brings other rewards in terms of fame etc) and increases the breadth of possibility. Nobody loses out, people gain.

raven41 wrote:Once again sorry for sounding rude or harsh but you need to start accepting other peoples views a bit and stop trying to force yours on everyone else.

When the view I'm trying to 'impose' is a more all-inclusive one that is about giving more room for all points of view, I find this sort of statement inordinately amusing

Rephrasing or expanding on points are just ways of trying to get it across to people in a different way they might find easier to grasp.

raven41 wrote:If everyone else did work(missions) to get there cookie(fame/High lvl TPs) and I didn't then I shouldn't get a cookie... if it worked the way you say I should have a Ferrari in my driveway even tho I have no job atm.

[edit]Ahh okies so it was your fault Kos Either way my point stands ... ask anyone who has worked fame up to 60 how long it took them(esp if they did only missions now that guards don't work) I think they *deserve* to have a bonus that people who did nothing(you start the game neutral) don't have.

Conversely those choosing neutrality make a fame/potential fame sacrifice, lose access to certain places and so forth.

So they're giving up things. It's still not something for nothing and those who are factioned retain their other bonuses. (Fame, zone access, PR access, alliances, easier guild recruitment and whatever spires will bring).