Understanding each other calmly (Neutrals, Kami, Karavan)

[ashling]

Ah sorry Sprite. I misunderstood your point, yes those are all fine reasons for joining any faction. Just not reason enough for me.

[ashling]

Don't see all things in black and white. A lot of people along the eras has embraced allergiancer with a religious background different to their, only because they think that was the rigth group, or only their group of choice.

Can be an atheist btween the kara? Yes! Why not? A lot of them, sureliy. Follow the rites, as many people does, and joint the faction. Is easy. Jena doesn't come to test the faith of their followers, but the kami test their strong every day.

The same for the kami, of course.

My own PC is, basically, Atheist. But he believes that not join a group is a coward acctitude that only makes longer the war whtch is retarding the reconstruction of our land, so they try to make win one side, one faction.

For him Jena could be a Myth, but the Karavan are real, and his faction of choice. He doesn't care of deities, gods, and jmiracles; he cares about his Kami enemies, the kippe desolating his lands and the damn gingos trying to kill him.

The reason given was 'lesser of two evils', not 'mostly good or ok but with a few bad parts'. That IS black and black.

I'm not saying you can't have good reasons for joining a faction or that you are wrong too, I'm saying why I wouldn't join two groups I consider wrong. This thread is about 'why your a neutral', not 'I think everyone in a faction is wrong and this is why'.

[danolt]

This isn't actually true by lore. People do die and the more often you 'perish' the more likely you are supposed to be to be unressurectable. So no, it's not like a combat sport, however the mechanics are supposed to work. (This is a major problem with rationalising combat in all MMOs though). Sports tribalism is a whole different cauldron of piscine lifeforms.

A handful of NPC's have died. No player has ever died. No NPC has ever died at a players hand. I don't think an NPC has ever died from a weapon type that could have been crafted by a player (not real sure on this).

This lack of permanent physical damage during OP fights and EP2 is a major issue. If characters could be 'killed" my roleplay stance would change immediately. I also doubt I would be doing as much hunting if every time I went to 0 hp there was a chance of perma-death. Forage chatting would drop off a lot as well.

If it is your characters belief that Homins run a risk of dying with every respawn do you have some sort of buddy system to keep all your guildies from getting killed while they are hunting? Shouldn't you care more about the Kitin which have actually caused Perma-death in the lore as opposed to PvP actions where no one has died?

--------------------------------

There are two major Powers on Atys. They have all the power. The Melanesians did not have a fair shot at beating/competing for regional dominance with the Japanese or Americans during WWII. That is basically how Homins are in relations with the Kami/Karavan.

If someone can not choose between these two groups, I don't think they can choose between anything. There is not a lot of middle ground.

I'd like to know why people think that a game that was advertised at launch as a two faction based game should change so that both factions become irrelevant?

Pero

[ashling]

I'd like to know why people think that a game that was advertised at launch as a two faction based game should change so that both factions become irrelevant?

Being a neutral or saying why you are one doesn't mean your saying the game should change so the factions become irrelevant. All it is saying is you won't fight for either of those factions as a member of that faction. Your even still able to fight in most of the pvper in this game.

edit: and my country was neutral in WW2, these things happen

[mrshad]

I think a dislike of both is a fair and understandible reason for being neutral in game and following your own morals.

No arguement from me at all.

You can choose not to join a faction for whatever reason you want.

It is when you choose not to join a faction, and you still want all the rewards a faction gives, plus the "moral supieriority" of being above it all; that is when I have a problem.

[grimjim]

So basically you want to be able to express yourself inside a faction that is neither kamist nor karavaneer?

Ehhh... not quite, but close enough for debate.

How would you introduce a coherent third faction that had the same failings as the other two (as mrshad said, and I agree, any future third faction should be on the same standing as the other two with regards to having their darkside - nothing is perfect either in this world or on Atys) without making the failings cause you or anyone else reject them and stay neutral, thus perpetuating discussions like those we have had recently?

I wouldn't.

I wouldn't create a coherent third faction it would be a 'celebration of diversity', a coalition, a federation, a loose catch-all alignment with a slightly more defined core around which the others revolved.

The darkside of the core (which would be Trytonism) is already established in game. With the others its that you don't know where any individual amongst them stands. There is a threat of Mary Sueing, which already goes on to some extent, but since whatever special lore people might come up with wouldn't be reflected mechanically, and unlike a Trytonist or 'unspecial' neutral position doesn't come from lore, I don't see that necessarily being a problem.

Even setting that aside, as the current "neutral" party is so diverse, there's no way you would please everyone - how would it be possible to give these "3rd way" followers the perks that you say neutrals are unfairly denied (not contesting that they're denied them, and you know my views on the "unfair" part; its not the subject of this thread so lets not get into it) while still allowing everyone who joined said faction complete freedom to express themselves.

I'd have to think (even more) about the specifics, but what we're currently denied amounts to...

* Town access
* 250 Zones
* Big Event Content
* Prime Roots
* (Sundry smaller matters that are less mechanical)

Its a matter of weighing and balancing. Here's a rough guesstimate. (Some of these could be mixed and matched).

Fyros we can (still) get town access due to the land's odd setup, so counterpart that with access to the other more neutral upper towns in Fairhaven, but not in the more extremist civs Zorai and Matis.

For the 250 zones do as per the lower zones and give one or the other.

For big event content, such as the temple, allow for a DECENT Trytonist (and/or) noncombatant role.

For the PR give one or the other TP as per overground.

A TP alternative, if there was coding time, would be to plonk Trytonist TPs open to ANY homin but more expensive and in less convenient locations to cover the 250 and PR areas.

1) Allow people a viable alternative to the Kami and Karavan due to ideological differences (viable being defined as giving something of equal value to what the K's get while giving up an equal amount as the K's do)

Since more is given up as a neutral, equalising things actually imrpoves matters for neutrals, so no argument there. An equalising of capability.

2) Allow all members of this 3rd faction a means to express their own moral/political/whatever views (characters' views, not players' views)

For those neutrals who want it I think a PvP flag should be available. Three way battles would surely make things more interesting Otherwise this is all down to RP really, though supporting events would be luvverly.

3) Have a clearly defined aim/standpoint/something. You can't make it a faction if it doesn't have a definition.

I don't think this is particularly necessary as the individual groups can define it for themselves. The 'core' group that provides for the others - the Trytonists - already have a public established cause, of hominity (whatever their real purpose) and that serves pretty broadly.

4) Still have the same "fallibility" as the current two choices.

Tryton already has that, the others have the fallibility that they're flying blind.

5) Not be the "perfect choice" - if it were "perfect" then it would make following the two existing factions pointless in gameplay terms (referring to the fact that while lore is important, it shouldn't be the only consideration when judging game mechanics)

I think the above covers mechanical parity.

In my view, the problems are thus:
2) and 3) are almost mutually exclusive - creating a defined group that encompasses all viewpoints is nearly impossible so someone would be p*ssed off by the new faction and we'd get these threads again.
1) and 4) have a similar problem - how do you make a faction that appeals to people who object to the tenets/actions of the Kami and Karavan while still making it have the same/similiar failings?
5) is really an extension of 1) and 4) - you have to lose something to gain something, and you can't keep the moral superiority without having some kind of failing.

2-3, I disagree. You can look to real world examples of coalitions of protestors working together at world trade meetings - as an example - or other strange bedfellows all through history. You can give a core of a Trytonist group but there would and could still be room for people to define themselves better.

1-4, covered above as well.

5. There's already disparity, putting things back on an even keel again fixes it. The failing will be that it is smaller, less defined and not 'hardwired' into the cultures in the same way the Kami/Kara are.

When last seen, Elias Tryton was in the Deep Roots mad as a hatter; if the new faction was Trytonist then something would have to be made of his dark background, as well as the fact that he seems to advocate continuing balanced war rather than creating peace ((Hey, I'll have to remember that one))

I think that was an obvious 'flange' and a way to try and placate angry players at the time. But it's a step in the right direction for thinking.

Its related, but we can shift to another topic with it, if you like.

[ashling]

No arguement from me at all.

You can choose not to join a faction for whatever reason you want.

It is when you choose not to join a faction, and you still want all the rewards a faction gives, plus the "moral supieriority" of being above it all; that is when I have a problem.

Again I've got to say, this thread is why your a neutral not 'neutrals should have all the benefits that the kami or karavan have'. That's a seprate dicussion that I think is getting draged in from the old thread.

Secondly, 'moral supieriority'? No side has a monopoly on that, members of both the big factions act moraly supieror all the time. Look at some of the in character posts.

Edit: Ok I see the penalties for being a neutral is begining to start up here now so I'm steping out of the thread.

[grimjim]

No arguement from me at all.

You can choose not to join a faction for whatever reason you want.

It is when you choose not to join a faction, and you still want all the rewards a faction gives, plus the "moral supieriority" of being above it all; that is when I have a problem.

The moral superiority is a replacement for the direct involvement in lore. The loss of gameplay accessability is not compensated for and the access is not equal. That's where the problem is.

[grimjim]

I'd like to know why people think that a game that was advertised at launch as a two faction based game should change so that both factions become irrelevant?

Pero

This part is actually back on topic.

At launch the factions were very much in the background, the lore was about rebuilding, the homin had survived together - mixed - in the prime roots. You had shared crafts (this is preserved in at least one Ency mission still) and the force of fraternity - a cross civilisation guild.

The homin leaders all owed each other massive debts of honour, particularly King Yrkanis and the THREE factional groups had all had to work together to preserve civilisation from the swarming.

You even got the briefing as you came in that you were here to rebuild and lend your skills to bringing back the glories of old.

Having multiple factions/points of view does not necessarily mean there having to be all out war.

Some of us also bought into the idea that we could affect the direction of the game.

[danolt]

Some of us also bought into the idea that we could affect the direction of the game.

That has got to sting a little.