Re: Understanding each other calmly (Neutrals, Kami, Karavan)
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:33 pm
Ah sorry Sprite. I misunderstood your point, yes those are all fine reasons for joining any faction. Just not reason enough for me.
This is the community forum for Ryzom.
https://bb.ryzom.com/
The reason given was 'lesser of two evils', not 'mostly good or ok but with a few bad parts'. That IS black and black.mithur wrote: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.
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).grimjim wrote: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.
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.danolt wrote: 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?
No arguement from me at all.ashling wrote:I think a dislike of both is a fair and understandible reason for being neutral in game and following your own morals.
Ehhh... not quite, but close enough for debate.sprite wrote:So basically you want to be able to express yourself inside a faction that is neither kamist nor karavaneer?
I wouldn't.sprite wrote: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'd have to think (even more) about the specifics, but what we're currently denied amounts to...sprite wrote: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.
Since more is given up as a neutral, equalising things actually imrpoves matters for neutrals, so no argument there. An equalising of capability.sprite wrote: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)
For those neutrals who want it I think a PvP flag should be available. Three way battles would surely make things more interestingsprite wrote:2) Allow all members of this 3rd faction a means to express their own moral/political/whatever views (characters' views, not players' views)
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.sprite wrote:3) Have a clearly defined aim/standpoint/something. You can't make it a faction if it doesn't have a definition.
Tryton already has that, the others have the fallibility that they're flying blind.sprite wrote:4) Still have the same "fallibility" as the current two choices.
I think the above covers mechanical parity.sprite wrote: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)
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.sprite wrote: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.
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.sprite wrote: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))
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.mrshad wrote: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.mrshad wrote: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.
This part is actually back on topic.danolt wrote: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
That has got to sting a little.grimjim wrote:Some of us also bought into the idea that we could affect the direction of the game.