Ryzom

roninpvp wrote:I'm sorry I strongly disagree; actions have repurcussions.

Of course they do. Yet, I will repeat this... Cara Via is Karavan aligned, and will fight on the Karavan side in any faction battles or in any faction oriented PvP events.

The battle mentioned in this post appears to have been a spontaneous 'pickup battle' and from what I'm reading here, it remained friendly and fun for the most part.

It was not a faction vs faction battle. In fact, OmegaV, a karavan aligned guild, was teamed with Infinity, a Kami aligned guild. This was just some players having a bit of fun with the Pvp area - something it was designed for, and it's about time it got some 'intended use' IMO.

roninpvp wrote:I'm sorry I strongly disagree; actions have repurcussions.

I don't think the question was set to whether they have reprucussions or not... but whether or not guilds as a whole should be held responsible and have the fallout on the guild as a whole.... or solely focused on the individual.

It's a complex question Ani that I agree is something the entire MMO community would love to have a "concrete" answer to... but I just don't see that happening.

Some people will only hold a player accountable for his / her actions where others will always tend to look at the guild as a whole... and that doesn't even begin to touch on all the subtle differences of opinion all the people that don't fall into the two extremes would be able to voice.

I think it would make for a phenominal thread even though I don't think it's a question that can be "answered" per say.

brithlem wrote:Some people will only hold a player accountable for his / her actions where others will always tend to look at the guild as a whole... and that doesn't even begin to touch on all the subtle differences of opinion all the people that don't fall into the two extremes would be able to voice.

Even if people would normally distinguish between an individual's actions and his/her Guild, often as the rumours get passed around, the names of the individuals are lost. People down the grapevine just hear "Guild X did this ..."

iphdrunk wrote: do you guys think that a player actions have/can have/must have an impact on the perception of the guild he belongs to to other players? is a player expected to behave in some way because he belongs to a guild? Is a guild accountable for the actions of its members?

I cant speak for anyone else, but for myself i never hold any guild responsible for 1 players actions, i dont care what Guild they are in or whether they are Karavan or kami, any player who is considerate to me & the way i choose to play will always get my respect, any conflicts i have with a member of a Guild i will speak to their guild leader & try resolving it that way, but then if that Guild leader promotes that players actions towards others, then this could become more complicated, do i take it out on the whole Guild, or just the player & the Leader of that Guild.... well it isnt complicated as you may think, my general feelings about anyone will not change unless they become involved as individuals.

the PvP the other night was fun, yes i did get a few Sup Zun, but it was fun with all the Nukin & droppin, i dropped a few ppl a few times & got dropped myself, it was all part of the game.
the only downside to that PvP even was when i was called a traitor by Booster, this i would like to know, why was i a traitor & who was i betraying?

iphdrunk wrote:do you guys think that a player actions have/can have/must have an impact on the perception of the guild he belongs to to other players? is a player expected to behave in some way because he belongs to a guild? Is a guild accountable for the actions of its members?

I pretty much see Cara Via now aligned with Infinity and Kami just like I currently consider OmegaV no longer reliable Karavan supporters. Moon's past actions made it really suspect when she joined Cara Via anyhow...

If your not consistant in your RP your suspect... making convenience alliances like Honda don't excuse cross factioning and screwing your RP. If your in a pro-Karavan guild you dont make alliances with pro-Kami guilds. You can be friendly because they are good people, but you dont team with them to fight IMHO...

TBH, these recent events/alliances have really taken a large chunk of the game fun from me... Without consistant RP we are gonna have more incidents like in the past with sharing a Vent channel etc...

roninpvp wrote:I'm sorry I strongly disagree; actions have repurcussions.

Agreed !
___________________
DoubleTap - Disciple of Jena - Master Melee Dueler
Matis Dual Blader & Medium Gladiator Champion (Undefeated)
Click here to join Melinoe or read Ultimate Harvesting Guide
Melinoe - Atys Harvesters http://ryzom.twazz.net/
WWJD - What Would Jena Do ?

vguerin wrote:If your not consistant in your RP your suspect... making convenience alliances like Honda don't excuse cross factioning and screwing your RP. If your in a pro-Karavan guild you dont make alliances with pro-Kami guilds. You can be friendly because they are good people, but you dont team with them to fight IMHO...

TBH, these recent events/alliances have really taken a large chunk of the game fun from me...

I think I tend to agree after thinking a bit about it, if we pretend to be consistent in the RP, and wondering about the PvP changes nevrax is going to patch soon, specially the effect of in game fame.

vguerin wrote:If your not consistant in your RP your suspect... making convenience alliances like Honda don't excuse cross factioning and screwing your RP. If your in a pro-Karavan guild you dont make alliances with pro-Kami guilds. You can be friendly because they are good people, but you dont team with them to fight IMHO...

It doesn't bother me so much. Factions have always made alliances of convenience with their natural enemies at times, for instance communists and fascists divided Poland amicably for a time. On Atys, it is up to the Karavan and Kamis to enforce these allegiances, once they start handing out powerful items as rewards or punishing those who stray, homins will probably fall in line.

I am staying to the way I am playing "DT"... and this is just wrong for that... don't want anyone to get me wrong here... "I" would rather play with a guild like Infinity than say... ON... But other than respecting how one plays and totally not liking the others don't mean I will team against Karavan folks with them IG.

I have shown that IG when I refused to attack Infinity when ON was there at the supernode complaining that some of their soldiers got ganked... I also didn't fight against ON with Infinity... not my battle. When I am digging for Jena and left alone by others, even enemy... why stop my digging just to clown awhile with PvP...

Jena shall provide enough for us all, and my actions may allow those fools following the Kami to see their ways are wrong. Guarding/camping the super nodes with a convenience alliance is wrong when it's cross factional... thats all...

I believe if your in a guild you represent them... A guild cannot claim to be "insert following here" if their members are not serving the guild. To do otherwise makes the guild appear to represent nothing...

...of course I can only speak for "DT"

vguerin wrote:Jena shall provide enough for us all, and my actions may allow those fools following the Kami to see their ways are wrong. Guarding/camping the super nodes with a convenience alliance is wrong when it's cross factional... thats all...

I should mention that I respect your position much more, DT. You must be Jena's most fervent worshipper. I hope, for your sake, that she rewards you. I don't think she has done so yet. I have heard that Jena has a special hell prepared for her unfaithful servants like OmegaV. She is supposedly on her way so we may find out.

That whole line of thinking is a bit off if you ask me, DT. Sure, for Melinoe, an extreme fanatical Karavan guild, it might make sense not to team with any Kami. But however much the devs seem to want us forced into a black-and-white scenario, the real world is never such an either/or proposition, and the game world doesn't have to be, either.

Most people really aren't fanatical about their religion or their politics, and will generally judge a system based on its own merits rather than sweeping generalized principles. It is the internal, gray-area conflicts that make up most of the draw in RP for me. Shouting "die, you Kami dogs!" just doesn't qualify as engaging role play as far as I'm concerned. Even if that's the style you prefer, that hardly means that everyone should play the same way or that it's harmful when a kami and karavan guild ally.

Personally I'm glad to hear it. I really dislike how the devs are handling the PvP situation and giving players nothing but opposing factions to identify their characters with. An aggressive group neither Karavan nor Kami aligned could have an enormous impact on the story. Imagine an army fighting according to its own standards - that would make a Kami/Karavan war much more interesting than it would be if everyone were on one side or another. Rather than simply marshalling forces and seeing which side has more strength, strategy would become critical. If either side ignores the independent group or makes enemies of them, the opposite side will have a major edge and the balance could well be toppled. At the same time, both sides are basically against the independent group because it opposes a categorical victory on either end.

That kind of play could become very sophisticated and could create a context for heavy RP (as relationships between faction leaders matter more and more, and character relationships in general become more relevant to the conflict). It would allow neutrals to be involved in the action (they could help one side or another based on the specific case, and if they stay out of the battle that itself is a powerful statement). It would create a link between the Kami and Karavan, forcing relationships and conflicts of interest and discouraging an "us-versus-them" vacuum, while simultaneously supporting characters who are playing at such a vacuum.

In other words, I agree that actions have repercussions; I think in this case those repercussions are positive.