Global Faction PvP - Claiming Territories For Your Faction

[boinged]

Nothing here for the non-PvP players (although the update is titled "Global Faction PvP...") and it's a bit sad that even they won't be able to teleport around as freely. Maybe their role will change to supply the best equipment to FvF-enabled folks to keep the TP altars operational.

As a PvP plan it's great though! Dynamic faction zones, building, effects, honour points etc. We will be able to shape Atys in the most obvious way.

It seems the neutrals (faction-wise) have something to do too now - they can keep territories for use by all homins. If they win then Atys will be no different from now for those without the FvF-flag. So just to make it clear, is it possible to have a neutral base/zone?

Are these 'bases' the outposts, 7 per above-ground land - to make the 28 we're told are coming?

The player level difference will be addressed with potions by the sounds of it.

Going to be interesting times and I hope there will be something for everyone after this chapter. Please hang in there even if it's not for you, R2 is just round the corner and there isn't much more Nevrax can PvP-up

[petej]

During a faction war, factions can create a spire on each base. It will give the control of the region to the faction which has summoned it. Once the spire in place, the region is considered as belonging to the faction owning the spire. Active altars and TP tickets in the region are only those of the faction who took control over that region.

So once a spire is built in a region you will never be able to use tickets you have to your opposing factions TP's ?

...and does a region have to be controlled by a faction (once its been taken the first time) or can you just destroy the spire thats present and choose to have the region as neutral again with both faction TP's available ?

Something else too who owns the region (spire base) to startwith or is it just a land grab with the first faction to summon a spire taking the region ? -would be better imo if it was bandit controlled to startwith and also after a spire had been destroyed (gives the possibility of being neutral but does mean you fight twice for Faction controll)

ie :-
Region Neutral (Bandit controlled Spire base)
Faction Controlled (Evil Karavan Kill Bandits and build Spire)

Repeat

FvF (Brave Kami Heros destroy the Evil Karavan)
Region Neutral (Bandits re-occupy empty Spire base site)
Faction Controlled (Brave Kami Heros or Evil Karavan defeat the Bandits and build Spire)

Until False

[richky]

It seems the neutrals (faction-wise) have something to do too now - they can keep territories for use by all homins. If they win then Atys will be no different from now for those without the FvF-flag. So just to make it clear, is it possible to have a neutral base/zone?

The key question is, will neutrals (homins with 0 kami/karavan fame) be able to use all teleports/respawns, or will they be limited to only their own capital? If the same logic is used as we currently have for the temples, then the neutral option is a non-starter. Neutrals will be able to go nowhere.

[grimjim]

The key question is, will neutrals (homins with 0 kami/karavan fame) be able to use all teleports/respawns, or will they be limited to only their own capital? If the same logic is used as we currently have for the temples, then the neutral option is a non-starter. Neutrals will be able to go nowhere.

That's not the only definition of neutral though.

There should be more choice to it than the crude one of your fame.

[vguerin]

The key question is, will neutrals (homins with 0 kami/karavan fame) be able to use all teleports/respawns, or will they be limited to only their own capital? If the same logic is used as we currently have for the temples, then the neutral option is a non-starter. Neutrals will be able to go nowhere.

Why would the Karavan or Kami want to give access to those that do not follow their ways... it only makes sense. The "powers" care not about your RP stance, they care about those willing to serve their cause. I understand that "neutral" stance, but it should be the hardest because you get nothing you don't obtain yourself.

Maybe they can allow you all to build some "Chutes and Ladders" to make your way around Atys as you do not want to take part otherwise in the game lore.

[mrshad]

...as you do not want to take part otherwise in the game lore.

I don't think that is quite right. There are a lot of "neutrals" that know and like the lore.

But you have a good point DT. Should those that are unwilling to serve the Higher Powers have access to thier services?

Should they get teleport tickets?
Should they be able to respawn when they die?

Can Tryton offer either of these things? I think not.

On Atys, you either serve one of the Powers, and get the rewards, or you strike out on your own, and suffer the consquences....At least, that is how it should be..

[richky]

That's not the only definition of neutral though.

There should be more choice to it than the crude one of your fame.

I agree, but I was thinking in terms of the current game-recognized definition. The FvF is Kami vs Karavan, and it is the Kami and Karavan that provide tp and respawn, so (as far as I can see) it is the only definition that really matters in this context.

[grimjim]

Why would the Karavan or Kami want to give access to those that do not follow their ways... it only makes sense. The "powers" care not about your RP stance, they care about those willing to serve their cause. I understand that "neutral" stance, but it should be the hardest because you get nothing you don't obtain yourself.

Maybe they can allow you all to build some "Chutes and Ladders" to make your way around Atys as you do not want to take part otherwise in the game lore.

Incorrect, peace is very much supported by the lore while the motivation to war is about as resilient as damp tissue paper.

We also have Tryton and his example as a 'third way' though precious little has been done to make that a possible third choice and he's less likely to appeal give the relative weakness of Tryton oriented RP 'events' (announcements).

'Taking part in the game lore' does not necessarily mean mindlessly and slavishly going where one is told, the people being neutral/peaceful/Trytonists do, in fact, tend to be the people with the most vested interest in RP and lore.

[grimjim]

I agree, but I was thinking in terms of the current game-recognized definition. The FvF is Kami vs Karavan, and it is the Kami and Karavan that provide tp and respawn, so (as far as I can see) it is the only definition that really matters in this context.

They'll take dapper from anyone and rez anyone with even the slightest leaning towards them. What we possibly need are a third set of 'rainbow bridges'.

[richky]

Why would the Karavan or Kami want to give access to those that do not follow their ways... it only makes sense. The "powers" care not about your RP stance, they care about those willing to serve their cause. I understand that "neutral" stance, but it should be the hardest because you get nothing you don't obtain yourself.

Maybe they can allow you all to build some "Chutes and Ladders" to make your way around Atys as you do not want to take part otherwise in the game lore.

Heh. I guess my 'key question' was worded incorrectly. All that I intended to say is that for Rashan's 'neutral option' to work, Neutral has to be recognized as a faction in itself, and not just the absence of a faction. So... will it be possible for Neutrals to capture and hold a region? If they can, will the tp/respawn in that region work for everyone? for no one?

And on a related note, will faction continue to be determined as it is now, i.e. personal kami/karavan fame only, without taking race/guild fame or any other factors into account?