Ryzom

totnkopf wrote:sure, civilians die all the time. Buildings get blown up too. None of that happens in Atys because its a video game and there are limits to how real it can get. Are those civilians ever considered combatants? nope.

But do they sometimes fight? Yes.

totnkopf wrote:again, you chose to pass those things up. You make the choice to sacrifice them, so stop whining about it. You don't want the high level tps? fine, don't take em, but don't expect something just because you've turned your nose up at the god powers.

That's where we leave the realms of realism and enter the realms of enjoyment and 'game balance'. Also, please remember at all times that here I'm arguing for something I personally wouldn't use or want, but something that I think others might benefit from.

Neutrality should remain a valid choice balanced in potential enjoyment and possibility against those who choose to go factioned. That doesn't mean it should be exactly the same, it doesn't mean it should get the high level TPs, or access to the PR (though not having town access doesn't make any sense) but it should mean it gets something. If we get expanded rites at any point the ability to get the lower level ones from everybody would be a good example of versatility compensating against specialisation.

In this case all that's being argued for is access to a PvP tag that would enable people to better represent several roles.

totnkopf wrote:So you want to take part in a war, but not take either side... hm.... seems like exactly like they wish to act in such a way on not pin their banner on either side. You want in? fine, pick a side. You don't see many baseball games where the spectators decide to form their own team and join in after the 4th inning. You know why? because the game doesn't work that way and neither does this one.

A baseball game isn't a war and, you know what? You DO get pitch invasions in sporting events so even that analogy doesn't hold particularly well, nor do all neutrals fall into the role of 'spectators'. Yes, there are some people that would like to act more freely, in a variety of ways, that don't neatly pigeonhole. All this would do would be to allow for that.

totnkopf wrote:As for rezing at the portals, who says that has nothing to do with the gods? I certainly don't see any proof that they're not the ones doing it...

Because you choose to play a religious follower and in these conversations to represent a hardline view of what's 'right' or 'wrong' within the context of the game. See my sig for more details and think beyond yourself. The portals certainly seem to act as natural respawn points and then you also have to account for the bandits who seem to regenerate without factional backing. The Dragon Cult also mentioned something about it.

totnkopf wrote:pot calling the kettle black

Oh yes, of course, I'm arguing for a more flexible and inclusive way of doing things and for something I personally wouldn't use, so clearly I'm trying to dictate a one-way over everyone. Rather than someone who seems to think expanded options are bad. Ooookaaaay.

totnkopf wrote:correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you the one whining up a storm about Ep 2 rewards and how you HAD to pvp because you needed those rewards? So what you're saying is that you don't want rewards unless the kami or kara get some and if they do get some then you do want the rewards, but until then, you're ok.

I don't think that any content should have an exclusivity to one playstyle that is incompatible with another. PvP rewards should be accessable by other means. A good example would be the proposed crystal rewards from R2 scenarios which will provide an alternate revenue stream for crystals that doesn't involve outposts.

Another example.

If one set of people get something, then others should get something as well to prevent imbalance. It shouldn't necessarily be the same something, but it should be something. The honour point rewards from Ep2 for example. The look was different but Nevrax could have made the effects different as well, there would have been equal reward, but different in form and nature.

totnkopf wrote:lol... I've seen a ton of RP in Ryzom that would fit into that category. As for responding to the players actions, they have. The number of kami and karavan outnumber the neutrals. Those who wished to PvP have picked a side. Are you really seriously saying that nevrax should constantly listen to the minority? puh-leese...

Yes, you should cater to minorities as well as majorities. How much of the people who've picked a side is only down to TPs and other inconveniences though eh? But yes, a company who doesn't listen at least a bit to all its subsets of players isn't going to do too well.

totnkopf wrote:So you're asking for a PvP tag, otherwise known as a FACTION TAG, for a group of people who have no faction and have chosen to remove themselves from the war. If neutrals want to pvp, then they can go down to the roots or duel... they have no role in factional fights. You chose to become a merc in a game that doesn't necessarily allow for you to fight both sides. Just because you can't do that doesn't mean it should be changed.

They have no role that you can see, they do have roles that others can see, and roles outside the faction war that others can see. I'm asking for a PvP tag, not a faction tag - it would be similar but different - for neutrals so that they gain some additional freedom to play as they wish. They do have a role in factional conflict - if they choose to - you just can't see it.

In any game, mechanics should be as seamless as possible to the play experience.

Neutral = Not participating in the dispute.

Result = The actions of OTHERS will shape the politics and lands they neutrals live in .

example = when election day arrives and the political candidates start their campaigns.....If I decide I will not use my vote I remain 'neutral'. But that does not place me in a 'magic bubble' immune from the effects of my NEUTRALITY.

Conclusion = Neutrals cannot shape the political structure of a society. That is left for the Activists with Beliefs.

...Now if we had a Neutral with his own agenda...... would he be an activist ??

mugendo wrote:Neutral = Not participating in the dispute.

Result = The actions of OTHERS will shape the politics and lands they neutrals live in .

example = when election day arrives and the political candidates start their campaigns.....If I decide I will not use my vote I remain 'neutral'. But that does not place me in a 'magic bubble' immune from the effects of my NEUTRALITY.

Conclusion = Neutrals cannot shape the political structure of a society. That is left for the Activists with Beliefs.

...Now if we had a Neutral with his own agenda...... would he be an activist ??

Again, you can't lump all neutrals together. The trytonists certainly have an objective, but are neutral, as do others. So they are/should be able to shape events.

grimjim wrote: The trytonists certainly have an objective, but are neutral, as do others. So they are/should be able to shape events.

So they have their own Agenda....working ACTIVLEY (spell ?) to influence events....Not the actions of a Neutral.

mugendo wrote:So they have their own Agenda....working ACTIVLEY (spell ?) to influence events....Not the actions of a Neutral.

Only if you take neutrality to mean complete non involvement in anything. As has been noted neutral in Ryzom simply means not of either of the factions and takes in a whole swathe of different people and motivations.

grimjim wrote:Only if you take neutrality to mean complete non involvement in anything. As has been noted neutral in Ryzom simply means not of either of the factions and takes in a whole swathe of different people and motivations.

But the whole NON INVOLVEMENT is causing the problem in OP battles.....a few 'Neutrals' are becoming involved and keeping their neutral status intact. In one of the first replies to this post it was noted the SWG system had the 'teff' activated temporarily to resolve this issue/concern.
For the 'rights' of Neutrals.....through history 'rights' have been fought for. That is the nature of the beast....we have what we can take through coersion/diplomacy/violence/intimidation/agreement....never through inaction.

mugendo wrote:But the whole NON INVOLVEMENT is causing the problem in OP battles.....a few 'Neutrals' are becoming involved and keeping their neutral status intact. In one of the first replies to this post it was noted the SWG system had the 'teff' activated temporarily to resolve this issue/concern.
For the 'rights' of Neutrals.....through history 'rights' have been fought for. That is the nature of the beast....we have what we can take through coersion/diplomacy/violence/intimidation/agreement....never through inaction.

And neutrals don't necessarily have to be inactive.
OPs, if you recall, weren't ever meant to be faction war items and, indeed, faction actually makes no difference in who fights on which side other than diplomatically there. There is a problem in what is called 'Neutral healing' which is actually nothing to do with the problems raised here.

grimjim wrote:And neutrals don't necessarily have to be inactive.
OPs, if you recall, weren't ever meant to be faction war items and, indeed, faction actually makes no difference in who fights on which side other than diplomatically there. There is a problem in what is called 'Neutral healing' which is actually nothing to do with the problems raised here.

Gameplay mechanics is not raised here ???

iphdrunk wrote: ps: yes, this is "YATAP" Yet another thread about PvP, but in my defense, this is about the discussion of a gameplay mechanic favoring the inclusion of the neutral side in the current game faction PvP system. Please stay focused .

Then what is the thread discussing ?

mugendo wrote:Gameplay mechanics is not raised here ???
Then what is the thread discussing ?

A normal, switch-onable PvP tag such as those of a faction currently get. Not the problem of people healing tagged (op or faction) people without being vulnerable to counterattack.

naratuul wrote:My thoughts on the "neutral tag" is there shouldn't be one at all. If you are an undeclared homin attempting to heal a tagged combatant you should get a message stating that this would make you a combatant and allow you to cancel the action. Proceeding with the action should give you a "temporary enemy flag", in effect tagging you as a combatant Kami should you heal a Kami player. A neutral should not be able to initiate factional combat AT ALL until they have become "teffed" by conducting a benificial action such as healing.

As far as healing is concerned, a declared factional player should not be able to heal a PvP tagged player of the opposite faction under ANY circumstances. This doesn't mean you could never group with your Kami friends if you were a karavaneer, just that you could not group or heal your tagged Kami friends.

This temporary flag could be handled in a couple ways:
1) just treat it the same as the current pvp flag. 30 minutes before you can take it off, with a ten minute non combat window required.

2) 30 minutes to take it off, it goes away automatically when the flag goes green after the 30 minute window has expired.

If this idea sounds suspiciously like the old SWG factional system modified to fit the current SoR pvp rules, it's because it pretty much is... and it works.

Edit: I'd also like to add the thought that a bomb heal from a neutral would only heal non pvp tagged players, the "tef" would have to come from a concious decision to provide aid to a combatant. once you became a combatant your bomb heals would only heal neutral and tagged players of the faction you are assisting.

This system works quite well..maybe 'Borrow' the idea for Ryzom ?