Neutral PVP tag: [was] Kami vs Karavan vs Neutral

[raven41]

lol @ Jy... Still arguing eh? It defeats the purpose of being in a faction if neutrals can do it to... Its not the point of this game for everyone to be neutral... I miss the old days of peace,but the times have changed... And if you want to join in the faction war join a faction... I see the + of a tag for neutrals but I also see the - and I think for the game as it is, a neutral tag really has no place ... Now when the trytonist(or however it is spelled) Grow stronger then maybe they should receive a tag... But neutral as it is shouldn't have a FvF tag.

which please don't argue about it being a FvF tag because thats what it is. FvF ... Has been that way since EP2 There was no neutral tag then... or I would have been flying it since my fame was low for both sides.I realize you want everyone to be equal(for the most part) But in this case it really makes no since for a neural to have a tag... if a Neutral wants to PvP join an OP battle...goto PR ... Or join a faction.

All I am gonna say today cus I g2g HF all.

~Red~

[grimjim]

lol @ Jy... Still arguing eh? It defeats the purpose of being in a faction if neutrals can do it to...[/I]

Not really, no, they wouldn't be in a 'faction' nor recieve the benefits from it just by purely adding this. All it would do is add, not take away.

Its not the point of this game for everyone to be neutral... I miss the old days of peace,but the times have changed... And if you want to join in the faction war join a faction... I see the + of a tag for neutrals but I also see the - and I think for the game as it is, a neutral tag really has no place ... Now when the trytonist(or however it is spelled) Grow stronger then maybe they should receive a tag... But neutral as it is shouldn't have a FvF tag.

Nor would everyone be neutral and there's more than just two sides in any war. It has plenty of place in all the instances mentioned. Trytonists are already amongst the neutrals so this would already provide for them.

which please don't argue about it being a FvF tag because thats what it is. FvF ... Has been that way since EP2 There was no neutral tag then... or I would have been flying it since my fame was low for both sides.I realize you want everyone to be equal(for the most part) But in this case it really makes no since for a neural to have a tag... if a Neutral wants to PvP join an OP battle...goto PR ... Or join a faction.

Or get a tag and freedom of action. It's a PvP tag, it happens to be focussed on faction in its current incarnation but neutrality is an option, with everything that encompasses it. There should be the option for those that want to, see previous.

[naratuul]

lol @ Jy... Still arguing eh? It defeats the purpose of being in a faction if neutrals can do it to... Its not the point of this game for everyone to be neutral... I miss the old days of peace,but the times have changed... And if you want to join in the faction war join a faction... I see the + of a tag for neutrals but I also see the - and I think for the game as it is, a neutral tag really has no place ... Now when the trytonist(or however it is spelled) Grow stronger then maybe they should receive a tag... But neutral as it is shouldn't have a FvF tag.

which please don't argue about it being a FvF tag because thats what it is. FvF ... Has been that way since EP2 There was no neutral tag then... or I would have been flying it since my fame was low for both sides.I realize you want everyone to be equal(for the most part) But in this case it really makes no since for a neural to have a tag... if a Neutral wants to PvP join an OP battle...goto PR ... Or join a faction.

All I am gonna say today cus I g2g HF all.

~Red~

If the Trytonists become a viable faction and gain a tag they won't actually be neutral. Having their own agenda that places then at odds with both the Kami and the Karavan makes them a wild card faction. Definitely not neutral...

As far as Jyudas is concerned with his activity in this thread, let me state that I agree that there is a place for the combatant "neutral" merc types. But however, a neutral tag is not suitable for them. When a merc bears arms he is no longer neutral. By accepting a contract in a factional dispute that merc has made a decision. Any non combatant that decides to bear arms has in fact chosen to stray from the side of neutrality. You will notice that historically the true neutrals such as the swiss did not bear arms except in defense of their own borders...

[grimjim]

As far as Jyudas is concerned with his activity in this thread, let me state that I agree that there is a place for the combatant "neutral" merc types. But however, a neutral tag is not suitable for them. When a merc bears arms he is no longer neutral. By accepting a contract in a factional dispute that merc has made a decision. Any non combatant that decides to bear arms has in fact chosen to stray from the side of neutrality. You will notice that historically the true neutrals such as the swiss did not bear arms except in defense of their own borders...

But then 'neutral' isn't necessarily neutral in the manner you describe. Within the context of the game mechanics in Ryzom 'neutral' simply means not Kami or Karavan. Nothing else is implied and that grouping takes in people of many different motivations. Don't mistake the game term neutral for having any other meaning than that.

[mugendo]

I understand what is being discussed here. And it is possible to code temporary alliance (TEFF) to a 'neutral' player. But it is impractical to allow them a third faction flag (Neutral)...

example ...Three Homins carry their shiny new NEUTRAL banner and all is fine.
Until one prefers the Kami cause, One prefers the Karavan, and one remains at home....
Now ..of the three, one becomes agressive and fights alongside the Kami, One becomes political and represents the Karavan..and the third wants access to the fine Mats.
It seems the NEUTRAL faction will need kami/neutral...Karaven/neutral..neutral/neutral tags

There is ONLY TWO SIDES IN A CONFLICT !!..there are supporting factions involved for their own agenda...these factions can be overt or covert...but they DO TAKE SIDES.

[naratuul]

But then 'neutral' isn't necessarily neutral in the manner you describe. Within the context of the game mechanics in Ryzom 'neutral' simply means not Kami or Karavan. Nothing else is implied and that grouping takes in people of many different motivations. Don't mistake the game term neutral for having any other meaning than that.

In Game terms: neutral = not kami/not karavan = not factional pvp. Hence no need for a neutral pvp tag. Should the trytonists become a faction i can forsee them being fair game for the Kami and the Karavan.

Perhaps what you would be looking for is an "open pvp" tag not neutral, but considered agressive to all (including fellow "open pvpers").

[norvic]

I am sure there are times when all of us could have used an "Open PvP" tag.

Maybe I am not alone in wanting to attack members of my own faction at times so maybe a third tag (Open PvP) usable by neutrals but also a choice alongside your faction tag my be a solution.

My preffered choice would be to be able to choose a Civ Tag (I dont generally like the idea of PvP just for the sake of it), and if a neutral didnt want to commit to a Civ either then they really must be a true nuetral and probably wouldnt want to participate in PvP to any great extent anyway.

[wardone]

a neutral open tag that could switch between factions would be open to exploit imo and should not be implemented.
But saying that there is no reason for there not to be a neutral pvp tag with the same restrictions as the faction tag

all three tags can attack eachother at will but can only heal in same tags makes it fair for all.

will we ever see tagged neutrals taking over yrk? lol

[calel]

In Game terms: neutral = not kami/not karavan = not factional pvp. Hence no need for a neutral pvp tag. Should the trytonists become a faction i can forsee them being fair game for the Kami and the Karavan.

Perhaps what you would be looking for is an "open pvp" tag not neutral, but considered agressive to all (including fellow "open pvpers").

This is possibly the most sensible thing said in the whole thread. Optional "open pvp".

Excluding a part of your playerbase on major gameplay possibilities by 'stance' is just silly in my book. Imagine if it were linked to races and only Fyros and Matis could choose to PvP. What reasoning could there be that Zorai and Tryker could not initiate PvP amongst them, ever? The freedom the game seems to promote takes a step back then.

It would however be a whole other spin if for instance the Fyros and Matis nations would be officially at war; no others could join in unless they side with a 'faction/nation', but still this shouldn't dissallow others to have "optional open pvp".

I don't see why 'neutrals' need to be pointed to the Prime Roots, duels or Outpost battles for PvP. Factioned players have those as well; how many would be content with just that and no optional PvP flag? How many willing (and I'm talking both teams consenting) would bother making a trip to the Prime Roots to settle a score? It looses credibility and immersion. I can't imagine a bunch of Kamists asking around in Yrkanis if any Karavaneers would want to go to the Prime Roots so they could 'stage' an assault or 'religious difference'. Maybe once, twice, and then it wears off because it's to much trouble.

Trytonism becomming a faction would eventually lead down to more optional FvF instead of optional PvP which wouldn't honestly change a single bit but bring more of the same excluding people of gameplay.
Why would I as a 'neutral' want to 'work' (let's face it, how many really got their fame the conventional way instead of blasting 'bugged' temple guards?) into joining a faction in order to access a major optional gamemechanic while it would completely ruin the concept and reason of existing of my character?

[grimjim]

I understand what is being discussed here. And it is possible to code temporary alliance (TEFF) to a 'neutral' player. But it is impractical to allow them a third faction flag (Neutral)...

example ...Three Homins carry their shiny new NEUTRAL banner and all is fine.
Until one prefers the Kami cause, One prefers the Karavan, and one remains at home....
Now ..of the three, one becomes agressive and fights alongside the Kami, One becomes political and represents the Karavan..and the third wants access to the fine Mats.
It seems the NEUTRAL faction will need kami/neutral...Karaven/neutral..neutral/neutral tags

There is ONLY TWO SIDES IN A CONFLICT !!..there are supporting factions involved for their own agenda...these factions can be overt or covert...but they DO TAKE SIDES.

No, there are many sides and shades of grey between.
In your example each of them could still act with their conscience under the proposed tag, or go ahead and join one of the factions outright.

The neutral tag would allow all three to pursue their own ends according to their particular conscience, but if they do end up siding with a side they'd be better off actually joining it.