Role of Neutrals

[Oliewabie]

Dear Cz,

Please could you comment of the role of the Neutrals in this Booster Pack.

Will neutrals also have the option to claim land and participate actively in the control of lands.

Have you foreseen something for neutrals?

[Cz]

Let me post some of what Gaute said at the dev chat at UnknownPlayer (adding bold text where the part about neutrals is):

[UnknownPlayer] So down to the topic at hand. Gaute since I am sure that there is one person who hasn’t heard about the booster pack, tell us a little about it
[gaute] Ok
[gaute] The Booster pack is basically something new we are trying at Funcom. It is a "smaller sized" expansion, with 1 major-new-ground-breaking feature - and some other add-ons.
[gaute] The main feature is of course something we call "Land Control", where people can place towers of control freely inside pre-defined areas. (We don’t wont towers in Rompa-Bar)
[gaute] These towers will belong to your org, and mean that YOU (your org) control it, becoming its master so to say.
[gaute] The main central tower (of which there can be only one per area) is called a controller. It will grant your organization specific skill bonuses.
[gaute] It is protected by other towers around it, acting as guards, area buffers, invisibility detectors and what ever else we manage to make (disclaimer right here! we don’t know exactly which tower types will balance...)
[gaute] This will enable (hopefully) the ability to see the war of the sides (including the neutrals, if they dare step up to the challenge ) battle back and forth, and PvP mean something a lot more.
[gaute] In addition we hope to add some graphical and sound features to make the game even prettier.
[damndevildog] Quick note to msg us questions type /msg name what you want to ask
[UnknownPlayer] Another quick note: Unmoderated chat can be found at #unmod.up.com

So, yes, we're thinking about the neutrals. I think that will be visible in the near future too.

[Maximilian]

Simply, that is no answer!

'Thinking about' doesn't mean anything - just for the semantics.

Don't you (Gaute) have the guts to say 'Yes' or 'No'?! The few Neutrals that you would possibly offend with the answer don't count anyway.

/me is wondering how offensive one can get with 'politically correct' wording.

Just in case you forgot, Neutrals cannot attack besides in Mayhem zones (never tested this, btw.) and are generally infavored in PvP (token boards, etc.). So, I would really be interested, what you are 'thinking about' to hold the little peaceful community of Neutrals in game!

Going to read the full log now, maybe there is something more reasonable.

So long,

Max(imilian)

[BGumble]

Maximilian which part of "including the neutrals, if they dare step up to the challenge" is unclear?

"Thinking about" in the context of the post seems to mean "including". Sure you'll get disadvantages for being too indecisive to pick a side, and thats only fair

[Maximilian]

Right, BGumble, you are.

[I am playing faction and neutral chars - we don't have to discuss the differences here, some are good, others are not]

I should have asked, what exactly is the point offering Neutrals the same 'possibilities' as the faction players, if the prerequisites are not comparable.

I read the whole log, and besides a lot of 'if we can balance it' and 'we are thinking about it' it seemed (to me) a rather nebulous story. See, we have elections quite soon here in Germany, and you get sensitized to people who give you promises to get your money (vote ). It looks a little similar in this (AO) case to me.

Nowhere I have found a statement, that Towers will be restricted to 0% gas areas, in contrast, they should be allowed all over Rubi-Ka. As I said, even in a 25% gas area, neutral can't attack -> taking over 'other' towers. In the end, it will be like before, the Neutrals are the lame ducks, everybody is allowed to shoot at when he/she desires frust compensation. (Guards at NLC, e.g.)

And this is not, what a large proportion of the neutral players wants to see - I assume.

So long,

Max(imilian)

[Destractor]

I am sure they have thought of that. Though I can imagine an attack on a neutral tower with 30 neutrals standing around looking at each other and shouting at the attackers to shoot them (so they can defend it)

The whole not being able to attack thing must be addressed in one of the next 2 patches (I assume 2 patches before booster comes out)

I would also like to see prof PvP balance to be developed in this time frame.

[_______________Elria]

[gaute] Placing a controller will change the sup.gas level. So the previous level wont matter.

I would assume that new gas level will allow anyone to initiate a fight.

[Beamboom]

Originally posted by L1V1D
Though I can imagine an attack on a neutral tower with 30 neutrals standing around looking at each other and shouting at the attackers to shoot them (so they can defend it)

Heheh! Yeah, imagine the RP aspect of that situation! lol

Also, keep in mind that only the teammates of the neutral getting attacked can fight back. The remaining 24 neutral guards would still be standing, shouting "Hey come on guys, shoot on us as well!"

Surely either neutrals will be able to attack, or the tower areas will be 0% gas.

But, perhaps slightly off topic to this thread, but still within the neutral PvP subject: Does it make sense that the neutral areas are political areas? I think NOT!

All the neutral areas being 25% today (in mmd/newland desert, Stret West, Mort) should be lowered to mayhem. That would make us newtrals being able to fight, as well. And perhaps not ganked as often. I mean sure, keep the Omni/clan areas political zones as they are today and us neutrals wil still be sitting ducks in those areas, I can live with that. But let us at least have the freedom to be able to attack and defend ourselves within our own territory!


Kind regards



Deanne "Dreammate" Tedder

Director of Circle G, a company offering guarding, escort and intelligence for all factions on Rubi-Ka. We get the job done, no questions asked.

[coldwarkid]

It's never really made sense to me that a neutral character seemingly regards everyone on Rubi-Ka as being on his side, while all faction players regard neutrals as the enemy, at least in this context. Let's have one or the other, but not both please. Either neutrals should con as friendly to all sides in a 25% zone, or neutrals should have the same freedoms and restrictions as everyone else.

Cheers,

~R~

[_______________Elria]

Originally posted by Soyuz
It's never really made sense to me that a neutral character seemingly regards everyone on Rubi-Ka as being on his side, while all faction players regard neutrals as the enemy, at least in this context.

Illusions. That neutral character is sadly mistaken. How can he be friend with 2 warring sides? If you are my enemy's friend, then you cannot be mine. An untrusted acquaintance, maybe. But not a friend.

I'd rather think that neutrals refuse to get involved, to choose a side. This would also mean that they need to avoid antagonizing either one.

[coldwarkid]

Originally posted by Elria
Illusions. That neutral character is sadly mistaken. How can he be friend with 2 warring sides?

I'm referring to the fact that a neutral character can't attack another player in a 25% zone. We're quite well aware of just how "friendly" faction players are towards us.

As for not antagonising faction players, sometimes the only way out of trouble is a good pre-emptive strike. Neutrals can't launch one of these however, instead they have to soak the damage from their antagonist's alpha strike before they get an opportunity to retaliate. We know this. You know this. So why on earth are neutrals so hampered when it comes to combat in 25% zones? Because we regard you as friends? Not likely.

Many faction players in a hot spot will attack any player who cons as the enemy, without taking the time to check on whether the target is neutral. They do this often not because they have any desire to grief neutral players, but because taking the time to properly ID your target will often get you killed. Antagonisation doesn't come into it.

~R~

[Jujuwalker]

Dear sided players.

Instead of redirecting all plugs for your side to /dev/null like i should do ( aka PLUGS>/dev/null), i will redirect you to

http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...threadid=43210

Read and absorb.
I said read and absorb.

And now, stop the lame ass side plugging you guys do.
-Juju

[Jujuwalker]

This is possibly the only time i will agree with dreammate (aka teddler).

If Funcom goes ahead with this, they have to make the whole place 0% so we indeed have a chance. Otherwise you once again have given the neutrals...... the *edited* LOVE. *stop edit*

(note i would say something like a black action hero starting with "Sh" and finishing with "ft".... but who knows if it's a banable offense nowadays)

For all other zones ( aka, non land control zones ) NO CHANGE.
Thank you.

-juju

[Bionitrous]

I've looked a couple dozen times and seen it asked a couple dozen more but simply could not find any information about the suppression gas levels around these towers during the few hours a day when the level drops.

25%? So me and my guild stand around our tower like idiots trying to defend it while some level 200 comes and picks us off one by one because we can't attack?

0%? That level 200 comes and pokes his nose around our tower and 50 lvl150+ neutrals from our guild and allies send him to the reclaim.

One sounds fun, the other sounds like FunCom.


_____________________


Tell you where my guild would put their tower. Right outside the North gate of Newland City. It's simply getting stupid watching the jackasses flex their muscles on grey guards while all they accomplish is spamming chat and often making it difficult to zone through the North gate.

[coldwarkid]

Check out the latest news articles. Anyone want to bet that "neutral" is going to become "ICC" in a short while?

Cheers,

~R~

[Myers]

I'll bet against it

[Jujuwalker]

hey, if it means we get some tanks to defend the neutral cities, it's ALL GOOD. And i want some galatium Mk3000 cannons too.

/Juju prepares his latest galatium cannons rootkits.

[_______________Elria]

Originally posted by Soyuz
So why on earth are neutrals so hampered when it comes to combat in 25% zones? Because we regard you as friends? Not likely.

Well, the classic "answer" would be: hey, you know you're hampered in 25% zones, why don't you go to mayhem zones instead?

But, really, the "avoid antagonizing" was my attempt at explaining why neutrals cannot start a fight in 25% zones. That'd be the will to avoid confrontation with any of the 2 sides.
Also, the 25% zones seem made for the OT vs Clans fight. Remember that 25% zones are called political zones; political = relating to government or governmental policies... i.e. OT and the Clans, thus, none of my business as a neutral.
With that said, the advocacy for preemptive strikes for neutrals in political zones does not sound right (to my ears at least).

Now, should a neutral outpost like MMD really have a 25% gas level? This is a good question.


Err... My apologies for the off topic posts

[Praecautus]

this very topic of PvP, neuts and gas levels is being discussed on the neutral forum, point your browsers to

http://pub64.ezboard.com/fneutralsofrubikafrm1

[coldwarkid]

Originally posted by Elria
But, really, the "avoid antagonizing" was my attempt at explaining why neutrals cannot start a fight in 25% zones. That'd be the will to avoid confrontation with any of the 2 sides.
Also, the 25% zones seem made for the OT vs Clans fight.

That sounds more like the policy of a large, organised political body than the choice of individuals. By definition, neutrals don't have any such body to make decisions for them and even if they did, if it had the teeth to enforce such a policy it would also have the teeth to take a more active part in Rubi-Ka politics - a more "aggressively neutral" stance, if you like.

Remember that 25% zones are called political zones; political = relating to government or governmental policies... i.e. OT and the Clans, thus, none of my business as a neutral.

...which is exactly the reasoning behind the argument that faction players shouldn't be able to attack neutrals in 25% zones. If it's none of our business, why do we con as hostile? Conversely, if we con as hostile it's de facto our business since we can't keep out of it even if we try.

Besides, who says all the faction players are actively political, and that all neutrals aren't? I should imagine that there are a great many Omni employees who are simply taking the path of least resistance, for instance. Similarly, while a clanner may claim political status because of his opposition to Omni Tech, a neutral might make the same claim based on his mistrust of both the warring factions.

See? We're more political than you are

With that said, the advocacy for preemptive strikes for neutrals in political zones does not sound right (to my ears at least).

You're travelling through what you know to be contested territory, where you know that you'll con as hostile to either side, but you won't take steps to defend yourself - that doesn't ring true either. Bear in mind that if you let the other guy get his alpha strike in, you've most probably lost.

The current problem is one of inconsistency: faction players "see" neutrals as hostile, while neutral players "see" faction players as friendly. The result of this is that neutral characters have no credible defence against attacks by faction characters. I see two possible solutions, either of which work fine from the neutral point of view and both of which resolve the issue of consistency. One is to have neutrals con as friendly and remove the ability to attack them, the other is to allow neutral characters to attack faction characters in 25% zones. I'm not advocating either solution as correct, but either of them is better than the situation we have at the moment.

Neutrals - the only people on Rubi-Ka who are safer in a 0% zone than a 25% zone...

Cheers,

~R~