So, About the "Neutral Neck Item Imbalance"

[Gatester]

All I can say is wow..... so you try to use defintions (that fail quite poorly, as in your noncombantat one) and now you are trying to use a dictionary for Omni? Omni is the company - its just a name. I guess in your mind Apple Computer should be a fruit PC on a tree. Arrogance on your part doesnt make you correct, neither does name calling.

Your diagram is, quite frankly, wrong. Neutrals are not a mid point between Omni and Clan - they are the cast outs of both factions. For someone with your years, you really should know the lore better.

And I agree that neutral "players" can do whatever they like in regards to Clan and Omni - my question is WHY. In my opinion, its a flaw in the game to allow them to get to 220, have towers, fight in BS, etc without some sort of repercussions of their decisions.

So again, I suggest - fight for a third Faction - call it something, but the "neutrals" in this game have a meaning and its not as a third faction.

The whole point of my post was proving that using the dictionary was stupid. I thought it was obvious, how dumbed down do my posts have to be for people to understand them?

You also misunderstood my diagram, although I am not diagram master and did not feel like spending an hour on one but I guess I will explain it as well.

You have these guys called Omni, and you have these guys called Clan. They do not like each other and fight a lot. Not everyone is omni or clan though. For EVERYONE ELSE, you have this term called NEUTRAL. I used all capitals to make it really easy. Everyone who is not clan or omni is neutral. That is the only thing the term means.

ICC is not a faction
Dust brigade is not a faction
Cyborgs are not a faction
Cultists are not a faction
Jobe scientists are not a faction
Yutto's are not a faction

They all have different purposes, the only thing they have in common is that none of them agree with Clan or Omni. They are neutrals. Now to shut this stupid argument down.

What do you call a player who does not fight clan and does not fight omni?

Neutral.

What do you call a player who fights both clan and omni?

Neutral.

In otherwords, being neutral has nothing to do with PVPing either faction. Notum is a resource, and anyone can fight over it. This means independent or neutral groups will attempt to take over notum sites just like any clan or omni aligned group will.

If all clan and omni actually followed the role-playing aspect, the repercussions of neutrals having towers is that clan and omni would immediately destroy them. You attribute human player actions to a flaw in the RP aspect of the game, which is nonsense.


You also seem to fail to understand that every war has neutral combat participants. Battlestations would certainly be fought over with the inclusion of independent forces seeking profits of their own. War means money, and someone who can play both sides of a conflict stands to profit the most. You wonder why clan and omni allow it? Very simple.

If clan says "no more neutral help" then what would omni do? They would have all the neutral profiteers along with their own forces and clan would be at a severe disadvantage. The same would occur if omni prevented support from neutral forces themselves. No group would cut themselves off from extra forces or tools in a serious conflict.


All of you trying to force neutrals into a third faction are clueless regardless of how much you try to argue the point.

[Utopian]

You should make your own game then.

As far as AO is concerned, Neutrals exist, they can participate in PvP, fight in BS, etc. That is a subject for another thread.

This thread is about the gap present in Neutral neck items. With the introduction of the Xan expansion, that gap grew from previously acceptable levels. It was brought up to Means who promised that it would be changed.

Means is now gone, it has not been changed.

I have REPEATEDLY said that neutrals can and do participate - which obviously means they exist. The two subjects are directly related to each other and is why I dont think one can be addressed without the other (but that again is my opnion, so go ahead and ..... on it).

You keep asking for neutrals to be elevated to a third faction (by extension of asking for these items) - but by the lore of the game, neutral "players" are not a third faction. Elevating neutrals in the current game mechanics to that level would hurt this game (not mine mind you, but this one) and is why I dont agree with it.

I believe your tact is wrong. I would suggest you stop asking for neutrals to be elevated - instead, ask for your own faction - with all the pluses/minuses that come with it. I think most folks would be all for it. But without that, giving neutrals the same gear as the factions would be game breaking without other major changes to compensate.

But, you know, the folks working on this game will probably give neutrals something in the Item Shop since it would seem to be a money maker.

[Gatester]

Rather than make neutrals a third faction equivalent faction you would be better off removing all the factions period. Clans kill clan, omni kill omni, no one is entirely stuck in their faction anyways.

It limits tower wars because one faction will dominate while another will avoid PVP.
It limits battlestations because one side will dominate and another side will avoid participating.
It limits PVP raids like Tarasque because one side will dominate and the other side will not show up for months.

You wanna make the game better then you make everyone neutral. For all the ridiculous arguments I have seen about and against neutrals, it is the hypocrisy involving what clan and omni do which is the worst.

[Utopian]

The whole point of my post .....

All of you trying to force neutrals into a third faction are clueless regardless of how much you try to argue the point.

The whole point of your post was arrogance - you have a habit in your posts to go down this route when someone doesnt agree with your points. You really should stop talking down to folks, it really is a bad habit and is non-constructive.

I am not clueless - I am not trying to force "neutral" players to a third faction. I think they should be eliminated from the game as they serve no purpose (but that would be "my" game). I am saying that "if" neutrals get elevated to the power of Clan/Omni they should be made into a faction with all the good/bad that comes with it.

[Utopian]

Rather than make neutrals a third faction equivalent faction you would be better off removing all the factions period. Clans kill clan, omni kill omni, no one is entirely stuck in their faction anyways.

It limits tower wars because one faction will dominate while another will avoid PVP.
It limits battlestations because one side will dominate and another side will avoid participating.
It limits PVP raids like Tarasque because one side will dominate and the other side will not show up for months.

You wanna make the game better then you make everyone neutral. For all the ridiculous arguments I have seen about and against neutrals, it is the hypocrisy involving what clan and omni do which is the worst.

I would have no problem with this either - but again, its not the current game/lore that supports AO - and this would be a new game. Org v. Org would be fun. Org alliances and all that type of stuff.

But there you go taking a shot at folks who disagree with you - no hypocrisy here - I clearly state that neutrals shouldnt exist (imo) or be limited to level 50 or so as they are not needed based on the game design and lore.

[sultryvoltron]

I have REPEATEDLY said that neutrals can and do participate - which obviously means they exist. The two subjects are directly related to each other and is why I dont think one can be addressed without the other (but that again is my opnion, so go ahead and ..... on it).

You keep asking for neutrals to be elevated to a third faction (by extension of asking for these items) - but by the lore of the game, neutral "players" are not a third faction. Elevating neutrals in the current game mechanics to that level would hurt this game (not mine mind you, but this one) and is why I dont agree with it.

I believe your tact is wrong. I would suggest you stop asking for neutrals to be elevated - instead, ask for your own faction - with all the pluses/minuses that come with it. I think most folks would be all for it. But without that, giving neutrals the same gear as the factions would be game breaking without other major changes to compensate.

But, you know, the folks working on this game will probably give neutrals something in the Item Shop since it would seem to be a money maker.

Its not a matter of elevation. It is a matter of returning the neck item imbalance to previously accepted values, and not continuing to leave it as is, or make the gap larger.

Also another issue was brought up regarding comp lit and runspeed. Neither of those things are power issues, but FC arbitrarily lowering stats.

No role play needed in this thread.

[Gatester]

The whole point of your post was arrogance - you have a habit in your posts to go down this route when someone doesnt agree with your points. You really should stop talking down to folks, it really is a bad habit and is non-constructive.

I am not clueless - I am not trying to force "neutral" players to a third faction. I think they should be eliminated from the game as they serve no purpose (but that would be "my" game). I am saying that "if" neutrals get elevated to the power of Clan/Omni they should be made into a faction with all the good/bad that comes with it.

Someone says neutrals should not PVP as if all neutrals were intended to be pacifists and I say they are wrong.

Someone brings an online dictionary into the argument to shut me up and you criticized me for doing the same to prove it was a stupid thing to do.

Someone tries to twist the point of my post around with a witty little comment, and I take the opportunity to prove how their comment could work against them with a rather long post.

You misunderstood my diagram, and I did not criticize you for it because it was a poor representation, and my explaination was only given in the manner it was because of your previous reaction to my use of the dictionary example. You were also incorrect, as neutrals are not the cast-outs or rejects from clan and omni. I cannot fathom how you consider Jobe and ICC cast-outs in any form.

You keep telling us to "push for a third faction" and I point out to you that neither the lore nor the mechanics of this game require or support either. If you are allowed to question me then how I am not entitled to the same rights against you? If you do not like the "tone" of my posts then I suggest you and the others try adjusting the tone of your own, or did you not notice that I merely attempted to match those before me? I have no issue with being equally demeaning or sarcastic as anyone else.


You want to claim game lore does not support neutrals having a neck item. I clearly pointed out that there is precedent in the game's lore for the opposite, and that based on lore alone neutrals would have a proper neck item, but you have ignored my information from the database and have yet to post information of your own to counter my comments.

You want to claim the game would be better off without neutrals, when it could actually be worse for the reasons I described. Imagine battlestation PVP participation without this third group to get the matches started. Imagine tower wars without a weaker third group which could be attacked to build momentum and confidence for the main factions to attack each other. The population of AO could not support a two faction only gameplay in PVP, the best way for it to survive would be to leave it as is or to remove factions entirely. This IS my opinion, yes, but I feel very strongly that this is accurate due to my experience over the years.



The worst part is we are also not asking neutrals to be put at the same level as clan and omni, even I stated several times that this would break several PVP aspects of AO. What we are asking for does not require neutrals to be made into a third faction, the boards would still be weaker but better than they are now. What is wrong with neutrals still being inferior but having a slightly better neck item option?


I used the term clueless because you failed to accept the information I was giving which was straight from the AO's database. When you suggest making a third faction it shows you have not considered what would happen if that became true. When you call neutrals "cast-outs" it just proves even more that you are not viewing what neutrals are accurately. If anyone is going to use the game's story to prove their point then be expected to deal with a rough debate. Criticizing my approach to arguing does not make me wrong, but failing to support your own claims certainly does not make you right.

[Gatester]

I would have no problem with this either - but again, its not the current game/lore that supports AO - and this would be a new game. Org v. Org would be fun. Org alliances and all that type of stuff.

But there you go taking a shot at folks who disagree with you - no hypocrisy here - I clearly state that neutrals shouldnt exist (imo) or be limited to level 50 or so as they are not needed based on the game design and lore.

The hypocrisy extends from this simple fact.

People argue that neutrals should not be able to PVP against clan or omni without suffering a penalty.

Clan kill clan all the time, omni kill omni all the time. There is no penalty there.


We are denied advantages because of a lack of penalties for participating in PVP. Clan and omni have advantages while also completely lacking penalties for their own inconsistencies when participating in PVP.


This is hypocricy, when one group is expected to suffer for doing something other groups can do freely. How is pointing this out insulting, it is merely an observation?

[Lazy]

The hypocrisy extends from this simple fact.

People argue that neutrals should not be able to PVP against clan or omni without suffering a penalty.

Clan kill clan all the time, omni kill omni all the time. There is no penalty there.

We are denied advantages because of a lack of penalties for participating in PVP. Clan and omni have advantages while also completely lacking penalties for their own inconsistencies when participating in PVP.


This is hypocricy, when one group is expected to suffer for doing something other groups can do freely. How is pointing this out insulting, it is merely an observation?

wat. ofc there's penalties for clans attacking clans and omnis attacking omnis.

[Swordbreaker]

wat. ofc there's penalties for clans attacking clans and omnis attacking omnis.

Apparently player created penalties don't matter anymore.

[Xootch]

Someone says neutrals should not PVP as if all neutrals were intended to be pacifists and I say they are wrong.

Someone brings an online dictionary into the argument to shut me up and you criticized me for doing the same to prove it was a stupid thing to do.

Someone tries to twist the point of my post around with a witty little comment, and I take the opportunity to prove how their comment could work against them with a rather long post.

in other words, you tripped and fell over your own argument. it happens. don't worry about it. little hint: if everybody's wrong other than you, a generally good idea is to reevaluate your drug intake.

in short, this is an all new: i wanna i wanna i wanna have phatz so bad thread. you said what you wanna say, and on the bright side, you'll stumble upon some weird dude at the top who'll do as u please at some point, no matter what any of your fellow players think or say. it's a matter of time. can we move on now?

when will people realize it doesn't matter what you think. there are a few guys that make this game, if they sympathize with you, or if if they have a motive, they'll do what they think is right. none of the weird reasoning in this thread will ever count. most of you have been with this game long enough to know this. to actually believe that arguing with each other has a significantly greater effect than lighting a candle after saying what you gotta say is just sad. go on with your lifes...real or not...for christs sake. and btw boy, some of you appear to have twisted thoughts...but it doesn't matter! really! just imagine how weird that game would be by now if the few people that forum rage nonstop would actually decide about this...i mean come on...

[Gatester]

wat. ofc there's penalties for clans attacking clans and omnis attacking omnis.

Apparently player created penalties don't matter anymore.

And I agree that neutral "players" can do whatever they like in regards to Clan and Omni - my question is WHY. In my opinion, its a flaw in the game to allow them to get to 220, have towers, fight in BS, etc without some sort of repercussions of their decisions.

When people jump into a discussion between two others, and then comment incorrectly it really makes things difficult... Utopian said there are no penalties as far as the game itself goes, and for him that is a problem. I said there are no penalties for the far worse action of literal treason on the part of clans killing clans and omni killing omni. When someone gives a reason to deny one group something which does not apply to others, that is hypocrisy.


I have no problem pointing out that neutrals suffer the most extreme player driven penalties for PVP either, if you guys would like to venture down that debate as well? Either way it is bad to use any of these arguments because the result is that neutrals should recieve either equivalent or better neck items, and that would be bad.

The only argument you need is that people should be encouraged to go clan and omni, and an equal or better neck item for neutrals would not be healthy for the game. There is, however, no argument against a improved neck item which is still inferior to token boards that neutrals can use.

in other words, you tripped and fell over your own argument. it happens. don't worry about it. little hint: if everybody's wrong other than you, a generally good idea is to reevaluate your drug intake.

No, you simply failed to remain within the confines of my argument which you chose to jump into. By going off on a tangent about faction purposes you opened up a new argument which had nothing to do with the point I originally made.

TL : DR version of my previous post to you.

If the purpose of neutrals determined what gear they should have, then they would have a neck item of equal strength to clan and omni. This is not an argument anyone should make if they want to prevent neutrals from being equal to the factions. This would be the result of the question you used to respond to my statements.

You obviously do not want neutrals to be equal in strength to clan and omni, I do not want that either, so your comment was bad and worked against you.


I love the "if everyone disagrees with you then you are obviously wrong" argument as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum If everyone else is right, certainly they could offer at least one piece of evidence other than "because I say so" to support their claims? If they did I might not have to reevaluate all those drugs I am obviously taking that make me question what people say. At least I chose to look through the database and item descriptions to post things to support what I said, but of course this makes me some sort of drug addict.

in short, this is an all new: i wanna i wanna i wanna have phatz so bad thread. you said what you wanna say, and on the bright side, you'll stumble upon some weird dude at the top who'll do as u please at some point, no matter what any of your fellow players think or say. it's a matter of time. can we move on now?

A better neutral neck item was already promised, this is players reminding FC of that promise. FC promised people a new engine, rebalancing, NPE, and other fixes, are you saying no one should ask FC to keep those promises either? In fact, this thread started out rather simple until everyone chimed in with some absurd anti-neutral bias rather than keeping in mind that this is just a game.

when will people realize it doesn't matter what you think. there are a few guys that make this game, if they sympathize with you, or if if they have a motive, they'll do what they think is right. none of the weird reasoning in this thread will ever count. most of you have been with this game long enough to know this. to actually believe that arguing with each other has a significantly greater effect than lighting a candle after saying what you gotta say is just sad. go on with your lifes...real or not...for christs sake. and btw boy, some of you appear to have twisted thoughts...but it doesn't matter! really! just imagine how weird that game would be by now if the few people that forum rage nonstop would actually decide about this...i mean come on...

I am not arguing for this change, I am arguing against stupid arguments. I have no reason to stop.

When someone says "You cannot have this because..." and I feel they are wrong about it, you will see a response from me. If you are right, then you should be able to prove me wrong using actual links and references from the game. No one has bothered. Why should I believe I am in the wrong if no one can offer any proof to the contrary?

Seriously though...chill out. Me, Lazy, Utopian, and Sultry are certainly arguing pretty heavily, but the drug comments and real life thing...maybe you should take a break from the forums? I can at least enjoy the arguments I am having with Lazy and Utopian as long as they do not take my rough style of discussion personally.

[Lazy]

I am not arguing for this change

great. so neuts don't need a new tokenboard after all.

[Gatester]

great. so neuts don't need a new tokenboard after all.

Nope It would be nice to have some more runspeed and computer literacy on neutral neck items, but as you guys claimed "I knew what I was getting into when I stayed neutral." What applies to me does not apply to everyone though, and I have no argument against a few more stats on neutral neck items.

[Lazy]

Nope It would be nice to have some more runspeed and computer literacy on neutral neck items, but as you guys claimed "I knew what I was getting into when I stayed neutral." What applies to me does not apply to everyone though, and I have no argument against a few more stats on neutral neck items.

my arguement against is that there should be a population imbalance skewed in favour of sided folks. and giving bonuses to neutral neck items errodes reasons for people to go sided if they can stay neut and receive comparable bonuses in addition to all the benefits neuts have.

and for everyone that didn't knoiw what tehy were getting into when they stayed neutral, you can get side change forms up to ql 220 from SL gardens

[Utopian]

The hypocrisy extends from this simple fact.

People argue that neutrals should not be able to PVP against clan or omni without suffering a penalty.

Clan kill clan all the time, omni kill omni all the time. There is no penalty there.


We are denied advantages because of a lack of penalties for participating in PVP. Clan and omni have advantages while also completely lacking penalties for their own inconsistencies when participating in PVP.


This is hypocricy, when one group is expected to suffer for doing something other groups can do freely. How is pointing this out insulting, it is merely an observation?

Yes, I believe that a person who attacks a faction should be seen as an enemy of that faction. That goes for OvO, CvC or NvC or O. Since we were only talking about neuts, I didnt expand on my thought - but it was obvious I thought. In the game context, it could be a lock or such that exists for XX hours.

[Xootch]

i'm here simply as a measure of entertainment. it's live a tv sitcom, but interactive. on the downside, there is noone that fires forums trolls failing to provide entertainment themselves. as per forum rules i am forbidden to ignite name calling, i stick to the topic. even though i really see no point in endless arguing in a if-i-post-more-or-after-someone-with-a-different-opinion-it-makes-me-feel-right fashion that you seem to advocate if i read your post correctly, allow me to point out the central flaw in that argument...actually is discussion 101, but still: every argument can be broken down to believes if dissected properly. and you cannot argue over believes. well you can, but it's pointless.

i believe staying neutral should come with serious downsides, and tokenboards is one of them, promised by a past fc official or not. appearently i'm not the only one. i don't need reasoning for this, and i see no reasoning in this thread that makes a half decent, real argument. therefore you may state that you have a different opinion, call everyone else wrong and decline their argument...but that won't change anything. if you feel like continuing to post and try to make an argument where no argument can actually be made, try to get a joke in. or two. for me.

ps. actually i can see your reason now. fc has rewarded epic whining in the past. okay. that is a valid reason indeed.

[Utopian]

[QUOTE=Gatester;6095244]..long wall of text..QUOTE]

The penalities for attacking a faction should be handled within the game context and they are not. I agree that C/C or O/O is an issue - your assumption it is "worse" is your interpretation and I understand your point, although I don't think it matters as anyone attacking my towers is an enemy.

But my point for neutrals is they can be Clan-Lite or Omni-Lite and still maintain the benefits and giving sided benefits increases the problem (again, for me).

The arguement of go clan or omni - that is the game if you want the benefits. But for me (and again imo, crap on it if ya like) is that neuts should be removed from the game or forced to change at tl3 or so once they can pick a side. This is a game designed on the Omni-Clan conflict and I believe it would be better suited to remain that way.

[Utopian]

Someone says neutrals should not PVP as if all neutrals were intended to be pacifists and I say they are wrong.

Someone brings an online dictionary into the argument to shut me up and you criticized me for doing the same to prove it was a stupid thing to do.

Someone tries to twist the point of my post around with a witty little comment, and I take the opportunity to prove how their comment could work against them with a rather long post.

You misunderstood my diagram, and I did not criticize you for it because it was a poor representation, and my explaination was only given in the manner it was because of your previous reaction to my use of the dictionary example. You were also incorrect, as neutrals are not the cast-outs or rejects from clan and omni. I cannot fathom how you consider Jobe and ICC cast-outs in any form.

You keep telling us to "push for a third faction" and I point out to you that neither the lore nor the mechanics of this game require or support either. If you are allowed to question me then how I am not entitled to the same rights against you? If you do not like the "tone" of my posts then I suggest you and the others try adjusting the tone of your own, or did you not notice that I merely attempted to match those before me? I have no issue with being equally demeaning or sarcastic as anyone else.


You want to claim game lore does not support neutrals having a neck item. I clearly pointed out that there is precedent in the game's lore for the opposite, and that based on lore alone neutrals would have a proper neck item, but you have ignored my information from the database and have yet to post information of your own to counter my comments.

You want to claim the game would be better off without neutrals, when it could actually be worse for the reasons I described. Imagine battlestation PVP participation without this third group to get the matches started. Imagine tower wars without a weaker third group which could be attacked to build momentum and confidence for the main factions to attack each other. The population of AO could not support a two faction only gameplay in PVP, the best way for it to survive would be to leave it as is or to remove factions entirely. This IS my opinion, yes, but I feel very strongly that this is accurate due to my experience over the years.



The worst part is we are also not asking neutrals to be put at the same level as clan and omni, even I stated several times that this would break several PVP aspects of AO. What we are asking for does not require neutrals to be made into a third faction, the boards would still be weaker but better than they are now. What is wrong with neutrals still being inferior but having a slightly better neck item option?


I used the term clueless because you failed to accept the information I was giving which was straight from the AO's database. When you suggest making a third faction it shows you have not considered what would happen if that became true. When you call neutrals "cast-outs" it just proves even more that you are not viewing what neutrals are accurately. If anyone is going to use the game's story to prove their point then be expected to deal with a rough debate. Criticizing my approach to arguing does not make me wrong, but failing to support your own claims certainly does not make you right.

This post is exactly what I was talking about.

>Never said pacifist and never said they shouldnt PVP - I said they shouldnt exist
>Your use of the dictionary....
>Twist your post - I would ask for clarification, but please don't
>My not understaninding YOUR diagram is YOUR problem, not mine. When I pointed out your error, you then attempt to belittle my ability to understand. I assure you it was not a issue on my side.
>The "ask for a third faction" is because NEUTRALS are not a faction in the game and should not be elevated any more (without some level of change to the game mechanics). Never said it doesnt support a neck item - just not one equal or even close to the factions. Again, I want neutrals gone so my opinion is fairly clear.
>YES - I think the game would be much better without neuts (or neuts above 50 or so). The fact they can go to either side in the BS... is well, BS for me as its being seen as a cure for the failure of FC to fix the mess that is the BS in its current format. Please tell me when in NW neutrals have ever mattered as a group - there are some good neut players (and that isnt my point) - its the group as a whole.
>you then say you dont want neuts brought too close to omni/clan and give reasons for it (some I agree / some not) - but I guess I believe that any increase just lessens the disparity which I believe should exist.

[sultryvoltron]

my arguement against is that there should be a population imbalance skewed in favour of sided folks. and giving bonuses to neutral neck items errodes reasons for people to go sided if they can stay neut and receive comparable bonuses in addition to all the benefits neuts have.

and for everyone that didn't knoiw what tehy were getting into when they stayed neutral, you can get side change forms up to ql 220 from SL gardens

Giving neutral neck items 100 CL and 100 more RS does not erode the reasons to go sided.

Hardcore PvPers are all about min-maxing their toons. If you get increased stats for simply being sided, then people will go sided.

This thread is about returning to previously accepted levels of gap between neck items and tokenboards. I shouldn't need to explain how that gap got bigger with the introduction of Xan Boards.