So, About the "Neutral Neck Item Imbalance"

[Byste]

I tried to create a neut pvp toon, and I've determined that it's just nonsense self-gimping folly. It's just a depressing waste of time, because you will always suck harder than your opponents of equal skill.

The only current and valid reasons to be neutral I can see are 1) for RP reasons, 2) if you have friends on both sides (and don't want to create toons on both sides instead of neither...), 3) if you just want to be able to do inferno missions with both alignments, or 4) you just want the extra challenge.

If you fall outside those 4 reasons, you should not be neutral currently in the game, because you're just gimping yourself unreasonably.

Obviously the game isn't unplayable as a neutral toon... It's not like the challenge has become Oh So Great. In fact it's quite the opposite, I think everyone can agree that AO has lost a lot of its challenge -- the greatest source of hardship in the game is trying to do everything solo because you have no one to play with, and this hardship falls hardest on the new players.

Therefore, I'm of the opinion that as long as the game devs feel like neutrals BELONG in this camp of inferiority, there's no reason to give neutrals better neck items or twinking items or anything of the sort that clans/omnis have. The status quo meets this end just fine. Being neutral isn't an extreme gimp in PvM, because honestly PvM used to be that hard anyway. Suck it up, you're probably just too used to being coddled.

I would say that I wished being a neutral PvPer was viable. But right now it's just retarded, and near as I can tell it's always been just retarded, and I've seen no indication that the game devs want it any other way. So there you have it :P

[Xootch]

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.

i believe not, dear sir. the gap narrowed with the dustbrigade boards big time and got a little wider with xan again.

[Gatester]

This post is exactly what I was talking about.

1>Never said pacifist and never said they shouldnt PVP - I said they shouldnt exist
2>Your use of the dictionary....
3>Twist your post - I would ask for clarification, but please don't
4>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.
5>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.
6>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.
7>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.

And I have to explain again...god this is tiring lol.

First, you have to keep in mind that this entire thread consists of more than just me and you discussing this topic. This means that my posts may be referring to multiple individuals other than yourself. I will reply in the manner you used so hopefully we can avoid further misunderstandings.

1>does not apply to you (lazy insinuated this I believe)
2>does not apply to you (lazy used a dictionary first, I replied with one)
3>does not apply to you (xootch tried to twist my response to lazy around)

Those first three, I used the term "someone" to refer to "someone else". It was clear enough given none of the previous posts disappear or anything. Now the next ones where I used the term "you" actually refer to you.

4>Yes, my diagram was unclear, but I chose the simplest form of explaination to correct it. Your tone was not worthy of a gentle response on my part, and if you wanted a calmer reply you should have thought about that before quoting me in the manner you did.
5> No one is asking for equal. It is pointless to continue bringing that up when no one asks for that. If close is the issue, perhaps you can give us an example of what is too close and we can argue that instead of something no one wants?
6> Let me refer to this one below, seperately.
7> A valid opinion, one that most people share. If your idea of too close is anything more than what we have now then I have nothing to argue about with you on that aspect.


As for number 6, neutrals have various purposes in PVP now, one of which you pointed out. Battlestations were poorly implemented, and unfortunately a large portion of battlestations relied on neutrals being able to join the losing side without numbers to support a round to even run.

For notum wars, a neutral tower site is easier to destroy, this means a faction with fewer tower sites can begin regaining some by attacking neutral sites first. With ownership of a tower site usually comes and increase in tower war participation by a faction for a while. It is usually minor but neutrals do increase the participation in tower wars a little.


This, of course, is only true because neutrals themselves are fewer and weaker. Your idea of removing neutrals has too many unforseen consequences that would be bad to attempt given AO's current state, especially with the number of players who would altogether quit because of it. Neutrals being made into a third, equal faction is only viable given a much larger population. Removing factions altogther as I suggested would only work as long as the population remains relatively low as it is now.

[Notcrattey]

Bump, it's time to even out the difference.

Could implement something like a quest to join a Mercenary Collective or guild, earning tokens to gain advantages within the guild.

Good idea!

[sultryvoltron]

i believe not, dear sir. the gap narrowed with the dustbrigade boards big time and got a little wider with xan again.

Thank you for confirming what I said, the gap did indeed get bigger with Xan. I appreciate your support.

[Utopian]

And I have to explain again...god this is tiring lol.

First, you have to keep in mind that this entire thread consists of more than just me and you discussing this topic. This means that my posts may be referring to multiple individuals other than yourself. I will reply in the manner you used so hopefully we can avoid further misunderstandings.

1>does not apply to you (lazy insinuated this I believe)
2>does not apply to you (lazy used a dictionary first, I replied with one)
3>does not apply to you (xootch tried to twist my response to lazy around)

Those first three, I used the term "someone" to refer to "someone else". It was clear enough given none of the previous posts disappear or anything. Now the next ones where I used the term "you" actually refer to you.

4>Yes, my diagram was unclear, but I chose the simplest form of explaination to correct it. Your tone was not worthy of a gentle response on my part, and if you wanted a calmer reply you should have thought about that before quoting me in the manner you did.
5> No one is asking for equal. It is pointless to continue bringing that up when no one asks for that. If close is the issue, perhaps you can give us an example of what is too close and we can argue that instead of something no one wants?
6> Let me refer to this one below, seperately.
7> A valid opinion, one that most people share. If your idea of too close is anything more than what we have now then I have nothing to argue about with you on that aspect.


As for number 6, neutrals have various purposes in PVP now, one of which you pointed out. Battlestations were poorly implemented, and unfortunately a large portion of battlestations relied on neutrals being able to join the losing side without numbers to support a round to even run.

For notum wars, a neutral tower site is easier to destroy, this means a faction with fewer tower sites can begin regaining some by attacking neutral sites first. With ownership of a tower site usually comes and increase in tower war participation by a faction for a while. It is usually minor but neutrals do increase the participation in tower wars a little.


This, of course, is only true because neutrals themselves are fewer and weaker. Your idea of removing neutrals has too many unforseen consequences that would be bad to attempt given AO's current state, especially with the number of players who would altogether quit because of it. Neutrals being made into a third, equal faction is only viable given a much larger population. Removing factions altogther as I suggested would only work as long as the population remains relatively low as it is now.

First off - you quoted me. I responded. You took the time to quote others and I didnt take you to task on those.

You continue to make these types of comments "And I have to explain again...god this is tiring lol." which is an attempt at looking superior - its childish. I would also say that to the other person that responded to you in similar manner - was childish as well but that is between you two.

You did respond to me with with a dictionary-type post and by twisting the conversation. I never said neuts couldn't PVP/BS (just the opposite) but that is not really the point of the power discussion, so I just went ...

You drew a linear diagram and that was ...well...I could go into lots of explanations with charts and diagrams, but won't at this point as you have acknolwedged (i think) you errored. My issue wasn't your diagram attempt, it was your attitude that anyone who didn't "get it" must have a lesser mind.

But lets get to the meat of the discusion. I don't believe any increase to the neck board should occur for neuts. Any increase narrows the power gap and I believe it takes away from the game. And I do believe the ability to remain neutral to 220 is not good for the game. I also think the abilty to switch, attack faction, etc. without repercussions is bad for the game - just to be clear on my thoughts.

The PVP aspect of neutrals -

1)BS is flawed and to have neuts simply to make it run means FC failed on the implementation. BS has never been good throughout the ranges for all the years I have been around (5ish). There were some good ranges, but never from tl4 thru tl7 consisently. So this argument for their existence is weak at best.

2)On RK2 neuts have never been a part of NW as a group (again, some good neut players) but not the group as a whole. Actually, I would love to know the break down of the truly Neutral orgs (PVM and PVP) vs the plant/shop toon orgs that exist for Clan/Omni orgs. And since (and I am guessing based on past couple years) most of the low sites are just a CT and a tower or two at best - any site is easliy taken at tl1-tl3. I have never seen a group say "lets take the neuts first". Actually, it has been my experience the exact opposite - unless the neutral org is always siding with the opposing faction. But since they rarely have any high level sites, its never been a big deal. So I dont see this as a reason either.

So for PVP - these two parts of the game are not enhanced by neutrals as a group, so I dont see why the removal of the ability to be a neutral player would adversly affect the game. I can see the possible need to allow a player to get to a certain level before having to pick a side, but that should be fairly low level. Again, just my opinion and not asking FC to change anything or anyone to agree (because either of those would be requests falling on deaf ears).

Question for you - do you support a Blue/Red type BS system that removes faction completely? I ask because it would change the game's intent of Clan v Omni - but it would probably make the BS run more often, probably be more fun for some because people could side with folks that havent been able to - but should the game be changed in that respect just to make the BS run?

[sultryvoltron]

First off - you quoted me. I responded. You took the time to quote others and I didnt take you to task on those.

You continue to make these types of comments "And I have to explain again...god this is tiring lol." which is an attempt at looking superior - its childish. I would also say that to the other person that responded to you in similar manner - was childish as well but that is between you two.

You did respond to me with with a dictionary-type post and by twisting the conversation. I never said neuts couldn't PVP/BS (just the opposite) but that is not really the point of the power discussion, so I just went ...

You drew a linear diagram and that was ...well...I could go into lots of explanations with charts and diagrams, but won't at this point as you have acknolwedged (i think) you errored. My issue wasn't your diagram attempt, it was your attitude that anyone who didn't "get it" must have a lesser mind.

But lets get to the meat of the discusion. I don't believe any increase to the neck board should occur for neuts. Any increase narrows the power gap and I believe it takes away from the game. And I do believe the ability to remain neutral to 220 is not good for the game. I also think the abilty to switch, attack faction, etc. without repercussions is bad for the game - just to be clear on my thoughts.

The PVP aspect of neutrals -

1)BS is flawed and to have neuts simply to make it run means FC failed on the implementation. BS has never been good throughout the ranges for all the years I have been around (5ish). There were some good ranges, but never from tl4 thru tl7 consisently. So this argument for their existence is weak at best.

2)On RK2 neuts have never been a part of NW as a group (again, some good neut players) but not the group as a whole. Actually, I would love to know the break down of the truly Neutral orgs (PVM and PVP) vs the plant/shop toon orgs that exist for Clan/Omni orgs. And since (and I am guessing based on past couple years) most of the low sites are just a CT and a tower or two at best - any site is easliy taken at tl1-tl3. I have never seen a group say "lets take the neuts first". Actually, it has been my experience the exact opposite - unless the neutral org is always siding with the opposing faction. But since they rarely have any high level sites, its never been a big deal. So I dont see this as a reason either.

So for PVP - these two parts of the game are not enhanced by neutrals as a group, so I dont see why the removal of the ability to be a neutral player would adversly affect the game. I can see the possible need to allow a player to get to a certain level before having to pick a side, but that should be fairly low level. Again, just my opinion and not asking FC to change anything or anyone to agree (because either of those would be requests falling on deaf ears).

Question for you - do you support a Blue/Red type BS system that removes faction completely? I ask because it would change the game's intent of Clan v Omni - but it would probably make the BS run more often, probably be more fun for some because people could side with folks that havent been able to - but should the game be changed in that respect just to make the BS run?

You describe a problem that FC is likely never going to fix since the only real solution would force rage-quits of most TL7 Neutrals. It's not really a discussion worth having, as there is no viable solution.

Secondly, I support a Red vs Blue BS system because I think it would be fun. Even better than that, I support a true free-for-all pvp zone where you can tab anyone, including your own side.

[wonderland]

One thing you could get from this discussion, is that it's clear that there is no real defining of neutral in the game, which could be useful.

A defining questline available to every faction (I mean, I guess the Bazzit's mission does this actually, but, still. Something a little more defining). Especially in regards to the Xan would be useful.

[Lazy]

neut tokenboard on par with xan off/def boards coming soon to itemshop: only 100 euro!


EDIT

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.

you already have the best tl5 comp lit twinking item ingame

what more do you need?

[sultryvoltron]

neut tokenboard on par with xan off/def boards coming soon to itemshop: only 100 euro!


EDIT



you already have the best tl5 comp lit twinking item ingame

what more do you need?

A level 100 Neutral MA CANNOT equip a Modified Notucomm.

Certain Prof/Breed combinations cannot keep Alb/DB bracers out of OE with maxed CL.

On my Agent I can just barely keep Alb/DB bracers out of OE with maxed CL, giving me less IP to use in other places compared to sided toons.

Etc.

[Lazy]

A level 100 Neutral MA CANNOT equip a Modified Notucomm.

Certain Prof/Breed combinations cannot keep Alb/DB bracers out of OE with maxed CL.

On my Agent I can just barely keep Alb/DB bracers out of OE with maxed CL, giving me less IP to use in other places compared to sided toons.

Etc.

i'll offer you 2 simple solutions to make your agent's life easier. they're really easy and fast and will solve literally all your problems.

solution 1
solution 2

[sultryvoltron]

i'll offer you 2 simple solutions to make your agent's life easier. they're really easy and fast and will solve literally all your problems.

solution 1
solution 2

Does that remove 1hb/1he Enfos from the game?

Because I didn't know my Agent had any specific equip or IP problems, I just had to be more judicious about where I spent it when I did my full IPR.

[Lazy]

Does that remove 1hb/1he Enfos from the game?

Because I didn't know my Agent had any specific equip or IP problems, I just had to be more judicious about where I spent it when I did my full IPR.

looks like you dont need any new neck items for your agent then. guess we can shut down this thread then.

[Contra]

i'll offer you 2 simple solutions to make your agent's life easier. they're really easy and fast and will solve literally all your problems.

solution 1
solution 2

Don't want this to sound strange or anything but I've said this to you a few times in the past and I'll say it again without fear of repercusion: I LOVE YOU.

Your type of humor is exactly the same as Skankman's. He was a gem of sarcasm and entertainment, just like you, especially when everyone else was serious.
Join my org on RK2, you'd feel like home

On topic: Neuts already have access to good neck items. Why add more when there are viable solutions in game for this?

[sultryvoltron]

looks like you dont need any new neck items for your agent then. guess we can shut down this thread then.

Premise leads to false conclusion.

Logical fallacy alert.

[Scottik]

Don't want this to sound strange or anything but I've said this to you a few times in the past and I'll say it again without fear of repercusion: I LOVE YOU.

Your type of humor is exactly the same as Skankman's. He was a gem of sarcasm and entertainment, just like you, especially when everyone else was serious.
Join my org on RK2, you'd feel like home

On topic: Neuts already have access to good neck items. Why add more when there are viable solutions in game for this?

Needs more lube.

[Lazy]

Don't want this to sound strange or anything but I've said this to you a few times in the past and I'll say it again without fear of repercusion: I LOVE YOU.

Your type of humor is exactly the same as Skankman's. He was a gem of sarcasm and entertainment, just like you, especially when everyone else was serious.
Join my org on RK2, you'd feel like home

On topic: Neuts already have access to good neck items. Why add more when there are viable solutions in game for this?

http://i.imgur.com/Jdvdr.gif

<3

server merge needs to hurry up and happen

Premise leads to false conclusion.

Logical fallacy alert.

i offered simple and effective solutions to lack of the stats in neutral neck items. i think it solves any and all issues you listed that, in your eyes, exist with neutral neck items. where's the logical fallacy?

[sultryvoltron]

i offered simple and effective solutions to lack of the stats in neutral neck items. i think it solves any and all issues you listed that, in your eyes, exist with neutral neck items. where's the logical fallacy?

Premise: I don't need a better Neck Item for my Agent.

False Conclusion: No Neutrals need better neck items.

[Lazy]

Premise: I don't need a better Neck Item for my Agent.

False Conclusion: No Neutrals need better neck items.

premise: neutals already have access to the best tokenboards ingame.


True conclusion: No neutrals need better neck items.

[Ilaliya]

I know that 3 and a half years is a short time to wait for promises from FC but I feel now is a good time to remind the current design team and the producer of ANOTHER promise that players have been waiting for.

Well, here's what Means said back in Feb 2009:

Neutral power issues were not something we were going to try and squeeze-fix in this booster. ( we were delayed enough :P ) It is an important issue to a great many players...and it is not going to be swept under the carpet and forgotten. I don't have anything specific in mind...but we'll work something out that addresses the issue.

Let me don my flame suit. (You know it's never good when a Producer utters those words!)

So first off, we are all aware there is a bit of a big-picture "neutral question." Meaning that basically it's a side-but-not. The "neutral question" comes up from time-to-time in meetings, and especially when the NPE was getting designed. Developers on AO have a wide variety of opinions on the subject, and nothing specifically has been decided about neutrals. Nothing has been decided because we don't really have time to address this issue right now; we just had to make sure the NPE was designed in such away that it could be easily tweaked to accommodate all likely outcomes.

Secondly, and just to get this out of the way, Means didn't mention specifically "neutral neck items." He just said vaguely that he would work something out to address a balance issue. On the third page of a "Friday With Means."

So thirdly, lets just say when I joined AO there were a lot of promises (or perceived promises) on the table. It takes less than 30 seconds to write a post saying that "we'll address X" or "we'll do X" but it also takes anywhere from days to weeks to years to deliver on X from when work starts to when it gets patched out. If we were working on all outstanding promises made in the last 11 years of AO -- all in parallel -- we would never get anything done. Ever. If you want to hold the development team to every single one of these, we would be completely paralysed. In fact, it is my firm belief that what the game needs right now is lazer-focus on our top priorities.

So, what are our top priorities? As I've said before, they are: Engine, Server Merge, NPE... followed by profession rebalance... followed probably by (and don't take this as a promise, because things can change) some ground-work in preparation for the next booster/expansion. I suspect we'll take a look at neutrals if we end up expanding upon PvP, purely for PvP balance reasons. Not a promise, just what I foresee happening.