English

Geez! You miss the point.
The question was is PvP Roleplay? I tried to answer, Yes, it can be, and proceded to give examples how it could be.
I did allude to situations in real life, yes, that was to help see what I do not like about the thinking of how it is ok to go around Ganking others just for the sake of it. I don't see how someone can call that style of play Roleplay, and why I don't. I just don't see the fun in that and it would make the game unenjoyable.
To clarify, are marauders criminals? No, I do not thinks so, but I also think you have to use your brain a bit more to define your role as not criminals, but to have a cause, or reason to kill EVERYONE on atys. You haven't made your case except to just say: "We are marauders!"
I don't see the reason for a person thinking that they can just go around killing everyone for the fun of it? Even if it is a game. If that is the kind of game certain people like, then maybe they need to go find a 100% PvP game if they can't live with the way things are. This game currently needs the forced balance of allowing peaceful players to play their game.

[EDIT] Paragraph deleted because out of topic. Please do not use the forum to settle the score with players. In the event of a serious dispute with a player, please refer to this paragraph of the Code of Conduct: https://app.ryzom.com/app_forum/index.php?page=topic/view/28406/3 #3 Thank you.

@Naema, I think (at least it's my opinion and maybe I am wrong who knows), forcing people to be tag and having more gameplay restriction (it's a bad thing but there is pro and cons) can bring back faction sense (for rangers it's another story I agreed). Right now, it looks like in the game everyone is friend with everyone, which in term of ingame politics is not interesting at all ... etc

I've seen so far two kinds of roleplays players about pvp (pvp can be incorporated in roleplay, yes)
- the faction centered
- the individualist

Those are archetypes, people are generally a mix of those two kinds.

In detail :

- the first one is concerned by factions game. Despite not being at ease with RP in arround channel or assembly-event like —or even thinks this is boring bullshit— he is very strict about the logical of his behavior related to the faction he belongs to. For him healing or trading with a enemy is pure nonsense and he will always be in favor of gameplay mechanisms that forbid any exemption. He also dreams that victories and defeats have a leverage on civs' economy.

- the second one is concerned by his character background first and assess to belong to "elite" rp-ers. He recognized the rivalry between factions put often put himself in an antagonist situation. Like being a fyros vassal or a matis patriot or a karavan zorai. He likes to be the exception that confirm the rules. For him any possibilities and combinations could have its justification (at least, for himself) and the gameplay should allow it. He often is not a very good pvper but tag on for some "realism".

what could we change ?
I think the gameplay should reply to both kinds. I think also the current system is much better than the former with the so-called "rp tag", but yet current system is perfectible.
- while being tagged, we should be able to choose between healing or attacking another tagged one. (maybe the choice of healing would create an auto-league or auto-invite him in current league. No heal possible if he is already in another league).
- all friendly actions with "an enemy" (heal, trade) should be sanctioned by little effect on fame, with same kind of balance than pvp points calculation (the more he is a enemy, the higher the sanction).

@Sinvaders , c'est déjà difficile de trouver des gens qui font du roleplay, alors si en plus on doit tous se "foutre sur la gueule" il va pas y avoir beaucoup de discussions :) (second degré pour éviter les dramas)

Namcha did describe exactly what i wanted to write, but better than i, so i won't comment about this.

As Eolinius said, the roleplay tags can be different than the PvP tags, it could add some layer to the interaction game.

Namcha explained it better, but some roleplayer's will do everything to support the gameplay of factions, so if you are not marauder, they will most probably attack you.
It is not personal like some think, its just RP associated with gameplay (faction play?).

 

[EDIT]  Answer removed because related with a deleted part in a previous post.

 

For your info, around channel is roleplay driven, for most of Atys.
Same as Dukenono and Magez, would be very nice and legit to have fame increase/decrease with your roleplay slash PvP action.

And automation is not a bad idea at all, it can add dynamism instead of been static like almost everything right now.

I'll add one type of action as a candidate to be leverage on fame (just a little bit, negatively or positively) : gaining XP with someone.

And I also completely forget one kind of rp player regarding pvp, sorry !
- conchie

again a archetype !

He is a good rp-er on manypoints and involve in many events except one thing : pvp ! His IRL ethical values forbid him to understand pvp which seems immature if not insane (not totally wrong when you read some comments !). Even someone who embraces a citizenship can be already suspect to him. If fact he doesn't really do RP as he plays exactly how he is in real life and figures it's the same for others. He never misses to promote peace and cooperation, sometimes enable to refrain a complex of moral superiority.

For this kind, the main gameplay reply is consensual pvp.

[EDIT] Deleted because out of topic and related to a moderated previous post. Please do not use the forum to settle the score with players. In the event of a serious dispute with a player, please refer to this paragraph of the Code of Conduct: https://app.ryzom.com/app_forum/index.php?page=topic/view/28406/3 #3 Thank you.

 

Again, PvP CAN be 100% RP, when there are RP motivations behind it and i recognise many people play great characters. However, when the only ground behind it is sequentially killing others, with the sole purpose of disrupting their game and the intent to not let them enjoy a game feature (see chat)... that's not RP, thats called being an ******* ^^

[EDIT] Deleted answer because related to some moderated part a in previous post.

[EDIT] Deleted answer because related to some moderated part a in previous post.

Yes, I think PvP can be more RP centered, but I don't think that means strictly observing factions and fames. Those are game mechanics that apply to basically everyone...

Instead, what is your actual motivation for attacking someone? What benefit does it provide to you? what are the possible consequences or outcomes...

Just running around saying "i'm red team, you're blue team- I must kill you" is boring af (in my opinion ofc).

So when there are ideas that come up where we should make people stay tagged for hours etc, etc, to make PvP more RP- it fails to consider that PvP has extremely weak RP to begin with and it is not related to any tag timer :(

I will try to make them stop with arguments. I will not fight on either side. If I will be alive after the fight, I will try to ressurect those homins who has died in that meaningless fighting.

I believe that it can be, but often isn't.

However, the rewards always seemed a bit screwy to me. For instance, I fail to see how race really plays much of a role, except between Trykers and Matis who have a bit more contentious history than other combinations of races. The tensions between Tryker/Matis and Fyros/Zorai have more of a factional than racial basis. There is also plenty of tension even within factions, as well as some cross-faction alliances.

We all (probably) agree that fighting an enemy should give greater rewards than fighting an ally, the political realities of Atys are such that coding any sort of system that varies rewards based on race/faction is a bit idealistic unless we have someone constantly updating a spider-web map of alliances that changes about every twelve seconds or so. Then again, the rewards are rather irrelevant here. Sure, PvP points can get you crystals and skirts and shields, but why do we PvP anyways? Some do it just for fun, others to grief, but a lot of PvP is for stuff that helps our guilds or faction like sups, outposts, or bosses.

At the end of the day, whether or not PvP is RP or simply gaming depends how such conflicts affect lore.


[EDIT] Deleted because related to a moderated out of topic part into a previous post.

I think the situation between Fyros and Matis is pretty bad right now. (look at hidden source "desert" + tower defense being build in Thesos (in front of the kingdom border).

I'm not so sure about the "right now" part, but it does seem to be headed in that direction. If PvP is RP then I expect Matis to have huge targets on their backs in the foreseeable future. However, it still seems to me that the only real tensions among the races are pairings that include Matis,

[EDIT] Deleted because related to a moderated out of topic post.