I think the reticence of the official team to step in is quite understandable. If they did step in and drew a line that favors any side over another (RPers vs non-RPers, PvP vs PvE, etc), those on the other side might leave the game, not finding satisfaction in it.
Consider that other games implement PvP and PvE on separate servers, for very good reasons. Ryzom can't afford that. While the game was designed with PvE in mind mostly, it has to offer a form of PvP in order to attract a more diverse player base; at least that's what appears to be the official line of thought.
Now, as any anthropologist will tell you, the chances for cooperation are epsilon to nil - if the differences are too many:
- Two nations bordering each other will trade easier, and in trading develop some relations and some sort of mutual understanding for each other's cultures; in time, the cultures might mix.
- Two nations first meeting each other may or may not trade, but surely they won't adapt their culture to each other; either the settlers encroaching new lands are eventually killed, or the local tribesmen are slaughtered.
We all "live" on the same server. What we're seeing now is exactly this culture clash I've described. What the Ryzom team is calling for is us working towards scenario 1 benevolently, e.g. each group defining borders, finding enjoyment within their confines, and working to accept the other group. If instead the players will choose to over-represent their side, the outcome might as well be the stamping out of the other players.
The team can't make that choice for us. The game mechanics already favor one side, PvE and non-RP. You can choose not to get involved if that's what you wish. You can avoid PvP almost entirely, you can mute insistent / obnoxious RPers. The silence of the team is just that, a waiting game to see if we, the gamers, can eventually mesh together.
After all, if one side prevails, the other leaves. If the team makes stricter rules, the losing side leaves. In both scenarios the game loses players. However, if both sides find a way to cooperate, it's a win-win-win for everyone. And forced cooperation is a contradiction in terms.
Consider that other games implement PvP and PvE on separate servers, for very good reasons. Ryzom can't afford that. While the game was designed with PvE in mind mostly, it has to offer a form of PvP in order to attract a more diverse player base; at least that's what appears to be the official line of thought.
Now, as any anthropologist will tell you, the chances for cooperation are epsilon to nil - if the differences are too many:
- Two nations bordering each other will trade easier, and in trading develop some relations and some sort of mutual understanding for each other's cultures; in time, the cultures might mix.
- Two nations first meeting each other may or may not trade, but surely they won't adapt their culture to each other; either the settlers encroaching new lands are eventually killed, or the local tribesmen are slaughtered.
We all "live" on the same server. What we're seeing now is exactly this culture clash I've described. What the Ryzom team is calling for is us working towards scenario 1 benevolently, e.g. each group defining borders, finding enjoyment within their confines, and working to accept the other group. If instead the players will choose to over-represent their side, the outcome might as well be the stamping out of the other players.
The team can't make that choice for us. The game mechanics already favor one side, PvE and non-RP. You can choose not to get involved if that's what you wish. You can avoid PvP almost entirely, you can mute insistent / obnoxious RPers. The silence of the team is just that, a waiting game to see if we, the gamers, can eventually mesh together.
After all, if one side prevails, the other leaves. If the team makes stricter rules, the losing side leaves. In both scenarios the game loses players. However, if both sides find a way to cooperate, it's a win-win-win for everyone. And forced cooperation is a contradiction in terms.
---