English French German Spanish Russian
Abolish artificial restriction "Fraction/Nation<->Guild - Refused - Ryzom Community ForumHomeGuest

Refused


Is that a good idea? / Ist das eine gute Idee? / C'est une bonne idée ?
Yes (Write what could develop positively) / Ja (Schreib, was sich positiv entwickeln könnte) / Oui (Écrivez ce qui pourrait évoluer positivement)
Atys: Gidget, Jahuu, Kaetemi, Luminatrix, Nightviper
5
21.7%
No (write what would be wrong with it) / Nein (Schreib, was falsch daran wäre) / Non (écrivez ce qui ne va pas avec)
Atys: Azazor, Bisugott, Craftjenn, Dukenono, Hayt, Lacuna, Mermaidia, Naveruss, Revvy, Sinvaders, Sowen, Syron, Timna, Zagh
14 (4)
60.9%
Other thoughts (write it down) / Andere Gedanken (Schreib es auf) / Autres pensées (écrivez-les)
Atys: Agy, Balkhog, Heernis, Placio
4
17.4%
Other 0
Abstain 8
uiWebPrevious12345678uiWebNext

#1 Multilingual 

Multilingual | [English] | Deutsch | Français

Abolish artificial restriction "Fraction/Nation<->Guild"

I have a little idea...

How about neutral guilds consisting of homins from all factions: Rangers, Marauders, Kami, Karavan and Neutrals?

At the moment it's not possible. To the best of my knowledge, guilds that are oriented towards one faction can only be neutrals or homins that are converted to the same faction. The same applies to the membership of a nation.

Why not change that?

In times of alliances between factions fighting the Kitins, or an overpowering faction like the Kamis, such guilds could form. Only this limitation artificially prevents that.

I'd like to hear your opinion on the idea.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

Edited 4 times | Last edited by Tamarea (7 months ago) | Reason: Edit to add the multilanguage tag in the title.

---

#2 Multilingual 

Multilingual | [English] | Deutsch | Français
As far as I'm concerned, the restriction in inviting non-attached or non-nationals is more of an artificial restriction. That one can invite for example Kami oriented homins to only one Kami guild, but not to any neutral.

I also understand the point of view of orientation in the game. Kamis belong to kamis, marauders to maraudeurs etc.. Then you have a common goal, a common root as far as RP is concerned, but also common teleportation points, which simplifies a lot, in a practical way. The same goes for the nations.

But does this agreement have to be regulated on the basis of a restriction in the game, or can it be agreed between homins? Perhaps other regulations could be better for the guild?

But as I observe, this strict separation visibly no longer exists. Maybe a reaction to the Kitins?

I know, of course, that many PVP players want the old fractional PVP back. But it seems that the wars today are no longer based on the beliefs of a faction or nation, but more on individualism. The Kalamar Alliance also shows that. When it comes to conflicts, it seems to me that it's more about past bad contacts or just enjoying a fight.

Of course, such guild constellations, consisting of all factions, would have an enormous potential for conflict when it comes to fighting, but then it would be more personal. Many compromises would have to be made in RP.

In the end, it's not about mixing everything up and not seeing clear boundaries between beliefs of a faction or a nation, but the possibility to work together in a guild despite opposing faction/nation, which is not a must.

I also wanted to remind you that the fractional PVP, which is more like a death match today, was subject to restrictions in the past. If this is what most people are in favor of, then the guild limit should also be changed.

Personally, I think freedom in a sandbox game is like dancing on a razor blade. You can fall left or right, but even if you're careless, you can split in two. That's why it would be great if there were always a lot of constructive opinions.

Thanks!

---

#3 [fr] 

Heernis

Supprimer la restriction artificielle "Fraction/Nation<->Guild


J'ai une petite idée....

Pourquoi pas des guildes neutres composées d'homins de toutes les factions : Rangers, Maraudeurs, Kami, Karavan et Neutres ?

Pour l'instant, ce n'est pas possible. Pour autant que je sache, les guildes qui sont orientées vers une faction ne peuvent être que des neutres ou des homins qui sont convertis à la même faction. Il en va de même pour l'appartenance à une nation.

Pourquoi ne pas changer cela ?

En temps d'alliances entre factions combattant les Kitins, ou une faction écrasante comme les Kamis, de telles guildes pourraient se former. Seule cette limitation l'empêche artificiellement.

J'aimerais connaître votre opinion sur cette idée.

Comme tu le dis "En temps d'alliance". Donc pendant une période donnée.

Quel intérêt à avoir plusieurs peuples, plusieurs factions (et des nouvelles), une Lore des plus riches et toujours plus enrichies chaque jour. Des event orienté RP et de nation... si c'est pour tout enlever dans les guildes ?
Autant rebâtir Ryzom avec qu'un seul peuple disponible, plus aucune faction, ni nation... une seule carte à explorer. On efface aussi toute la Lore et le RP.

Si ton but est d'avoir une guilde neutre... libre à toi de la faire, avec les contraintes que ça implique. Rappelle-toi que même les guildes alignées sont sous les contraintes de leurs alignements.

---

Zagabranth Di Avalae
Noble du Royaume
Herën de l'Ordre Alkiane
_________________________
RyzomWorld (pas à jour mais toujours consultable)
Le Lexique Mateis (en développement)
Alkiane Outils (AppIG & Site)

#4 Multilingual 

Multilingual | Français | [English]
Since the background topic is alliances, I would more see a guild regroupement with functions quite similar to a basic guild (without guild hall, each guild already own one.).

Adding a "Coalition" tab in the guild window to list the differents guilds that are part of the coalition (list of connected or not, at the discretion of each guild leader).

A chat shared with all guild in the coalition.

Being able to invite to the guilds halls any member of the coalition.

A coalition should cost dappers at creation and each day of its existence also, an equal sum for each guild of the coalition. If a guild can not pay, the coalition is dissolved.

Last edited by Ekoh (8 months ago) | Reason: add english translation.

---

#5 [en] 

I am all for such guilds, and consider the mandatory faction-based restrictions on membership to break any sense of immersion Ryzom has by bringing the reality I play games to escape from into Ryzom. Now, I know that there are plenty of folks out there that need a script to follow in order to feel like they are "roleplaying", but there are some of us who prefer more of a sandbox approach if for no reason other than a world where the society and character development are organic instead of scripted is more immersive. (How ironic that those who claim to be pro-RP seem to be so anti-immersion...)

We all love Ryzom. However, it's also been obvious to me for most of the years I've been here that one demographic is extremely determined to divide the server by imposing their preferred restrictions upon us all even if it means killing the game. If you want to impose restrictions on yourself or be part of a guild who will toss you for reasons that many of us would consider ridiculous, then that's your right. But when you try to take away other folks' freedom simply because you cannot restrain yourself or are egotistical enough to think that your way is THE ONLY CORRECT WAY then you're just asking for a fight. That sort of fight is not good for the future of Ryzom. Sure, that fight might not actually kill any people the way the same fight would IRL, but it will kill the game.There are worse things than being tolerant of those who do not seek to restrict themselves as strictly as you do. Don't do the in-game equivalent of outlawing meat for everyone simply because you are a vegetarian unless you seek to destroy Atys!
Zagh
Si ton but est d'avoir une guilde neutre... libre à toi de la faire, avec les contraintes que ça implique.
Just as prisoners are free to go anywhere they want so long as they do not leave the prison? I think that you and I have irreconcilably different opinions on what "freedom" means.

Edited 4 times | Last edited by Gidget (8 months ago)

---

Do not assume that you speak for all just because you are the loudest voice; there are many who disagree that simply have no desire to waste words on you.

#6 Multilingual 

Multilingual | Deutsch | [English]
Zagh
Comme tu le dis "En temps d'alliance". Donc pendant une période donnée.

Quel intérêt à avoir plusieurs peuples, plusieurs factions (et des nouvelles), une Lore des plus riches et toujours plus enrichies chaque jour. Des event orienté RP et de nation... si c'est pour tout enlever dans les guildes ?
Autant rebâtir Ryzom avec qu'un seul peuple disponible, plus aucune faction, ni nation... une seule carte à explorer. On efface aussi toute la Lore et le RP.

Si ton but est d'avoir une guilde neutre... libre à toi de la faire, avec les contraintes que ça implique. Rappelle-toi que même les guildes alignées sont sous les contraintes de leurs alignements.


My goals are outside this forum post, but if you're addressing it:
  • I am NOT against the lore or to destroy everyone, what RP means or has to do with.
  • I am FOR further development, more human decisions, instead of artificial limitation, but with consequences.

There will still be classic guilds of a faction line even if the artificial restriction is removed. No one is stopping the homins from doing so. There is much more that unites the factions or nations than could be destroyed by the abolition of an artificial "invitation prevention".

On the one hand, I understand that restrictions give security. According to the motto: "A Karavan can never be a member of a Kami guild". But even if he could be invited, the teleporters would tell if he is telling the truth.

That's it. So that we don't misunderstand each other.

One possibility would be to replace an artificial "invitation prevention" by letting the homins pay for it. That is, he loses Dapper to his current faction or the fame decreases significantly. I would see that as a practical consequence.

Practical: A Karavan joins a Kami guild. By accepting the invitation, the Karavan loses 20 fame for example or/and loses 100,000 Dapper to the Karavan as punishment.

That would be, for example, what I could imagine. Whereby the numbers would have to be adapted.

Last edited by Heernis (8 months ago) | Reason: added english translation

---

#7 [en] 

I have seen both sides of the issue- Nations/orgainzations charter or sponsor guilds so it is in their interest to impose restrictions, but also players still learning or just playing for fun sometimes can't join a guild that there friends are in.

I do think that there are already three solutions:

Change your allegiances to match those of your friends.
Create a league to organize.
Create a custom channel (aka Cookies).

Historically, the only thing a guild provides you personally is a chat channel and an additional online list and less commonly used guild forums. Now there are guild islands and hopefully you will be able to invite visitors! The league and custom channel already cover the chat and online component.

Last edited by Placio (8 months ago)

#8 [fr] 

Une guilde fyros n'accueille forcément que des fyros, une guilde kami que des kamis. Une guilde neutre ceci dit, devrait pouvoir accueillir des kamistes et des karavaniers. Sauf que dans ce cas c'est les kamis et la karavan qui ne seraient pas d'accord pour autoriser ses adeptes à fréquenter les membres de la faction opposée. Qu'ils les fréquentent de manière cachée (par exemple lors d'une chasse ou autre), pourquoi pas. Mais pas dans une guilde, qui est quelque chose de public. C'est comme si tu disais publiquement: je suis kara mais je travaille avec les kamis. C'est illogique. A la rigueur, dans une coalition, pour affronter une menace ponctuelle (type kitins), ça se tient. Mais pas dans une guilde. C'est trop à mon sens. Les puissances ne sont pas censé accepter que des membres de sa faction fréquentent quotidiennement des membres de la faction opposée, et ils devraient alors les bannir pour trahison.

Ce qui n'empêche pas les homins dans une guilde neutre ou de nation mais qui se sentent kamistes par exemple de ne pas passer le rite kami afin de pouvoir rester dans leur guilde. En fait, les croyances ne dépendent pas d'un rite. Tu peux très bien te dire: je suis kamiste mais aussi fyros, et je préfère les fyros aux kamis, donc je ne passe pas le rite kami afin de rester dans ma guilde neutre fyros, car la nation d'abord.

Last edited by Azazor (8 months ago)

---

fyros pure sève
akash i orak, talen i rechten!
élucubrations
biographie

#9 [en] 

I don't know about faction restrictions, I can say I absolutely hate citizenship restrictions on guilds. I'd like to see all of it be optional - guilds could enforce it if they want to, but wouldn't have to if they don't. The playerbase is small as is and it feels like these limitations force us to have lots of tiny guilds instead of a few really strong ones, only serving to fracture us further.
I do think that there are already three solutions:

Change your allegiances to match those of your friends.
Create a league to organize.
Create a custom channel (aka Cookies).

The issue with these solutions is that they're not really solutions. What if I don't want to change my allegiance due to RP reasons? It's perfectly plausible that a Kami homin would want to be friends with a Karavan homin despite the two factions being at odds. But they can't join the same guild due to artificial restrictions.

Leagues are nice but they're incredibly clunky and inconvenient, which is why I only ever see them used for SN or OP wars. A custom channel would be the only solution when it comes to chat.

But guilds are more than just chat. There is also a guild hall with materials and gear. Having to ask someone else what's in there and if they could get it for you would be a nightmare.

I guess some guilds don't use their forums much, I know ours is full of useful information, so I would hate to lose that feature as well.

Lastly, there is a certain sense of belonging when members of a guild carry the same banner over their heads.

As I've said above, I would like to have race and faction restrictions be completely optional. That way, we can all play the game the way we want to without negatively impacting others.

---

Luminatrix

Explorer, storyteller, universalist, fighter for freedom and equality.

"Without contraries, there is no progression" - William Blake

#10 Multilingual 

Multilingual | [English] | Français
Gidget
I am all for such guilds, and consider the mandatory faction-based restrictions on membership to break any sense of immersion Ryzom has by bringing the reality I play games to escape from into Ryzom. Now, I know that there are plenty of folks out there that need a script to follow in order to feel like they are "roleplaying", but there are some of us who prefer more of a sandbox approach if for no reason other than a world where the society and character development are organic instead of scripted is more immersive. (How ironic that those who claim to be pro-RP seem to be so anti-immersion...)

We all love Ryzom. However, it's also been obvious to me for most of the years I've been here that one demographic is extremely determined to divide the server by imposing their preferred restrictions upon us all even if it means killing the game. If you want to impose restrictions on yourself or be part of a guild who will toss you for reasons that many of us would consider ridiculous, then that's your right. But when you try to take away other folks' freedom simply because you cannot restrain yourself or are egotistical enough to think that your way is THE ONLY CORRECT WAY then you're just asking for a fight. That sort of fight is not good for the future of Ryzom. Sure, that fight might not actually kill any people the way the same fight would IRL, but it will kill the game.There are worse things than being tolerant of those who do not seek to restrict themselves as strictly as you do. Don't do the in-game equivalent of outlawing meat for everyone simply because you are a vegetarian unless you seek to destroy Atys!
Zagh
Si ton but est d'avoir une guilde neutre... libre à toi de la faire, avec les contraintes que ça implique.
Just as prisoners are free to go anywhere they want so long as they do not leave the prison? I think that you and I have irreconcilably different opinions on what "freedom" means.


So, being Matis and Karavan, I shouldn't impose this in my guild that was created to defend these two alignments under the pretext that I potentially deprive a player of his freedom?

What about you who absolutely wants to impose on me your need to "I want to do what I want regardless of the game's history"? Aren't you restricting my freedom to play as I see fit?

Obviously, you're going to answer that no and that I'll be the only decision-maker in my way of playing if everyone can do what they want.
And I answer you that you are in error because leaving room for too much freedom, we arrive at too many mistakes.
For example, fyros and matis hate each other. zorais and trykers hate each other. It's not me who says it, it's Ryzom's lore. You want to play a character who love everyone, free to you, but you are inconsistent with the lore.
So what's the solution to make you "free"? To be able to play your sacrosanct "Sandbox" which doesn't even really exist in Ryzom. I'll give you one. Remove the lore from the game. We offer you a unique world, a single people, and go ahead, do what you want... and strangely enough, this description reminds me of another game... Minecraft.
Why isn't Ryzom really a sandbox? Because we can't do what we want.
New example. I wanted to declare the independence of the territory of Avalae in the Matis kingdom because RP Matis was no longer going. The Lore and Animation team told me "You take too much freedom, it's impossible". Conclusion: Ryzom is not a sandbox (we can't even cut trees to build houses ourselves, it's a joke).

@Heernis I don't see the point of giving integration freedoms in a guild if it's to inflict malus afterwards....

Last edited by Zagh (8 months ago)

---

Zagabranth Di Avalae
Noble du Royaume
Herën de l'Ordre Alkiane
_________________________
RyzomWorld (pas à jour mais toujours consultable)
Le Lexique Mateis (en développement)
Alkiane Outils (AppIG & Site)

#11 [en] 

Zagh
So, being Matis and Karavan, I shouldn't impose this in my guild that was created to defend these two alignments under the pretext that I potentially deprive a player of his freedom?
You are well within your rights to impose those restrictions upon your guild. However, once you try to impose them upon ALL Ryzom players, even those outside your guild, then you overstep your bounds and will be treated as just a wannabe tyrant.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

I have not touched your nose, nor do I have any desire to, but you seek to break mine.

Zagh
What about you who absolutely wants to impose on me your need to "I want to do what I want regardless of the game's history"? Aren't you restricting my freedom to play as I see fit?
Unless you are saying that you refuse to share a server with those who do not agree with you 500%, that makes no sense. And if that IS what you are saying, then it is a threat. I am not restricting your right to play as you see fit except insofar as I am saying that you cannot control me like I am your alt; I have free will. If you wish to order those who are not you around as if we are all your alts though, then you're interfering with the rights of others to play the way they see fit. Accusing me of restricting your rights by asking for a little freedom is projecting. You telling me how I "must" behave because of how YOU interpret lore is completely different.

Zagh
Obviously, you're going to answer that no and that I'll be the only decision-maker in my way of playing if everyone can do what they want.
And I answer you that you are in error because leaving room for too much freedom, we arrive at too many mistakes.
For example, fyros and matis hate each other. zorais and trykers hate each other. It's not me who says it, it's Ryzom's lore. You want to play a character who love everyone, free to you, but you are inconsistent with the lore.
So what's the solution to make you "free"? To be able to play your sacrosanct "Sandbox" which doesn't even really exist in Ryzom. I'll give you one. Remove the lore from the game. We offer you a unique world, a single people, and go ahead, do what you want... and strangely enough, this description reminds me of another game... Minecraft.
Partially correct. However what is "too much freedom"? According to some on this server being less than 50,000% hardcore fundamentalist "LORE IS LIFE!" RP or being able to ever opt out of PvP is "too much freedom". As one who plays games to get away from that sort of radicalism IRL, I think you can understand why I disagree with you so strongly. If I wanted the utter and absolute sovereignty that you seem to want and that you accuse me of wanting (more projection!) then I wouldn't be playing an MMO.

Lore is the past, not the future. There is more to existence than reliving history. Worlds change and things evolve. If you are stuck in the past then the world will leave you behind. If you insist on trying to keep the world stuck in the past, the world will fight you. You can still be a part of what comes next if you do not try to conquer it, but history is generally unkind to the regressive people who seek to stop progress. Look at how many horse-drawn carriages there are, or how long it's been since the Kings of many nations have been replaced by Presidents, and recognize that why Atys may be fiction, it is a construct of human minds and therefore parallels humanity in more ways than you would ever care to admit. That means that change happens.

The lore does not dictate what every single homin throughout the history of the rootball was like. And the racial hatreds you point out are averages, not 120% immutable causative relationships utterly and completely without exception. If your strict interpretation was remotely correct then the Corsair tribe would be impossible because ALL Trykers are Karavan. Does that sound flippant? If so, then imagine how you sound to me.

And no, there is no danger of Atys ever being "one people". There will always be those who cannot function in civilized society who will separate themselves from it. IRL, those are often folks who have views that are far stricter than those of mainstream society not unlike your exceedingly narrow interpretation on what Lore considers acceptable. Given that Atys toons are controlled by RL humans, it is not unreasonable to assume that the sociology here will mirror that no matter what. In fact, is that not why the Marauders were officialized as a faction; to give the outcasts who refused to fit onto Atysian society an home?
Zagh
Why isn't Ryzom really a sandbox? Because we can't do what we want. New example. I wanted to declare the independence of the territory of Avalae in the Matis kingdom because RP Matis was no longer going. The Lore and Animation team told me "You take too much freedom, it's impossible". Conclusion: Ryzom is not a sandbox (we can't even cut trees to build houses ourselves, it's a joke).
There are some limits to be sure. For one thing, a game with a lot of code from 2004 (including the engine) is going to have inherent limits. Then there is the fact that stuff like cutting trees and building houses requires a lot of dev-hours to add in; dev-hours are a finite resource for a small team, so it stands to reason that maybe giving a NeL-engine game the freedom the RAGE engine gives GTA5 players isn't a high priority (or even a possibility).

Just as tabletop GMs control the NPCs of their campaign, the dev team controls the NPCs and the world here. Us player-controlled toons are not the only homins on Atys, and the NPC rulers are not going to just hand you territory because you have the sense of entitlement. However, how us players interact with each other is something that cannot be controlled the same way unless you think authoritarian regimes are a good thing. There have been wars fought against that sort of thing; do you want to start a similar (though, admittedly, smaller-scale) war here? Before you answer, look at which side has won most of those conflicts.

By your logic, the lore is so strict that we don't even need to play; our roles are so rigidly defined that the devs don't need players because Ryzom is just a graphic novel. If that sounds like I am mischaracterizing your position by exaggerating then maybe you should look at yourself and ask why there are so many who agree with me. You really, truly are seen that way by a lot of folks; I'm simply the most vocal about it because many would rather just turn off the chat and avoid the forums or simply quit the game than speak out the way I do. You can't have RP without engagement, yet you do so much to make others want to actively avoid engaging. And if you want to kill Ryzom that badly, then rest assured that I am going to resist you!

Last edited by Gidget (8 months ago)

---

Do not assume that you speak for all just because you are the loudest voice; there are many who disagree that simply have no desire to waste words on you.

#12 [en] 

Zagh
So, being Matis and Karavan, I shouldn't impose this in my guild that was created to defend these two alignments under the pretext that I potentially deprive a player of his freedom?

You are missing the point completely. Impose whatever restrictions you want, just don't force other guilds to impose them as well.
Zagh
What about you who absolutely wants to impose on me your need to "I want to do what I want regardless of the game's history"? Aren't you restricting my freedom to play as I see fit?

Nobody is trying to remove the ability to restrict factions and nations you accept into your guild, just advocating for making them optional for other guilds. Therefore, nobody is restricting your freedom to play as you see fit.
Zagh
Obviously, you're going to answer that no and that I'll be the only decision-maker in my way of playing if everyone can do what they want.

Exactly. Because that's how it is.
Zagh
And I answer you that you are in error because leaving room for too much freedom, we arrive at too many mistakes.
For example, fyros and matis hate each other. zorais and trykers hate each other. It's not me who says it, it's Ryzom's lore. You want to play a character who love everyone, free to you, but you are inconsistent with the lore.

The lore isn't a set of rules. It's a story about the past of Atys. As far as I know, when it comes to politics, they have always been very player driven. Therefore, cross-faction alliances aren't impossible. Besides, they would make sense from a lore standpoint, too. It's not uncommon for people to unite against a common enemy, be it the kitins or the marauders, or maybe something else entirely.
Zagh
New example. I wanted to declare the independence of the territory of Avalae in the Matis kingdom because RP Matis was no longer going. The Lore and Animation team told me "You take too much freedom, it's impossible".

Honestly? I'd be all for it. As long as there is some kind of event where you come to an agreement with the Matis kingdom and Matis citizens. Though it depends on how you would like to do this. If it would just end up annoying other players, then it might not be that great of an idea.

All in all, you are making a huge issue out of something that isn't one. Nobody is trying to force you to abandon your way of playing, merely asking for more options that would better accomodate other playstyles. You are being defensive but there is nobody attacking you. There are many communities on Atys. I believe we can live in a peaceful coexistence (and I mean as players, not neccessarily as characters), but that means all sides of the conversation need to take steps to achieve it. The playerbase is small and we should work together to make our stay on our beloved rootball as pleasant as possible, learn some tolerance and stop antagonizing each other just because we think someone else's fun is wrong. Shouting about how your way is the only right way isn't going to make things any better. Realizing that different people like different things and that that's perfectly okay just might.

---

Luminatrix

Explorer, storyteller, universalist, fighter for freedom and equality.

"Without contraries, there is no progression" - William Blake

#13 [fr] 

Pour résumer, il y a ceux qui s'en foutent de la lore et pensent jouer à un MMO, et ceux pour qui la lore est importante et pensent jouer à un MMORPG.
On peut toujours se voiler la face, mais les deux sont incompatibles. Car tout ce qui contrevient à la lore va gêner les RPistes, tout ce qui est lore va gêner les non RP.

Une solution? Deux serveurs, un RP, un autre WTFYW
Le problème? On n'a pas assez de sous pour faire deux serveurs, ni assez de bénévoles. Donc on va continuer de se tirer la bourre jusqu'à ce que l'un ou l'autre des camps en ait marre et se barre. Pour l'instant, c'est plutôt les RPiste qui se cassent. Hélas...

Autre solution? Que les proprios du jeu et tous les bénévoles et salariés (bref, ceux qui font vivre le jeu) assument et disent enfin une bonne fois pour toute ce qu'est ryzom: un MMO ou un MMORPG?

---

fyros pure sève
akash i orak, talen i rechten!
élucubrations
biographie

#14 Multilingual 

Multilingual | Français | [English]
I have already talked about it in game with Heernis and he was clearly more understanding than you both (Gidget and Luminatrix). So for the both of you I'm going to make one last intervention here hoping that you finally understand my point of view (and if not, I would have wasted my time).

1. The lore is a base that every player must respect. The Fyros and Zorai citizens are associated with the Kamis. Matis and trykers are associated with karavans. It's the basis. Some players prefer to be stateless, perfect, it's possible. Others want to be marauders, so the gameplay is also available. Others want to be atheists, as well. On the other hand, what the player chooses for his character, you have to assume in order not to make any nonsense with the lore, the famous base of the game.

2. To assume one's choices is therefore to, if one plays a karavan, not to play with a kami. The two factions can't stand each other and only get together when hominity is in danger of extinction, guys, so stop trying to play a kami and a karavan to kill najab on Void or to have enough people to kill a poor boss.

3. Imagining that the idea of Heernis would come true. That is, a kami can join a karavan guild (or a marauder or any other enemy defined by the lore), this is the opportunity to kill all the Ryzom RP, nation RP and faction RP.
- Mega-guilds will bloom on the game for the sole purpose of farming as never before bosses and supreme (And who cares about nations and factions, better a melting pot for the Endgame and kill the RP).
- Guilds that want to keep a minimum of Lore-based guidelines, such as not making friends with kamis when you are karavan, will actually be biased by this overpowering melting pot guild system.
- What enemy will there be to fight if everyone can join everyone? Once again, we should only do one massive and uniform entity, without difference and without challenge except for the race for endgame.

This hyper permissive guild system is synonymous with the death of the nation and faction PR. Marauders who are enemies of both would have nothing left to fight against... and even if they could join these mega-guilds. The total incoherence.

Ryzom is not the IRL. If you are looking for a social mix, you might as well go out in a pub and have a drink and meet new people, travel and discover new cultures. Ryzom is a game, with its history, a fragile peace treaty between its 4 peoples. Religious tensions, and environmental and anarchic threats. If you ignore these elements, it's because we're not playing the same game. The closest thing to the mix and openness you want to have in play is the Rangers. Think about it.

You want butter, money and butter, and the ass of the creamer (French expression). Basically, you want to keep your lines (if you have any right now) and still be able to play with a player who is supposed to be in opposition to you. It's like wanting to eat only junk food and claiming a dream body without doing anything because both things are cool. It is nonsense.

You don't have to answer me personally. We'll always disagree and you'll keep telling me that your style of play is the best when it doesn't respect anything about the game. And you, you will definitely be deaf to my arguments about respect for the lore and the opposition games that have defined Ryzom since 2004.

And I see that translation efforts are still as unidirectional as ever.

Edited 2 times | Last edited by Zagh (8 months ago)

---

Zagabranth Di Avalae
Noble du Royaume
Herën de l'Ordre Alkiane
_________________________
RyzomWorld (pas à jour mais toujours consultable)
Le Lexique Mateis (en développement)
Alkiane Outils (AppIG & Site)

#15 [en] 

You talk to Heernis too? Funny coincidence, that! And yes, he is understanding. Then again, I do not conflate "understanding" and "agreement" the way you do either. I understand you better than you give me credit for; I simply disagree quite strongly, and I would rather you not mistake my disagreement for simple-mindedness.

Your argument basically boils down to admitting an inability and unwillingness to allow more forward-thinking players to look beyond how Ryzom was 10 years ago. You consider societal change to be disrespectful because you cling to the old ways.

Or maybe you're just afraid of being treated the way many of us have been treated for years.

You ask what enemy we can fight? Have you forgotten why the Trykers fought the Matis in the past and are not fond of Zorai now? Or did you choose Matis because you find their haughtiness and self-entitlement resonated within you just as the Tryker's love for freedom appealed to me? Like I said before, so long as there's folks like you around, we'll never have the unified mega-guild that you seem to think will happen if we don't all bow to your demands for authoritarian division. And our fight won't be because you're Matis or Karavan, though it won't be any less factional. (See another of Heernis' threads for more on that.)

Just because one does not interpret the lore as you do or feel that the future must be identical to the past as you do does not mean we ignore or disrespect lore. In fact, you're part of why I renounced Jena and went Ranger; I respect the lore enough to not gloss over the ideological divide between us simply for the sake of using the same TPs as my guildmates.

But keep going on about how I disrespect lore by interpreting it less fanatically restrictive than you, and how my choosing to be friends with people outside my faction is more of a restriction on you rights than telling me I CANNOT cross faction lines would be to mine. However, I would appreciate it if you showed me at least enough respect to do so without being hypocritical, megalomaniacal, or just plain self-entitled. If you cannot give me at least that little bit of respect, then you cannot expect me to give you unearned respect.

Edited 3 times | Last edited by Gidget (8 months ago)

---

Do not assume that you speak for all just because you are the loudest voice; there are many who disagree that simply have no desire to waste words on you.
uiWebPrevious12345678uiWebNext
 
Last visit Thu Nov 21 15:55:36 2019 UTC
P_:

powered by ryzom-api