+1
And thanks a lot for the explanation, I never understood how the points are calculated, and I agree that it is neither very transparent nor sounding extremely logical.
What I do not fully understand is how that is working for (or against) neutrals in both religion and nation.
>Kami vs. Karavan neutrals -> +2
Hm. There is an enemy match K-K, understood. But where is the other one from? Assume 2 nation neutrals, one Kara, one Kami.
They may have all nations above 25, or even only 2, but the rest not below -25. So they may have neutral Fyros and Zorai (not below -25, thus disregarded), and positive Tryker and Matis faction (match), thus multiplier capped to 0. A full nation neutral (all >+25, like Rangers) will always have 0..1 against a religios citizen, right?
Kami or Karavan neutrals vs marauders -> 0
I did not understand that either. A religion neutral is disagreeing with marauders about K+K. Shouldn't that make 2 enemy matches, at least with religion fame >25?
In fact, a full neutral (all fame >25) would count in as always the "worst enemy" towards marauders (6 enemy matches), or? That is consistent with the fame difference, yet it is stupid for roleplay, as fully neutrals (at least most actively roleplaying ones) tend to respect marauder players as fellow homins, disagreement about nations and creeds notwithstanding. For both Karavan and Kami followers, marauders are committing sacrileges (Kami - playing with Goo, Kara - exploring the deep PR), so they should be worse enemies in their roleplay.
Removing the "rule A" is a good starting point, and I fully support it (do not see any disadvantage, or am I missing
something?)
Yet that would not remove all contradictions which seem to be a side effect of the unification of PvP points. A more
transparent and logical system would be a good idea, indeed.
And thanks a lot for the explanation, I never understood how the points are calculated, and I agree that it is neither very transparent nor sounding extremely logical.
What I do not fully understand is how that is working for (or against) neutrals in both religion and nation.
>Kami vs. Karavan neutrals -> +2
Hm. There is an enemy match K-K, understood. But where is the other one from? Assume 2 nation neutrals, one Kara, one Kami.
They may have all nations above 25, or even only 2, but the rest not below -25. So they may have neutral Fyros and Zorai (not below -25, thus disregarded), and positive Tryker and Matis faction (match), thus multiplier capped to 0. A full nation neutral (all >+25, like Rangers) will always have 0..1 against a religios citizen, right?
Kami or Karavan neutrals vs marauders -> 0
I did not understand that either. A religion neutral is disagreeing with marauders about K+K. Shouldn't that make 2 enemy matches, at least with religion fame >25?
In fact, a full neutral (all fame >25) would count in as always the "worst enemy" towards marauders (6 enemy matches), or? That is consistent with the fame difference, yet it is stupid for roleplay, as fully neutrals (at least most actively roleplaying ones) tend to respect marauder players as fellow homins, disagreement about nations and creeds notwithstanding. For both Karavan and Kami followers, marauders are committing sacrileges (Kami - playing with Goo, Kara - exploring the deep PR), so they should be worse enemies in their roleplay.
Removing the "rule A" is a good starting point, and I fully support it (do not see any disadvantage, or am I missing
something?)
Yet that would not remove all contradictions which seem to be a side effect of the unification of PvP points. A more
transparent and logical system would be a good idea, indeed.
---
Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral