Why I choose .... - English - Ryzom Community Forum

#18 Added by Sueky(arispotle) 1 decade ago Report | Quote [en]

Suboxide

This might be the wrong place to explain what marauder means in the implementation of the game we have now but I'm still doing it:

There are 4 races in game and but 6 ways ppl can choose to align to these races:
Tryker, Matis, Fyros, Zorai => citizin title + PVP tag = +30 and a quest and you belong to the race
Marauder, Hominist => pvp tag only for now = -25 OR +25 fame for all 4 races

There are 2 "gods" in this game and 4 ways you can align to them
Karavan, Kami => title + PVP tag = +33 fame & quest gives you access to their tp's excpet PR and 250 zones
= +60 fame gives you access to their PR and 250 zones TP's
Theist, Anti-Theist => pvp tag only for now = -25 OR +25 fame for both alignments (only access to neutral tp's)

So if you want to be correct then:
Neutrals should be called "Theists"
Marauders should be called "Anti-Theists"

Alot of ppl seem to think being a marauder means you can't follow jena or ma-duk but how i see it in it's current implementation marauders use these "Gods". Marauders seem to be more angry with the city's and how they are ruled by the homins then with those "Gods".
So if you want to make a topic about why ppl choose a faction over the other one then pls keep to the faction choises and don't push us marauders in faction wars since we don't have anything to do with faction based since a marauder is able to align for his personal gain. Or you can expand the idea over faction+race and then you could incorperate marauder under race politics.

You've misunderstood my intentions here. The last thing I want to do is PUSH anyone into faction wars. The topic is "Why I choose [blank]" so that everyone has an equal chance to introduce their character no matter what faction, cult or civ, they follow. The reason the four choices are categorized as kami, karavan, neutral, and marauder is because those are the options that affect character fame, and I want to keep them seperated so that they are easier to find. I have no problems changing neutral to Theists and marauder to Anti-Theists. Thank you for clearing up that Marauders can be cult aligned, Suboxide. Any other feedback is also appreciated.

Last edited by Sueky(arispotle) (1 decade ago)

#19 Added by Marelli(arispotle) 1 decade ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

I love seeing different RP perspectives, but yes, the more related to gameplay the more risk of flames.

No commenting may solve most of it, hard as it will be not being allowed to correct someone when they post as their reason "well the official lore *clearly* says the Karavan created the Kitin, so they're clearly evil" :P

Personally my anti-flame measure of choice would be to allow only reasons related to lore, because it's when people bring up their *other* reasons that these things tend to go flamey. A famous reason for chosing a faction is "The other faction is full of nothing but jerks, while everyone in this faction has always been nice." It's not even said to flame, that really *is* their experience and their reason, or they feel they need to 'warn others'. But yeah, flamey ensues.

But, most players *do* chose a faction based more on other players than on lore, so do we want to leave that out? Do we want to hear it in the first place? Do we want players' reasons for chosing a faction or characters'?

#20 Added by Sueky(arispotle) 1 decade ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

You bring up good points, Marelli. Good idea on your suggestion to allow only reasons related to lore. One of my reasons for doing this is to read the experience, the history of the players from 2525 to the present as told by the players themselves. In the old boards some players would add links to their introduction, which always lead to good information and has helped me in creating my character’s background.

I understand the concern. I want to figure out a way to minimize it, and prevent it from happening as much as you all do. I can add rules and hope that they’ll be followed and that the forum moderators help in maintaining those rules, but it isn’t a guarantee that some bad apples won’t try to add their poison.

Ryzom has always been identified as having a friendly mature community; I can only hope that everyone who participates in adding their character’s introduction will do it with the same spirit Ryzom has been branded with. New players can then see it as an example and hopefully follow in the same steps.

#21 Added by Eivor(arispotle) 1 decade ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

I think this is a great idea, but having been hit by the lore-stick (very Selective interpretation of lore ignoring the actual game-world) before, I'm leery of allowing lore as the sole basis of comment. Either no comments to avoid flaming entirely, or allow comments to be based either on lore OR facts about the world. I personally find it irresponsible to treat Lore as fact, when lore, like history, is written with bias. A good roleplaying world like ryzom incorporates that bias into lore so it seems realistic. Of course various factions and civilizations will write their histories in a way that presents them in a stellar light. The dates are fact; the degree of amazingness represented by history/propaganda? less so. Treating lore as fact rubs me the wrong way, particularly if world-based rebuttal is disallowed.

#22 Added by Sueky(arispotle) 1 decade ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

Good Points Eivor.

You and Marelli have nailed the main issues for reasons to flame the topics. And the only solution I have to them is the No Comments rule.

I could provide a character skeleton to be followed? Maybe a character skeleton will help separate the IC and OOC point of views of participating players. Adding the CS will substitute the "you can write IC or OOC" rule.

Example:

Name:
Race:
Cult:
Civ:
Biography/Introduction:
OOC Notes:

I'm also considering adding an explenation of fame for each faction, and their perks and restrictions towards game play/mechanics. Or provide links to these topics already on the forums.

Last edited by Sueky(arispotle) (1 decade ago)

#23 Added by Sueky(arispotle) 1 decade ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

Thank you everyone who participated in the poll. Though the poll is close your opinions continues to be important.

I came across the explanation of the higher powers, the nations, and the neutrals in the wiki.

From the very beginning, the players who didn't align with any faction and thus remained neutral have often been referred to as the third faction (in the case of the higher powers) or the fifth faction (in the case of the civilizations). It's a matter of opinion whether neutrality is actually a faction or rather the lack of faction.

This issue was only complicated further when different kinds of neutral were implemented: Hominists who are friendly with all nations, Marauders who are hostile to all nations, Theists who are friendly with both higher powers and Antitheists who are hostile to both higher powers. All those groups also get their own Faction PvP icon.

And of course, there are still the remaining neutrals who don't fall into any of those groups. So all in all there are now 6 different neutral factions.

I am now hesitant to title the Neutral topic as Theists and give Marauders their own topic, though it seems the game is moving towards giving players the opportunity to become full-fledged Marauders. Technically Marauders fall under the neutral flag, which is what our good friend Suboxide was trying to explain.

I continue to do more research and to try and figure out the best method to have these topics without them becoming a means to flaming.

#24 Added by Marelli(arispotle) 1 decade ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

Eivor

I think this is a great idea, but having been hit by the lore-stick (very Selective interpretation of lore ignoring the actual game-world) before, I'm leery of allowing lore as the sole basis of comment.

Well I never meant it as having to be based in "THE lore as deemed official by the self-appointed RP-cabal". Different interpretations of the lore are part of the reason why one would chose one faction or the other.

I meant it as reasons based on the game itself rather than based on other players, because I wanted to avoid reasons along the line of "I chose Kara because Kami players are all doo-doo heads". But even then I had my doubts because reasons based on other players also include many great RP stories like "this and this person taught me the Kami ways when I was young" etc.

And Eivor correctly points out that fighting over different interpretations of the lore can bring up just as much flaming anyways, so my idea is shot and the No Comments rule is still the best we have.

#25 Added by Sueky(arispotle) 1 decade ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

Marelli

..."self-appointed RP-cabal"...

Where are these people, I want to meet them? :P

#26 Added by Marelli(arispotle) 1 decade ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

On Aniro, I think :P