Jena Year 2602 Patch (Patch 3.5.0 - 2019-02-08) - OFFICIAL NEWS

#16 Added by Sinvaders 6 years ago Report | Quote [fr]

{translate}

What is the next step ? A window to choose if you want to be tagged PvP in a PvP zone ?

#17 Added by Moniq 6 years ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

True. Why not simply make neutrals in battle zone attackable by both sides? It is same risk as if you enter PvP zone... even higher. Why not do it same way if you wish not to join either side?

#18 Added by Revvy 6 years ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

Moniq

True. Why not simply make neutrals in battle zone attackable by both sides? It is same risk as if you enter PvP zone... even higher. Why not do it same way if you wish not to join either side?

This is good and legit. I like.

Last edited by Revvy (6 years ago)

---

Spoiler

#19 Added by Jahuu 6 years ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

Moniq

True. Why not simply make neutrals in battle zone attackable by both sides? It is same risk as if you enter PvP zone... even higher. Why not do it same way if you wish not to join either side?

Hmm, or no sides, but ability to heal/attack anyone whenever in OP, PvP zones, tagged..

Leagues already do the side selecting anyway ^^

---

#20 Added by Revvy 6 years ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

Jahuu

Hmm, or no sides, but ability to heal/attack anyone whenever in OP, PvP zones, tagged..

Leagues already do the side selecting anyway ^^

For PvP zone and tagged, its the case already for everyone, not only pseudo neutral.
For OP, if a neutral as the possibility to heal then he isn't neutral anymore, if he has the possibility to attack, then he isn't a neutral anymore.
And if he can do this, and not been attackable, its ridiculous.

Moniq suggestion was to create a sort of "void" status, like a renegade status into OP, if you stay without choosing a side, you are categorized Renegade, and can attack anyone -> but anyone can attack you yoo.

Thinking about it... it would allow a 3 party's fight instead of 2, which is quite interesting !

Last edited by Revvy (6 years ago)

---

Spoiler

#21 Added by Sinvaders 6 years ago Report | Quote [fr]

{translate}

I really like Moniq's idea.

#22 Added by Jahuu 6 years ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

Revvy

Jahuu
Hmm, or no sides, but ability to heal/attack anyone whenever in OP, PvP zones, tagged..

Leagues already do the side selecting anyway ^^

For PvP zone and tagged, its the case already for everyone, not only pseudo neutral.
For OP, if a neutral as the possibility to heal then he isn't neutral anymore, if he has the possibility to attack, then he isn't a neutral anymore.
And if he can do this, and not been attackable, its ridiculous.

Moniq suggestion was to create a sort of "void" status, like a renegade status into OP, if you stay without choosing a side, you are categorized Renegade, and can attack anyone -> but anyone can attack you yoo.

Thinking about it... it would allow a 3 party's fight instead of 2, which is quite interesting !

This is bit what I ment, there is no more just 2 factions, so maybe could have more sides/partys. Nobody is statically on one side as in real life, not just "you're opponent, I kill you". More talk, more RP maybe too, sides, alliances, betrayals. Ok, maybe getting out of hand...

Back to topic, think getting rid of neutral side was good idea, no more alts standing in OP.

---

#23 Added by Placio 6 years ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

Removing the neutral button seems like it was done to prevent spies and more importantly neutral ammo crafters/carriers.

I sincerely doubt either battle party would want to chase rangers or other legitimately neutral homies around while they have rounds to win. Even if that were the case- walking into a war zone is dangerous. I don’t know what the effect of not choosing attack or defend will be, but it is probably negligible compared to a GM having to tp to all battles to remove neutral alts.....

#24 Added by Craftjenn 6 years ago Report | Quote Multilingual

Multilingual | [English] | Français

{translate}

Hello,

Sorry, I won't talk about OP battle, or discuss about factions...

About The Guild Island, our Guild Leader proposed us to visit some Island.
I am writting on the wiki some notes (mainly about ARK)

I think I will create a page to show several creations... in case someone would like to add some screenies :p

See you

---

Mon profil sur le wiki Francais

https://fr.wiki.ryzom.com/wiki/Utilisatrice:Craftjenn

Craftjenn, Ranger

#25 Added by Revvy 6 years ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

Good idea Craftjenn ;)

Also i would like to see a way for Marauder to defend Marauder generals Pei, Sergio, Lixie and Aen.

---

Spoiler

#26 Added by Laoviel 6 years ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

I fail to see this "problem" as more than a storm in a cup.

Outpost battles take two hours from a day. Just. Two. Hours. (or one hour, in the future)

Most outposts are not placed at bottleneck points; there is always another path, going *around* said outpost. The only exceptions are Westgrove and Ginti, and even then .. you can go the long route unless both are under attack at the same time.

So, considering this, most regular players will NOT be inconvenienced by battles: they can find another time to trek around, they can take a detour around the outpost, or they can use power-ups to pass through untouched (even if forced to get tagged). Instead, alts and neutral ammo crafters are going to be inconvenienced. Cry me a river...

---

My home is always sweet Yrkanis..

#27 Added by Tryroamer 6 years ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

i really do not understand that you all seem to think it perfectly okay to assault a neutral player character, who has no intention of taking part in pvp (such as me) thus forcing pvp upon her/him instead of simply allowing that person the option to tp on out of there and not return duing tha battl activity there..

At all other times in all other places, a non-pvp interested player,cannot be pvp attacked without her/his consent. And should such a pvp assault nevertheless be somehow carried out, thatn that must have been via an exploit and thus against the rules here.

Truly, should a neutral player knowingly enter the area of the OP battle while it be ongoing, then I could agree that that player character in keeping with the rules could legitimately get attacked in pvp, especially since (i assume) a warning is given to leave or else.

But if said non-pvp interested player simply happen to be in a OP battle area when that battle ensues, why not simply let the poor sap (me for example) tp on out of there as quickly as the game mechanics make possible ??

You fear spying? Well then punish that such player as does spying, but leave poor little ole me out of your intrigues i plea!

There is to be no transitting such OP battle affected areas? Fair enough, then no transitting of them.. I am ok with that too.

But i plead in all earnest and heartpain for allowing a mere refugee of such a situation to flee for her/his life and limb and inventory safety via tp instead of having to choose a side. Do not force pvp on non-pvp interested persons please.

#28 Added by Placio 6 years ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

No one is stopping you from fleeing or forcing you to fight, you just are no longer allowed to sit in the middle of a temporary PVP area as 'neutral.'

#29 Added by Siela 6 years ago Report | Quote [en]

{translate}

Tryroamer

At all other times in all other places, a non-pvp interested player,cannot be pvp attacked without her/his consent. And should such a pvp assault nevertheless be somehow carried out, thatn that must have been via an exploit and thus against the rules here.

That's not really true. The whole Lands of Umbra as well as Nexus are PvP, and if you want to go there you have no choice than to get pvp tagged. Same as on an OP during the actual attack phase.

Tryroamer

But if said non-pvp interested player simply happen to be in a OP battle area when that battle ensues, why not simply let the poor sap (me for example) tp on out of there as quickly as the game mechanics make possible ??

So let's say you indeed are in such an area before the OP Battle starts. You will be informed AT LEAST 24 hours before that this Outpost is attacked and so you are in a "dangerous" zone. You decide to stay there? Then it's your own problem. And 24 hours is more than enough time to tp out.
Now what if you didn't see the warning for whatever weird reason? Ok you will be assigned to a random side. You might be killed ok. But then you can tp out to any place like you asked for. And you don't even get DP when killed by enemies on OP. So this is already with current mechanics true.

Tryroamer

But i plead in all earnest and heartpain for allowing a mere refugee of such a situation to flee for her/his life and limb and inventory safety via tp instead of having to choose a side. Do not force pvp on non-pvp interested persons please.

---

#30 Added by Naema 6 years ago Report | Quote [fr]

{translate}

I play as a Ranger and I have to agree with Revvy on this, If I was an innocent and wandered into a battle zone, hey, I could get hurt! So, I also agree with Moniq, Rangers should be able to be killed by anybody in the 'Zone.' I also agree with Bittymacod, it should only be for those 2 hours of the battle. Otherwise, I can take my chances and speed run through it with MPA or Invulnerability or sneak maybe, that is MY risk. I also think if I wander into this zone during a battle, that I should be given a certain amount of time to get out of it too! Not 3 seconds, but maybe more, maybe 15 seconds. That gives you enough time to read what the heck is going on. I have often accidently wandered into an area where war was declared and I didn't know it. So I should have the chance to exit the zone promptly.