IDEAS FOR RYZOM

But it's so hard to dig dishonourably. :p

removing the neutral option is like saying switzerland doesnt exist :o}
what happens if ye want to be in that area and not be in op (made the game sooo much better) fun times?

Apt analogy...I respect the right of Switzerland to be neutral, but are you claiming this status gave the Swiss citizens the ability to wander around the battlefields of WW2 unscathed? And, to make the analogy more apt...the concern is not the magical invulnerability of the Swiss, rather the Axis and Allies claiming to be Swiss in order to take advantage of that power.

To avoid this situation, why not just remove the fictional magical ability of the Swiss? They can be neutral all they want and avoid war by avoiding the battlefields (just like they did in real life).

100% agree with above

If there is no neutral option, what is the default set for a person who enters the OP zone and doesn't pick a side?
What happens to players banned from one, or both, sides?

How does removing the neutral option actually fix any of the afore-mentioned problems? :)

And let's not forget how well the Swiss are doing out of the Euro crisis (relatively speaking)...

When your outlook is confined to a narrow point of view, it's easy "not to see" anything. An obvious neutral bias is quite evident in the negative connotations & "labels" attached to neutrals in some posts.

Throughout time most people didn't see a problem with things that didn't affect them. The slave owner for example, had a different outlook as to what was reasonable / unreasonable with respect to conditions slaves lived under.

Again, consider an example.... back in the day I am digging in FF when an attack on Magic Pole is going on. Though I am some 400m away from the OP, I am continually aggro dragged on simply because I am in a direct line between the kara TP and the OP. Where's the call to make any critter aggro'd by a PvP player to "ignore" neutrals ?

Please, don't forget that any change to the neutral option in OP fights would also affect the other shards. On leanon we got a large faction of neutral non-pvp players and many of us like to watch op battles.

We dont have the mentioned problems with heal-soaking und neutral flagged forward targetters anymore as they are forbidden by the op fight rules now (i think they are the same on all 3 shards).

That's the reason i suggested an option to ban neutrals as this would never happen to true neutrals because they are respected by all fighting factions. If anyone doesn't like me to stay inside asking me to leave is sufficient - which never happend by the way.

Staying far is not an option as I can't see what is going on during the battle. Flagging for the side currently inside the op area isn't working either as blood rage, grenades and bombs don't identify targets properly.

An option to ban neutrals would allow us to watch and you to remove mentioned pseudo-neutrals from the battle. The only problem I can see are players banned from all sides (example: forward enters neutral - gets banned - flags for defender - get banned - is forced to flag offender - gets banned from his own faction - what now?) Possibly they can be flagged as renegades comparable to the yrkanis arena.

You just gave it. =P

As you said, we all see our own little fraction of the world. I have never experienced aggro being dragged on me by PvPers while trying to dig, so I did not foresee that problem. Nor am I trying to cheapen or lessen anyone elses concerns. I was simply trying to suggest a solution for a problem I saw in my tiny tiny sliver of Atys. In my opinion, it remains the best solution presented here, but that is only my opinion and I guarantee it differs from the opinions of others based on what we value.

This, being the suggestion forum, is the place for anyone to make suggestions about the game. As far as I know, everyone is free to suggest solutions to problems they might see. I will admit, my ability to see might even be more limited than most...sure...but it does not change the fact that I saw a problem, and so I offered a solution; narrow as my vision, understanding, or reasoning may be.

If anyone disagrees with my suggestion, argue why the bad outweighs the good of solving the problem, how it does not solve the problem, or even (and this appears to be part of the concern here) how it creates bigger problems...but accepting dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter fallacies in arguing creates slippery slopes...saying no one should suggest improvements or fixes to the game because other problems (which may or may not have had a suggested fix) have not been fixed leaves us not fixing or improving anything.

At the before mentioned OP battle, there were, I would estimate, at least 120 people participating in PvP, I saw around 5-7 untagged individuals (including the ones who were suspiciously standing in the middle of our heal pods). If the developers feel the ability of those 5-7 to sit and "watch" the OP battle from middle trumps the 120 players right to have a battle unfettered by the repercussions and possible exploitation of overlapping changes in game mechanics (namely the fact that everyone now can have a multitude of unidentifiable alts, the game mechanic which allows neutrals in active OP regions, and the ability of teams to be comprised of PvPers and neutrals within this region), well then...that is their choice. I stand by my suggestion, until someone logically explains to me why it is lacking.

Just sayin'.

And I apologize for letting what appear to be biases slip out. Not intended if I offended.

But seriously, I am starting to feel like a troll in my own thread. I guess I could just unwatch it...

As indicated in the prev. post, were those players asked to leave ? Did the heal pod move and then the players followed so as to maintain their "link" to the pod, thereby confirming their nefarious role ? Could it be that the players just went afk or took a nap after putting toons in a safe place ?

I can understand your suspicions and frustrations but any solution that invoves restricting player's legitamate choices should not be considered.

No, I admit I did not ask them to leave, I did not imagine that someone who is willing to exploit such a broken game mechanic would care if I thought they should be there or not. Especially if there is no accountability due to having the character on a trial account. Perhaps I failed there, but I did not want to be attacked with,"QQ, cry mor. ur tear mak me happy"s...and yes, they seemed to stay with our healpods.

I think I mentioned previously that I failed to ask them to leave and perhaps should have. I admit that that was an opportunity wasted.

Just for the sake of discussion...At the last OP battle in Zo Kian, TI did ask the group of Karavan "Neutrals" to leave...they did not, but they also did not act in a suspicious manner, nor did they target anyone that we noticed. Therefore, assuming they were truly AFK, the matter was dropped. There were also severla well know "neutrals" who came to watch, no one complained because of their well respected neutral position (and they also stayed out of the way and did not act suspiciously). No one including me noticed concerns with anyones actions there.

We will see if this continues to be sufficient.

they moved up with the pod i was leading as i moved and called the pod to move they came with us

Khandie, that sounds to me like something that is inappropriate and "ticket worthy".

Agree Freddy, but what is to keep them from just claiming they were watching? How can we prove otherwise? And we looked, there were no CSRs on at the time.

Let's assume for a moment, there was no neutral option and everyone had to decide for one side.

So former "neutrals" would have to chose one side and tag up. They can be targeted and attacked by the other side. They would however still stay neutral in terms of actions. This means no supporting or attacking. Sounds like a fair tradeof, doesn't it?

However, does this solve any mentioned problems?

- A tagged player soakes up heals like a neutral did.
- A player can tag for the enemy team and act as scout, target assist and so on.

I think it creates new ones instead.

- What happens if a player gets banned and no neutral option is available?
- The Op Area affects everyone in range, foragers, treks, I see the abuse potential even worse here.
Imagine mass declares to block known routes to bosses or forage places.
People have to tag up to pass and become involuntarily targets.

While I understand and respect the concerns that brought this topic up, I don't see how removing this option solves these. It's the player who decide to abuse given mechanics, fix one, they find a new one. As long as people don't play fair, finding solutions is a futile patchwork.

Well, I can decide not to heal someone who is obviously a plant on our side. Without heals they will die due to "friendly fire".

I agree the question of banning is something I did not consider. I assume they would be "pushed' or auto tagged for the otherside. This fits well actually because if someone is kicked from a side due to disruptive behavior well then they can be killed by that side.