Neutral neck items

[ThatsNotMyName]

tbh, I was thinking some like

400 hp/nano
20aao/aad
100 rs
maybe +10 dmg?

which would be available to all sides not just neutrals.

[DarkerThanBlack]

What funcom should do is disable pvping on neut chars and trading with sided ones so they can truly be neutral.

[ThatsNotMyName]

What funcom should do is disable pvping on neut chars and trading with sided ones so they can truly be neutral.

did you die to a neutral in pvp?

[DarkerThanBlack]

None that I remember in the past 10 years. Silly young one, my suggestion had no personal reasons or emotions behind it whatsoever. It's just sticking to both lore and common sense, you can't be neutral and picking a side to fight for at the same time.

[ThatsNotMyName]

None that I remember in the past 10 years. Silly young one, my suggestion had no personal reasons or emotions behind it whatsoever. It's just sticking to both lore and common sense, you can't be neutral and picking a side to fight for at the same time.

So I'll be neutral and pick a fight with both sides at the same time. Problem solved.

[DigitalBath]

None that I remember in the past 10 years. Silly young one, my suggestion had no personal reasons or emotions behind it whatsoever. It's just sticking to both lore and common sense, you can't be neutral and picking a side to fight for at the same time.

So being neutral to a conflict but having your own reasons to fight/trade/etc with either side at any point in time (independent of the war that's going on, be it for personal or organizational profit) isn't valid?
Seems like your close-mindedness is showing.

Neutrality doesn't mean absolute pacifism and closed trade relations. It just means you don't support either side in an established conflict. This doesn't mean you don't profit from both sides when you can...

[DarkerThanBlack]

So being neutral to a conflict but having your own reasons to fight/trade/etc with either side at any point in time (independent of the war that's going on, be it for personal or organizational profit) isn't valid?

Nope.


neutral
[noo-truh l, nyoo-]

adjective
1.
not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others

Which is the exact opposite of neuts in this game hence they're only neutrals by name, not by purpose. If you buy a white dog and call it blackie it doesn't make it black. Also try to refrain from personal attacks, thanks.

[DigitalBath]

Nope.


neutral
[noo-truh l, nyoo-]

adjective
1.
not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others

Which is the exact opposite of neuts in this game hence they're only neutrals by name, not by purpose. If you buy a white dog and call it blackie it doesn't make it black. Also try to refrain from personal attacks, thanks.

That definition is wrong, though (and I'd wager I can find at least 10 different ones on Google.. but I'll leave that to someone who cares about it).
Look at the role of neutral countries in wars, look at what they have actually done during said wars.
Again, Being neutral to a conflict doesn't mean you don't do anything out of personal interest with either side when it suits you. You just don't support either side of the conflict.
History proves you wrong and I won't be the one to educate you on this, especially not in these forums.

Like it or not, the lore of the game betrays you brutally. Read the Prophet Without Honor book to better understand things, if you care to do so.

I suppose the most confusing part to understand for most is that the neutral faction is not comprised of organizations with the same final goal (in contrast with the Clans and Omni-Tek, who each have their own full agenda, regardless of what organization we're talking about). Therefore, it's fairly easy to see that you can't claim all neutrals will act in a similar way and stay 100% out of the conflict. Again, the concept of traders and mercenaries described in most AO material since early times and associated with neutrals shows this quite well.

[Baby]

I'd love to see the other 10 different definitions on this. From reliable sources. Because the definition is, afterall, right. Your statement "You just don't support either side of the conflict." is also pretty much the same just in other words.

tbh, I was thinking some like

400 hp/nano
20aao/aad
100 rs
maybe +10 dmg?

which would be available to all sides not just neutrals.

As said, seems reasonable to me at TL5. I personally just have a lot of issues with the way to obtain it, and still why they should get it in the first place.

[Utopian]

So being neutral to a conflict but having your own reasons to fight/trade/etc with either side at any point in time (independent of the war that's going on, be it for personal or organizational profit) isn't valid?
Seems like your close-mindedness is showing.

Neutrality doesn't mean absolute pacifism and closed trade relations. It just means you don't support either side in an established conflict. This doesn't mean you don't profit from both sides when you can...

Please stop real-world comparisons because there is one fact that folks like you continually overlook - that is consequences to the actions. In this game, there are none and that is the problem.

Go review your history and you will find that those that acted as you have noted, suffered consequences. If this game was able to have those, then I would have no issue - but it doesn't. Supporting a faction should automatically make you an enemy of the other (for at least some time), but we don't have those mechanics in the game.

[DigitalBath]

Please stop real-world comparisons because there is one fact that folks like you continually overlook - that is consequences to the actions. In this game, there are none and that is the problem.

Go review your history and you will find that those that acted as you have noted, suffered consequences. If this game was able to have those, then I would have no issue - but it doesn't. Supporting a faction should automatically make you an enemy of the other (for at least some time), but we don't have those mechanics in the game.

Okay, let's stick to the game lore and gameplay, then. Read the damned book first, though.

Again, the fact that neutrals are fragmented (even more so than the clans) and one org may be doing something that benefits said org, but that may temporarily aid omni while another, at the same time, may be doing something that aids the clans makes this whole argument almost void.
Neutrality simply means not siding with anyone. It doesn't mean you don't temporarily share goals, especially given the fragmentation (and the fact this IS a game).

As for the consequences part.. a single neutral org (wasn't even the largest or most pvp-oriented at the time) was responsible for locking neutrals out of clan raid bots for many years on RK2. There are consequences to certain actions, be them org-wise or side-wise. I don't know how RK1 operated on that, maybe they were more lenient, maybe not.
If a neutral org consistently attacks omni towers they'll be labeled as "clan". If they then switch to consistently attacking omni they get labeled as "omni-light". The labels change as the behavior changes.. the more orgs you add to this behavior the harder it becomes to label the entire faction.

If it wasn't for the unilateral clan blockade on RK2, this would have been a much more noticeable situation, too.

It's funny to see how many people who adhere to a side are incapable of understanding the neutral faction as just "unsided", maybe because of their passion for the side they support.

[Utopian]

Okay, let's stick to the game lore and gameplay, then. Read the damned book first, though.

Again, the fact that neutrals are fragmented (even more so than the clans) and one org may be doing something that may temporarily aid omni while another, at the same time, may be doing something that helps the clans makes this whole argument almost void.
Neutrality simply means not siding with anyone. It doesn't mean you don't temporarily share goals, especially given the fragmentation.

As for the consequences part.. a single neutral org (wasn't even the largest or most pvp-oriented at the time) was responsible for locking neutrals out of clan raid bots for many years on RK2. There are consequences to certain actions, be them org-wise or side-wise. I don't know how RK1 operated on that, maybe they were more lenient, maybe not.
If a neutral org consistently attacks omni towers they'll be labeled as "clan". If they then switch to consistently attacking omni they get labeled as "omni-light". The labels change as the behavior changes.. the more orgs you add to this behavior the harder it becomes to label the entire faction.

If it wasn't for the unilateral clan blockade on RK2, this would have been a much more noticeable situation, too.

It's funny to see how many people who adhere to a side are incapable of understanding the neutral faction as just "unsided", maybe because of their passion for the side they support.

I pointed out a flaw in your real-world argument, as you are correct - this is a game and should discussed as such.

There are no game mechanic consequences. I could give a rat's ass about what a player run org/points bot did to a neutral org on some dead server in the past. The game doesn't have a mechanic that creates any real consequences for a neutral toon when assisting either clan or Omni. This would also apply to a clan attacking clan or omni attacking omni. Make the game have true consequences and then we can discuss.

Let me give an example - as a neutral, if you attack a clan tower field, a clan player or a clan guard. You get a 30 day perma-flag on your character so that ALL players in the game see you as an Omni-sympathizer. All the game mechanics that allow a clan to attack Omni or vice-versa come into play. This would also go for a clan attacking clan for example. Without that, neutrals are never going to be a faction in the game - because the current mechanics don't make you have consequences.

And, lets be real honest here - most neutrals (not all, but many or most) as aligned with one side or the other. This is a game developed to have a two-sided conflict. Neutrals have been tolerated and allowed (as PLAYERS) to exist and get too much as it is - in my opinion they should be excluded from owning towers, for example. If the game evolved into having a true third faction, then fine - but its not now and based on the speed of updates (ha ha) it never will. And, quite honestly, I don't think it should. It has nothing to do with "passion for the side they support", it has to do with this being a game where the conflict is two-sided. It truly is that simple.

[DigitalBath]

I pointed out a flaw in your real-world argument, as you are correct - this is a game and should discussed as such.

There are no game mechanic consequences. I could give a rat's ass about what a player run org/points bot did to a neutral org on some dead server in the past. The game doesn't have a mechanic that creates any real consequences for a neutral toon when assisting either clan or Omni. This would also apply to a clan attacking clan or omni attacking omni. Make the game have true consequences and then we can discuss.

Let me give an example - as a neutral, if you attack a clan tower field, a clan player or a clan guard. You get a 30 day perma-flag on your character so that ALL players in the game see you as an Omni-sympathizer. All the game mechanics that allow a clan to attack Omni or vice-versa come into play. This would also go for a clan attacking clan for example. Without that, neutrals are never going to be a faction in the game - because the current mechanics don't make you have consequences.

And, lets be real honest here - most neutrals (not all, but many or most) as aligned with one side or the other. This is a game developed to have a two-sided conflict. Neutrals have been tolerated and allowed (as PLAYERS) to exist and get too much as it is - in my opinion they should be excluded from owning towers, for example. If the game evolved into having a true third faction, then fine - but its not now and based on the speed of updates (ha ha) it never will. And, quite honestly, I don't think it should. It has nothing to do with "passion for the side they support", it has to do with this being a game where the conflict is two-sided. It truly is that simple.

I disagree that you've found a "flaw". You just don't consider player-created events and consequences within the game's community as consequences. Many people (me included) do.
I just made a point to show you that even within the game's lore there are consequences. You're trying to cherry pick and to restrict the discussion more on each post (first you remove real life comparisons of neutrality, then you also try to remove player-related events, then even game lore..) so you can try to be right. It doesn't work well, for it is a fallacious way to go. But let's indulge..

The conflict is two-sided. The reality of the world it's set on is not. What's the Dust Brigade? What are the Guardians of Shadow (and why do neutrals get to choose to align with either side on most parts of the conflict in the Shadowlands as well?). What of the ICC, which supports neither Omni or Clan, but have their own property and say in what happens in Rubi-Ka? (there's more examples the deeper you go into the game)
As far as game mechanics go, almost none of these have direct and overwhelming consequences (especially since you can buy side change forms for all 3 factions in the item store, as well as token packages and faction packages). Yet, they clearly still matter (see: ICC's upcoming rebuild).

The idea that one faction (neutrals, in your case.. but some would actually say the same about the clans) is unable to mine notum to me is ridiculous, though I understand your point of view on it, I see it as incomplete.
Thinking 100% in terms of game mechanics on any game is, to me, wrong.

I completely disagree with you on many levels and I understand that agreeing to disagree might be the way to go here as there's two different philosophies involved and neither can be proven to be correct. Only FC's stance will matter.

[drakio]

I suggest Profiteer's Helper + Collar Casero de la Cripta =
On Use Float Text Lol you sided!
User Modify Computer literacy 250
User Modify Nano programming 250
User Modify Run speed 250
User Modify Melee init 30
User Modify Ranged init 30
User Modify Physical init 30
User Modify Nano pool 30
User Modify Nano init 30
User Modify Body development 30
User Modify Duck explosives 30
User Modify Dodge ranged 30
User Modify Evade close 30
User Modify Nano resist 30
User Modify NCU memory 30

[sultryvoltron]

I suggest Profiteer's Helper + Collar Casero de la Cripta =
On Use Float Text Lol you sided!
User Modify Computer literacy 250
User Modify Nano programming 250
User Modify Run speed 250
User Modify Melee init 30
User Modify Ranged init 30
User Modify Physical init 30
User Modify Nano pool 30
User Modify Nano init 30
User Modify Body development 30
User Modify Duck explosives 30
User Modify Dodge ranged 30
User Modify Evade close 30
User Modify Nano resist 30
User Modify NCU memory 30

Should instead do Profiteers + Xan Combat/Defensive to up the amount of CL, RS, HP, Nano, and AAD on the Xan boards.

[drakio]

The Profiteer's Helper + Collar Casero de la Cripta for tl4/5

and Profiteers or (Profiteer's Helper + Collar Casero de la Cripta) + Xan Combat/Defensive for tl7

expecially now that red vs blue solved the risk that everyone'd go neut for bs