Spires query

[fiach]

I'm not sure about the Spries, but I can tell you that the Ring is not all about inclusive gameplay. To use a term that Ryzom players have used for a long time "it's what you want it to be".

You can create scenarios that only allow players who are aligned with the Kami, Karavan, or any race. You can also limit it to what level they are. So it's very possible to create a scenario that only Kami aligned players will be able to access. In fact my first scenario might just be setup that way.

I have no problems with that, it is new content

I have seen some of the RP'rs here at work and think they are very creative people, the chance of their input into game content is a very good thing.

With regard to limiting participation, well that is a double edged sword, if you limit what you do, then you reduce its content/quality and I dont think the more creative Ring contributors would like to be shackled like that, the ones that do....well...I cant see them doing anything particularly enticing anyway (Not aimed at your scenario Raynes, Ring is only in its infancy and experimentation with every aspect will only help deliver a better end product ).

[jarko]

i think this is so sad tbh...make stuff only for kara or kami or whatever...will split this gameup so bad.
Its just sad to see it happen

[neniti]

Regarding neutrals, well I suppose it could be argued that if you wont take part in the conflict, then you get a smaller slice of the cake or less goodies

... but if you do take part in a conflict, you should gain/lose something, right ? it's not that way ingame atm. you dont lose anything, you dont gain anything. spires would fix it

[michielb]

Spires is, in many ways, what Notum Wars was for AO. Like NW spires is about faction warfare and like NW it concerns land control. Spires will also limit travel by disabling the TP’s and spawn points in “occupied” territories just like NW in Anarchy did. Now how well this idea worked out in Anarchy is clearly indicated by the fact that the towers that were planned for Shadowlands (the 3rd expansion) still weren’t implemented where Alien Invasion (the 4rth expansion) was released…

I’ve thought long and hard about spires and my views of it have slightly changed. From “This is real bad” I’ve gone to “Nice try, no cigar”

What Spires will do is (as far as I understand it) introduce an RTS type of gameplay where the reds and the blues fight over a piece of land. Now this works really well in an RTS where, when one side wins, the game is over and you can move to the next map I’m just not sure it’ll be a great success in an MMO.

The interesting thing about Spires is that it will introduce a “realistic” war system where land control will actually mean something and where the fighting (if any) will probably take place along a “frontline” with the attackers trying to push forward to the next area. Provided the sides are balanced Spires might give us nice tactical battles that will make PvP more interesting. But even if all of this is true there are just too many downsides to the idea for me to like it.


Perpetual War


One of my objections is perpetual war. Faction warfare in an MMO will, by it’s very nature, go on indefinitely. While this might seem like a good thing from a dev’s perspective, it’s not. PvP in any computer game needs to be balanced which means that for one side to win they need to have greater numbers or the fight will go on until someone decides it’s been enough and quits.

What was meant as “content everlasting” quickly becomes just another grind. Fighting over the same stretches of land day in day out with no “final victory”, no end in sight gets real old real fast.


Travel and Spawns



And other problem I see with Spires is the travel restrictions that go with it. Apart from cutting the world in half (assuming the sides are balanced) there are other issues with this.

Lets assume that the Spires won’t be conveniently located near a portal (and they probably won’t be) the attackers will have to travel a long way through aggro infested lands to even get to the spire and the nearest spawn will still be a brisk walk away giving the defenders a pretty good advantage. Add to that the fact that the defenders will also have NPC guards at their disposal and it’ll be damn hard to wrestle a spire away from “the enemy”.
While this will add a certain level of “realism” I doubt it will make for very good gameplay.


Now here’s a cool little feature many of you may not have thought about. As I understand it Ring points are linked to the number of spawns you have…
See what I’m getting at with this? Right. If Atys is cut in half by Spires people will lose half of their spawns. What does that mean for the Ring points?

An other little thing, ever imagined how much fun it would be to trek when you can't get the TP's en route nor recieve the spawns you pass? No? Well think about it for a while I'm sure you'll love it...


Oh and racial spells and craft paterns. Think about how a new player who joined after Spires would go about getting those...not to mention digging in "occupied" territory. Game mechanics that favour veteran players over the newbies are bad marketing at best...



So far I’ve worked on the assumption that the two sides were roughly balanced and they would somehow divide the land in half with perhaps a few border conflicts every now and then. But what if there is a huge imbalance and one side manages to gain control over the whole of Atys? That would leave a large part of the community with just one Spawn, how long do you think these people will stick around?


Neutrals

Neutrals don’t seem to be suffering the same travel restrictions as the factioned players but they won’t reap any of the benefits of Spires. In fact neutrals seem to be left out altogether. No neutral Spires, no way to influence the war. Sure they can join a spire battle on either side but that’s not what being neutral is about. Spires doesn’t seem to have a non-PvP component through which neutrals can take part in it.

Of course neutrals already got the shaft with the introduction of the new fame system which means that I, a Tryker, am no longer free to TP in my own land!

Benefits

Spires so far appears to be PvP only. Problem with this is, that while your faction will gain benefits from every spire you hold, non-PvPers will have no way to contribute to it and are completely dependant on the PvPers in this respect.

So on the one hand non-PvP players have no way to participate in Spires on the other hand they will suffer the restrictions it brings and to add injury to insult they will have to rely on the PvPers for any possible rewards.

With so much to win or loose Spires will create a lot of tension within this community and might forever change it and that is what worries me most about this rather poorly thought out addition to this great world. I personally would like to see this idea canned though it pains me to think about all the time spent that would go to waste if Spires was indeed canceled.


I’m sure that Spires won’t be the huge failure I initially thought it would be; it will occupy some people for some time and it might actually draw in more. Sadly it also has the potential to destroy the one thing that sets it apart form all the MMO’s I’ve played; the community.



Nice try people now back to the drawingboard...

[meloner]

I've only got one thing to say : "wait and see" !

For all we know it's probably not that bad !

having read the post above, if ever you're right machietje, t'll be the downfall of ryzom !!! especially with the imbalance between kara and kami !

the devs are aware of it, they're not stupid, after R2 which will hopefully double their budget and all, surely they're not gonna wash it all down the toilet with spires ?!?!?

[grimjim]

It might be a terribly misjudged, and unwelcome, attempt to force people to pick sides.

[jarko]

in the beginning of ryzom we couldnt use the high end tps etc, but ppl where friends, everyone knew everyone and it was fun, some nice pvp events and invasions and everything was good...
Now we will have to choose a side to get even somewhere and if you pick the wrong 1 or so...you might even get nowhere anymore.

[fiach]

... but if you do take part in a conflict, you should gain/lose something, right ? it's not that way ingame atm. you dont lose anything, you dont gain anything. spires would fix it

hahaha I see your point

I'm not worried about losing TP's etc really, but I am worried about losing players, I'm willing to give Spires a chance and even try to adapt to it. I'm just afraid alot of others may not

[meloner]

i wonder if the governments will take part in all this.

I mean yeah i know it's PvP, not PvE, but we're talking about territory here ! If the Karavan come knocking at Emperor Dexton's doorstep will he just open the door and let them come in ? or grab that awesome looking sword and slice them to bits ?

[michielb]

having read the post above, if ever you're right machietje, t'll be the downfall of ryzom !!! especially with the imbalance between kara and kami !

the devs are aware of it, they're not stupid, after R2 which will hopefully double their budget and all, surely they're not gonna wash it all down the toilet with spires ?!?!?

I've based my observations on this (rather old) document and my 2 year experience in AO which, as I said in my previous post, has a similar faction system so whether or not I'm right largely depends on how far Spires have evolved since then.

It might be a terribly misjudged, and unwelcome, attempt to force people to pick sides.

Lets face it the neutrals are just a coders sollution to the problem of how to give players a chance to explore both options before making a choice, they were never meant to be a 3rd option. (And they never will be...)