OP battle, PvP the way it is!

[talismar]

I think both sides have good points ... the only way to prove or disprove the arguements is to 1) have sides agree to stick to GvG or 2) Nevrax create some OPs as GvG only.

The chances of #1 happening on a consistant basis for any length of time to prove/disprove is very slight.

The chances of #2 happening are even slimmer then #1. (I wish it were otherwise though)

[rothimar]

That's not true at all. Another server is dominated by a mixed faction alliance, and alliances on our own server corss faction lines, and include neutrals, in various places.

I said political agenda... not necessarily factional. An alliance is political by its very nature and as it stands right now, to participate in the OP feature of Ryzom, one must enter some level of political affiliation.

I would also like to point out that I am not stating alliances are a bad thing, nor am I stating that I won't participate in the politics of the game. I am simply expressing that it should be an option for a Guild to participate in what is classified as a GvG feature (at least that's how it seems to be advertised in the feature set, and what other feature has GvG?) without having to join an alliance and follow someone else's banner.

[rothimar]

#1 may happen in theory, but I doubt it would last in practice.

#2 may very well happen, depending on time/resources/development schedule. I wouldn't write it off entirely.

One thing is for sure... the amount of strife this whole debate has caused is a huge indicator that something needs to be done to correct it.

I think both sides have good points ... the only way to prove or disprove the arguements is to 1) have sides agree to stick to GvG or 2) Nevrax create some OPs as GvG only.

The chances of #1 happening on a consistant basis for any length of time to prove/disprove is very slight.

The chances of #2 happening are even slimmer then #1. (I wish it were otherwise though)

[rundll32]

Ah, well I would class the alliances/fighting/declaration/politics as the content, not the cats etc, which I see as the incentive. But surely the idea is that some people HAVE to be excluded from the content, thats why were fighting for them right? If there was enough to go around then contesting them would be pointless.

And if you dont want to take part in the fighting, then you shouldnt really be owning an outpost. In so far as if fighting over it is going to upset/ruin your game time, owning one is pretty short sighted.

[sehracii]

I said political agenda... not necessarily factional. An alliance is political by its very nature and as it stands right now, to participate in the OP feature of Ryzom, one must enter some level of political affiliation.

That's not exactly true either. There are sub-alliances within larger alliances where certain guilds only agree to help other guilds under certain conditions they put forward. A large alliance won't function with one given political agenda set in stone. Too many people means too many conflicting view points. To be truly successful an alliance needs to be flexible and take the aid it can get when it can get it.

[rothimar]

You're proving my point. You can't get involved with the OP feature unless you want to get involved in politics. There is a central agenda to an alliance... otherwise what would they be allied for? Sub-alliances are simply smaller groups of people who share a common agenda with the overall organization, but may have some of their own agendas to look after, hence the restrictions to their involvement.

The thing is... you can't participate in OP's as a GvG feature... as advertised... at present, and that is a problem for what appears to be a growing number of players.

I would also like to throw in that I respect your opinion, differing as it is from my own. I got a little excited yesterday about the whole OP thing, and I would rather not go down that road again.

That's not exactly true either. There are sub-alliances within larger alliances where certain guilds only agree to help other guilds under certain conditions they put forward. A large alliance won't function with one given political agenda set in stone. Too many people means too many conflicting view points. To be truly successful an alliance needs to be flexible and take the aid it can get when it can get it.

[sehracii]

I just think alliances make for a much better game.

If its GvG, might makes right. A strong guild can take what they want no matter how much the rest of the server hates them.

Ryzom is and always has been about interacting with other players. A system where a guild can succeed based on being influential within the community seems much closer to the heart of what ryzom is.

[grimjim]

If its GvG, might makes right. A strong guild can take what they want no matter how much the rest of the server hates them.

It IS might makes right now, and it depends how the GvG is handled.

[sehracii]

It IS might makes right now, and it depends how the GvG is handled.

Its might makes right once you get to the battle.

However, everyone agrees battles are mostly won by sheer numbers.

And you don't get numbers on your side by being a good PvPer, you get numbers on your side by charming the pants off other players.

Therefore battles are won by being influential within the community.

[rothimar]

Therefore battles are won by being influential within the community.

This is where I see an issue... a large alliance controlling the lion's share of OP's and their resources can attract more players than others could. It further creates an imbalance between the controlling alliance and the rest of the population, which leads to stagnation and... in some circumstances... resentment.

Whether or not that is the case... and it is perceived by many to be... the potential for abuse is there. If KA, for example, were to take all of the OP's... an entire RP preference (Kami) is subjected to more difficult game play than is fair. At least in my opinion.

I'm for what's best for the community. I would be saying the same thing if the Kami were holding most of the Outposts.