OP Mechanics suggestion

[dakhound]

Back to OP battle declarations

First of all, I cant find anything on Ryzom website or forum about rules besides an occasional post of a GM without a real explanation or reference. Maybe I missed something; if so give a link...

The situation as it is now is kinda simple, 1th player that press DECLARE, pay the few million dappers it costs, will be the attacker for a few days. So far no problem..

False attacks a problem? Not really, they just are annoying. But so are attacks on odd times or multiple attacks to annoy opposing side. Some players say multiple attacks are a tactical instrument, maybe they are, but basically they are false as any other false attack. Asking a another guild to attack OP to prevent a counter attack can also be considered as a tactical maneuver but as multiple attacks also basically false. False attacks are tactical instrument

But what happened on Arispotle? Right after a guild got attacked by a friended guild some players from opposing side started sending in tickets with complains about it, they were planning an attack, but darn they didnt declare quick enough Not long after that a MOTD appeared with a text like "false declarations will be dealed with" 2 CSR's and a GM attended that "false" battle, and nothing happened.
Few days later I saw players from the complaining corner visiting another OP battle (a friendly OP trade) asking a CSR to ban the guilds or players involved Again nothing happened. (Maybe they should use the same rule as Soccer, someone who is trying to get another player banned should be banned himself).

When I joined Ryzom everybody told me Ryzom is different, a mature community. I still think it is, with a few exceptions, like players who run to CSR when they can't handle a situation
Grow up, and wait till Dev Team change OP mechanics, maneuvering GM team in to a difficult position by asking them to judge every declaration is not gonna solve anything.

just my 2 cents

nvm eh,

right lads, lets go spend out dapper constantly declaring on each other so no-one can ever attack us, seems its ok with the other side now

[arfindel]

[...]I think the current implementation is about a good as it gets, artificial balancing should not and cannot be introduced. [...]

Any virtual community is an artifficial closed environment by construction.

Any such artifficial community is permanently corrected by the producers: from fixing bugs to re-thinking logical bugs.

That's actually the main job of a devs team after game release, only on second step come the expansions (that depends on how successful the game is because it's basically an investment).

Correction can be done delicately, gradually (which Nevrax overall did well, with OPs exception) or with the "nerfing bat" if an accummulating disbalance has been left for too long to grow consequences inside the game (example: buffs in SWG).

[dakhound]

Any virtual community is an artifficial closed environment by construction.

Any such artifficial community is permanently corrected by the producers: from fixing bugs to re-thinking logical bugs.

That's actually the main job of a devs team after game release, only on second step come the expansions (that depends on how successful the game is because it's basically an investment).

Correction can be done delicately, gradually (which Nevrax overall did well, with OPs exception) or with the "nerfing bat" if an accummulating disbalance has been left for too long to grow consequences inside the game (example: buffs in SWG).

how does this relate to correcting the success inbalance of 1 faction tho Faa (not arguing with you am genuinly interested in how you suggest it should be done)

IMO the correction should be other faction getting their act together and leading a credible attack

[arfindel]

how does this relate to correcting the success inbalance of 1 faction tho Faa (not arguing with you am genuinly interested in how you suggest it should be done)
[...]

- Froze for a while all OP and build up a project of revamp (devs+CSR) - dedicate a time to reading all suggestions- compare servers evolution
- Plan fast a series of pvp events in several locations to channel the pvp-ers towards flagged pvp giving some unique rewards (titles, special look good stats - but not over top crafter capabilities) - CSR only
- Start gradually an inflation process to lower the catalysts value (example introduce catalysts as rewards in the new revamping patch for missions) - devs only

Revamp of OPs should be done by team work. I don't think only one head can foresee all consequences of any change.

Some ideas that seem interesting to me:
-Their symbolical value as guild homes can be addressed by multiplying them.
-The neverending story of time zone advantaged attacks can be addressed by assigning them a certain time of vulnerability.
-The problem of player satisfaction could be addressed by creating a piece of animation as winners gift: example the drill going to dust
- The insatisfaction of winners of a defence same as the irritation of guilds constantly under attack can be addressed by giving a longer cool down after a successful defence.
- There are numerous mechanisms of limiting the numbers of players taking part to a war. In my opinion the war should reflect the value of an OP. And a general should be able to select his soldiers. If he's wrong, his bad. Pvp of 10-50 people on each side makes a much more intense battle possible.

And mainly take the time to read and copy the countless suggestions that have been made on the forums and in game (maybe even more interesting in game, here's a public arena, people talk for multiple reasons), use them.

[qurzo]

nvm eh,

right lads, lets go spend out dapper constantly declaring on each other so no-one can ever attack us, seems its ok with the other side now

Lol, you promoted me as spokesman for the other side now? Whatever that is...

[riveit]

- Froze for a while all OP and build up a project of revamp (devs+CSR) - dedicate a time to reading all suggestions- compare servers evolution
- Plan fast a series of pvp events in several locations to channel the pvp-ers towards flagged pvp giving some unique rewards (titles, special look good stats - but not over top crafter capabilities) - CSR only
- Start gradually an inflation process to lower the catalysts value (example introduce catalysts as rewards in the new revamping patch for missions) - devs only

Revamp of OPs should be done by team work. I don't think only one head can foresee all consequences of any change.

I do like your suggestions for cat inflation and adding mechanisms other than outposts to gain similar rewards. I think outpost cat production should be adjusted by server population - perhaps there are way too many on Cho, a few too many on Arispotle, not enough on Aniro, etc.

In some areas their obedience goes farther: they can be ordered to attack some "military objectives" even if they have an interest for it or not.

I find this statement odd. Who gets forced to attack? Certainly homins are cajoled, paid or bribed to fight but forcing is near impossible I would think.

*The number importance in game is the direct cause of the current problem of multiple attacks. While 6-8 months ago attacking multiple OPs meant to move an army from one battlefield to the next one, and I might have accepted it as tactics, present day pvp situation proves a faction can have enough warriors to split on two battlefields, making it impossible for the others to defend.

So six to eight months ago, all those multiple attacks were great, but now they are despicable? It is difficult to judge sizes. They fluctuate from battle to battle depending on time of day, day of the week, various guild agreements, motivations, prior notice and mobilization, and of course luck. A few weeks ago, following Nexus' victory in Whirling, I think everyone thought that the Kamist side was bigger and would soon be sweeping up outposts across Atys. Now, after losing a few battles, the Kamist side looks smaller and weaker than it did then. Which is true? The population didn't shift that much I bet.

it's still highly upsetting that the pvp kill has nothing anymore to do with religion, civilisation, lore - all this part of the game goes slowly into oblivion - but with cats, mats, ops.

I think that the slow grind of war and accumulation of hostilities has broken down various rp racial and lore barriers. Outpost rewards are the root cause but they are certainly not the whole story.

[xfluffee]

There are players that will simply have more time to play...can think better in terms of tactics...have faster connections or better computers...can make friends easier...a whole list of things that make the game unfair.

I could go on...

You could go on and continue to list things that give one player an advantage over another which have absolutely nothing to do with game mechanics, and which cannot be changed by the devs to provide balanced gameplay.

Most of the disbalances in game are caused by human players. I don't want a big brother balancing artificially the game.

And, like in real life, the people who win a battle have access to new resources. Win a battle have a significance. So it looks good to me that, IG, be the same.

(these seem related, so apologies for slightly rearranging what you wrote)

I agree that artficial limits are inappropriate. One problem with Outpost battles, or any other kind of in-game battle, and why they can't be treated the same as the kinds of fighting it's based upon from the real world, is the fact that when a comrade falls, he can be raised from the dead and continue fighting. That could be considered an artificial bonus and it's where the comparison breaks down.

If, however, once you fell then you were out for the rest of the battle, THAT might certainly be interesting, though it has little or no bearing on the discussion of outpost rewards.

BTW: The people who don't like PvP isn't morally better. Really, believeme. It migth be if the time I dedicate to PvP you dedicate to help childrens in third world, but I seriously doubt that. So, please, don't speak as if we were warmongers and you were the encarnations of the peace, because this is only a game, not the real thing.

There is no need to feel defensive, I don't recall anyone attacking you. It's unfortunate there have been some personal attacks already in this thread, but overall, the thread has been a discussion about problems with outposts and possible ways to solve them.

I don't understand the fierce resistance to removing Outpost rewards, especially coming from those who played before they were even introduced. It's easy to see by my join date that I have not known a time when outpost rewards did not exist. Those of us who know nothing else should be the ones who would be most reluctant to remove them, and instead put in some other sort of method to ensure balance (or just ignore the problem altogether). If they are the root cause of a lot of problems (I guess it's pretty obvious that I believe they are), then don't step around the problem. Go straight for the heart and eliminate it.

Does that mean a lot of people will stop fighting PvP battles? Probably. Those are also the same ones who wouldn't PvP anyway except for outposts. Those who like PvP will continue to engage in that activity. I still think it's a bit exciting to walk through Yrk tagged, wondering when the next team of Karavan attackers will challenge my team.

I'm not talking necessarily about Arispotle, though by necessity, that has to be included in the discussion. I'm talking about the lack of balance on all of the shards, with a focus on the English-speaking shards, since that is my native language. Arispotle just seems to have those who have not yet given up the fight, and the majority of the participants in this discussion are from Arispotle. I'd rather not see Arispotle turn into the Karavan shard, and Cho stay the Kami shard. I also don't want to see Arispotle turn into a Kami shard or Cho turn into a Karavan shard.

But, it does appear that more and more people are seeing that problems do indeed exist, which is a good thing. With more eyes recognizing a problem and looking at it, more beneficial discussion can take place. And it seems that's happening

[mrshad]

Faa, you have some interesting ideas.

- Froze for a while all OP and build up a project of revamp (devs+CSR) - dedicate a time to reading all suggestions- compare servers evolution.

The OP implementation is problematic. But, it has added a new dynamic to the game. It probably seems like I argue both side from time to time, and I do. It is because, though I don't particularly like the OP setup, it is better than nothing, and it isn't as bad as it could be. And it is, once you get right down to it, optional.

So, I say; leave the OPs up while improvements are being made.

Start gradually an inflation process to lower the catalysts value (example introduce catalysts as rewards in the new revamping patch for missions) - devs only

Unless you see cats as bad in and of themselves...then more of them would only be more bad. (kinda like reducing the value of illegal drugs by giving them to everyone )

I think they should be removed, and replaced with something else. There are suggestions here of what that something else should be. But, yeah, whatever it is should be available outside of OPs/PvP.

-The neverending story of time zone advantaged attacks can be addressed by assigning them a certain time of vulnerability.

Wouldn't that make the problem worse?
You would end up with OP ownership based on geography. I don't see that as a solution...more like a different but equal problem.

There are numerous mechanisms of limiting the numbers of players taking part to a war. In my opinion the war should reflect the value of an OP. And a general should be able to select his soldiers. If he's wrong, his bad. Pvp of 10-50 people on each side makes a much more intense battle possible.

We have talked about the downfalls of that, too.
I am sure there are those that want to show off thier 7337 noob-pwning skilzz, yo. And that is hard to do in large battles, so we get lines like "OPs are not true PvP"..whatever that means.
In the end, limiting the number of players on each side just means that less people will care about the outcome. We would have the same players at the fights each time. Since there isn't (and probably shouldn't be) a controll on how many battles happen at once, the side that can field the most 10-50 people teams would still be at an advantage.

Again, there are flaws in the current OP implementation. Many of the problems are the natural consequence of allowing players to choose thier own path, and providing a flexible system. Most of the proposed corrections require limiting player choice and flexibility in some way, and I typically think that is a bad thing.

One thing that would increase flexibility, however, would be an OP transfer mechanism that allows one guild to give thier OP to another without the need of a battle. That would allow for a peaceful transition and avoid the suspicion that it was simply being done to block an attack or artificially raise the THL.

[arfindel]

Unless you see cats as bad in and of themselves...then more of them would only be more bad. (kinda like reducing the value of illegal drugs by giving them to everyone )

I think they should be removed, and replaced with something else. There are suggestions here of what that something else should be. But, yeah, whatever it is should be available outside of OPs/PvP.

As far as I learnt in these last 4 years of playing MMOs once you give the player base a toy you cannot get it back. Not without a loss of population anyway. It can be more or elss harful, more or less liked but you can't still get it out.

But are cats bad in themseleves? I don't think so. Most of my guildies use them with such a moderation that I doubt the cats are really a problem. The problemw with them is their connection with OPs and they being a source of negative feelings.

It's easier to reduce the competition around them (annihilate greed and other negative feelings) rather than take them out of game, for a company that started to get a constant influx of popualtion only some months ago. If Ryzom had like 200k people, I'd say: nerf them, take them out, you may lose 10k people but it worth.

In the end, limiting the number of players on each side just means that less people will care about the outcome. We would have the same players at the fights each time.

Hehe... maybe...maybe not... imagine the best generals on Arispotle with their teams, imagine a supplementary tag to show how many wins one has had.

Since there isn't (and probably shouldn't be) a controll on how many battles happen at once, the side that can field the most 10-50 people teams would still be at an advantage.

If the guild owning an OP can set a vulnerability time on it, or at least know when it is vulnerable. Let's say each OP once in 2 weeks, the simultaneity of OP wars is already under control. It's up to you to announce you allies to be online at that time of the day.

One thing that would increase flexibility, however, would be an OP transfer mechanism that allows one guild to give thier OP to another without the need of a battle. That would allow for a peaceful transition and avoid the suspicion that it was simply being done to block an attack or artificially raise the THL.

Correct.
Anyway this is a very delicate mechanism. I belive a lot of threads and suggestions should be read and compared before making a revamping plan. Not pretending in any way I am the almighty game master that can teach GF what to do, can only try to add ideas to the pile.

I suggested frozing the OPs dynamics (at least on Arispotle) because with population continously growing, the unwanted consquences accumulate already for some 8 months.

If it takes 1 month to re-design OPs working path, it may already be too late. Ryzom has already lost a lot of subscribers during the successful Silan closed for subscriptions, during the Jolt leaving, there are still no events on sight... how much player base they can afford to lose?

Finally as far as I read Phelan's public declarations and technical preparations for continous developping the game, GF took Ryzom as it is, a niche game, and they bet on the existing community a lot. If they prepare now missions and content for this community, would be a shame to offer them to a totally different type of community, that today disbalance slowly prepares.

[danolt]

I would suspect they can afford to lose us all or they would not have bought the company. It is not like the "Ryzom" name is worth much. I heard at the time of purchase, subs were covering about 15% of the cost. I imagine GF would have saved money just by shutting everything down and relaunching with a new name and a few tweaks.

My point being, they have to reach out to a broader group and allow for more then 10 or 50 players to dominate the server.