Outposts

Come in, pull up a chair, let's discuss all things Ryzom-related.
User avatar
aude03
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:05 pm

Re: Outposts

Post by aude03 »

ajsuk wrote:I'm a little lost here...

1) Last time (and every other time) I checked, OPs wern't on a GvG system.
------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday,13 September , 2005 at 18:01 UTC
Production : Outposts Explained by Xavier Antoviaque

With the Episode 2 in the hands of Test, the team is progressively shifting its attention to the development of the Outposts (Chapter III). So it's time to unleash details on the Outposts battle concept, which is a bit different from what you have been used to see in other MMOs - it's turn based!

Later on, we will describe the second part of what Chapter III will bring into the game: the PvP towers, which you will also have to capture, but in a different way...

Outposts – Detailed Concept (Battles)Preliminary note: you can read this document first to get the higher concept.

Note 1: implementation details discussed in this article could be changed during testing.
Note 2: all times are real-life time, not roleplay time.




Summary1. Declaring War
2. Attack battle
3. Defense battle
4. Minimum threshold
5. Buying squads
6. Squads management
7. Squads power
8. Conflict area



1. Declaring War (24 hours)
If a guild wants to take an outpost, it must first declare war to the current owner of that outpost. The war declaration takes 24 hours, to allow the two opponents to organize themselves, to give them a chance to be there when the true conflict occurs. During this period, the attacking guild can choose a time when the “attack battle” will take place and the defending guild a time where the “defence battle” will take place (see below).
Note: While only one guild at a time can declare war to a given outpost, temporary alliances are possible.




2. Attack battle (2 hours)
A battle is divided in several rounds, each of them lasting a given amount of time (We’ll start with 10 minutes, for example, and modify that depending on the results and your comments).
As soon as a round starts, one or more NPC squads appear at the outpost to defend it. The goal of the attacker is to get rid of all the spawned squads before the end of the round. The goal of the defenders is, of course, to not let the attackers achieve their goal by making sure the squads stay alive.
Every round has a given level of difficulty. The outcome of each round decides if the level of the next round will be increased or decreased: if the attacker wins (all squads are killed), the level is increased, otherwise, it is decreased. The attackers must try to attain the highest level they can.
At level 1, only one squad is spawned. At level 2, a squad spawns at the beginning of the round and a second squad spawns at mid-round. At level 3, 2 squads spawn at the beginning and one more at mid-round. At level 4, 2 squads spawn at the beginning of the round, then one more after 3 minutes and one more after 6 minutes, and so on. Generally speaking, when the level is increased, the time it takes new squads to arrive shortens, and the number of simultaneous squads increases.
The squads are despawned at the end of each round and “fresh” squads are respawned for the next round.

At the end of the 2 hour period, the higher level attained by the attackers over the whole battle will be kept.

Then, there are two possibilities:

• The attackers haven’t exceeded the minimum required level (the “minimum threshold”, cf. 4). In this case, war will come to an end, no defence period will start and the attackers have lost. The outpost will be kept by its current owners;

Or:

• The attackers attained the minimum threshold. In that case, this level is the one the defenders will have to reach during the defence battle to keep ownership of their outpost.




3. Defence period (2 hours)
If attackers did reach the minimum threshold, then defenders will have to react. We can consider this second battle as the counter-attack. It occurs the same way as the attack phase, but roles are reversed: The appearing squads belong to attackers and defenders have to kill them. And, of course, attackers have to try to prevent them from doing it.
To keep the outpost, the defenders don’t need to do better than attackers; they just have to reach the same level.




4. Minimum threshold
When a guild has succeeded in taking over an outpost, the battle level the guild reached to conquer it becomes the new minimum threshold for the outpost. It will be the level that any guild wanting to control that outpost will have to exceed.
This threshold decreases over time, offering some protection after the takeover, but it won’t stay long. The threshold will be at its maximum during the first two days, then decrease by one battle level every two days.



5. Buying squads
Default squads are given to both sides; however, they are relatively weak. It is possible to buy new ones, about two times stronger. Also, their spawn order can be chosen.. When a squad is killed, if it was a paid one, it is lost forever. When there are no more paid squads, the default ones are used.



6. Squads management
Squads appear in a list, sorted in the order they will be spawned.. Authorized persons among those owning the outpost can change this order in the list. Changes during a battle have no effect on the current round, but will be effective for the next round.



7. Squads power
Squads are considered as level 250, but with a level 50 defence, thus allowing a low-level character to attack them. However, their HP reserve will be larger than the one of a normal character and will depend on the level of the outpost. Also, in each squad, there is always a leader who has a defence corresponding to the outpost level. Thus, a high-level outpost couldn’t be taken by only low-level characters.



8. Conflict area
The conflict area is unlimited, the two guild are in PvP mode everywhere during both attack and defence periods.

[ Discuss it! ]

-------------------------------------------------

Well, ok they opened it to "temporary alliances"..... but seeing how much time they use the word "guild", allow me to think that what happens today was not really what they planned....
Not the only time they launched something in a hurry, without really thinking about it.
Geniastrid

WWGD - What Would Genia Do ?
User avatar
ajsuk
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:21 pm

Re: Outposts

Post by ajsuk »

xfluffee wrote:(For Arispotle, at least):

Feb 11: Whirling Stronghold -> Nexus (Kami)
Feb 26: Woodburn Magic Pole -> OotN (Kara)
Mar 4: Windyway Workshop -> Apostles (Kara)
Mar 6: Woodburn Stronghold / Whirling Stronghold (swapped owners between Kami)
Mar 12: Whirling Stronghold -> GoJ (Kara)
Exactly, Nexus got one.
xfluffee wrote: Heh. Yeah. Why win? What's the point in that?
Quite agree again. =)
Jayce - Right-click is your friend in this world.
Master Forest Forager | Master Prime Roots Forager |Expert Lakeland Forager @ Q250
Master
Jeweler
|Master Heavy Range Weaponsmith
[ Leader | Reapers of the Dark ]
[ Matis Noble | Karavaneer | Wayfarer | Arispotle ]
[ Gear Requirements | Server Status | Acronyms | Atys Time | Fireworks ]
xfluffee
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:11 am

Re: Outposts

Post by xfluffee »

mrshad wrote:Hardly any of us PvP "just for fun" (there are some of you who dig it, and that's cool, but most of the server does not); I show up at OP fights, not because I like pwning teh kami n00bs, but because I like to hang with my friends.

So, yeah, if you remove the tangible reward from OPs/PvP, you won't get any involvment.
Hmm, Karavan doesn't generally like PvP? Wasn't that supposed to be the whole point of Outposts, and the rewards they offer were only just a "bonus"? Instead, the "bonus" has become the reason that everyone "tolerates" PvP?

Unfortunate.
User avatar
ajsuk
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:21 pm

Re: Outposts

Post by ajsuk »

xfluffee wrote:Hmm, Karavan doesn't generally like PvP? Wasn't that supposed to be the whole point of Outposts, and the rewards they offer were only just a "bonus"? Instead, the "bonus" has become the reason that everyone "tolerates" PvP?

Unfortunate.
It's called reality.

People don't do something for nothing and people don't get something for nothing.
Jayce - Right-click is your friend in this world.
Master Forest Forager | Master Prime Roots Forager |Expert Lakeland Forager @ Q250
Master
Jeweler
|Master Heavy Range Weaponsmith
[ Leader | Reapers of the Dark ]
[ Matis Noble | Karavaneer | Wayfarer | Arispotle ]
[ Gear Requirements | Server Status | Acronyms | Atys Time | Fireworks ]
xfluffee
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:11 am

Re: Outposts

Post by xfluffee »

ajsuk wrote:Exactly, Nexus got one.
Guess it all depends on what you consider "recent".
asjuk wrote:It's call reality.

People don't do something for nothing and people don't get something for nothing.
And here I thought, given the majority of the Karavan players are from the US, that there would be more competitiveness than that. I guess it's all just pure greed.

Does no one play games just for fun anymore?
User avatar
audrimas
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:46 pm

Re: Outposts

Post by audrimas »

Hardly any of us PvP "just for fun"
Thats what i say, no one want PvP just for fun, so we have OPs and cats. There cant be any "fair" way, stronger will win.

Another idea to make it more "fair", one side cant outnumber opponents (in OP battle) greater than 1.5:1. Dont have any idea how to make it, ill let GF to think on this :P

MJ - FMx3 - MMx2 - CMx2 - FMx1
User avatar
arfindel
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:14 am

Re: Outposts

Post by arfindel »

ajsuk wrote:I'm a little lost here...

3) An alliance is basicly one big guild anyway, a super-guild if you like. Without each other they are nothing. The burden of taking care of them and distributing the produce they make are shared throughout it. What does individual guild member count have to do with anything?

.
Not "an alliance", Jayce, the Karavan Alliance is ...

What other people are calling "alliance" in all games is a contract of mutual help between distinct communities, communities that have independency, dignity, intiative, and their own life and development. The contract is determined based same as yours, on common goals, but also on similar ideals, on respect, and similar ways to perceive the game.

If only common goals prevail, no game would be possible anymore, even constantly balanced, the most numerous and/or strong guilds can ally and win everything that can be ever won.

... or have the final "achievement" as some seem to think.

As about "individual member count" I would like to remind you that not so long ago the KA has attacked or force guilds to give up their OPs because "they were not active enough".

If "individual member count" and activity of guilds doesn't matter (because yes there are some small guilds with huge community activity e.g. Darkmoor Rangers - extinct now as a result of server athmosphere) what matters then? Let me guess: being a devoted member of the Gank? of la Cassa? or...?

Sorry for the detour in your thread, Kye
>>> FAA - TS <<<
primus inter pares

------------------------------------------
"Since once I sat upon a promontory,
And heard a mermaid on a dolphin's back"
User avatar
kyesmith
Posts: 1480
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:29 pm

Re: Outposts

Post by kyesmith »

mrshad wrote:I hate to say "I told ya so...."
Every PvP for land system I have ever heard of has turned out like this.

As to how to fix it...well...that would take development and changes and we all know *that* won't happen. The other servers have been owned by the kami for months (strangely, hardly anyone complains about the kami dominance of Cho). If it were going to be improved, it would have been by now.
If kami wanted to own all of cho's OPs they wouldnt have a problem doing so, but they dont seem to have the same greed as the KA have shown on aris... 6 OPs are held by the karavan on cho, the situation is very different there tho, i suggest you take time to play cho before making such bold remarks.
mrshad wrote: But, let's say (because I enjoy the conversation) we had some magicall pot of money, and a company that cared about the game enough to fix it. Any idea that involves limiting fighting for the OP (of defending it from mauraders) to just the two guilds involved won't work. Why? Two reasons:

1. The largest Guild would end up owning everything (way worse than the largest alliance).
2. Guild leaders would be replaced by alts on the roster, and players would just shift guilds to help thier allies.

Any idea that invlovles limiting battles to a certain number of players on each side won't work, as it limits player involvement to the same people every time, and the side that can field the most armies can simply show up at multiple battles at the same time.

There are many other possible ideas to make things harder for one side than to limit the amount of people attending, if there was a system wereby the tribe than first owned the OP tried taking it back, alot of guilds would fail to defend their outpost, they own it ONLY cos of the alliance their in.
mrshad wrote: Any idea that tries to limit which OPs a guild can own based on race or geography can't work, because how would the game decide? Will it be 'where the GH is' or 'which race are the majority of the members' or 'to which civ have they declaired thier allegience?' All of those are pretty easy to change. 10 million for a new GH is less than the cost to challenge an outpost. A few alt characters can sway the racial make up of a guild. And a couple hour of quests, and all the sudden they are part of a new civ.
Simply if that guild is tryker alliend they can only attack tryker OPs, it far from stops guilds owning outposts away from their "home land" but would stop guilds owning two outposts in different lands for example.
I dont think everyone would change their civ alliance because they could own an OP easy in one land, or maybe i under estimate peoples greed.

Please read what i said, post a suggestion or go flame another thread.
Yaffle - On another 'break'


User avatar
ajsuk
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:21 pm

Re: Outposts

Post by ajsuk »

RE: Faa

This is the English speaking section of the forum, please translate.

As for the one bit I did understand from your post concerning guilds being "forced" to give up thier outpost, please supply an example. =)
Jayce - Right-click is your friend in this world.
Master Forest Forager | Master Prime Roots Forager |Expert Lakeland Forager @ Q250
Master
Jeweler
|Master Heavy Range Weaponsmith
[ Leader | Reapers of the Dark ]
[ Matis Noble | Karavaneer | Wayfarer | Arispotle ]
[ Gear Requirements | Server Status | Acronyms | Atys Time | Fireworks ]
blaah
Posts: 1333
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:43 am

Re: Outposts

Post by blaah »

kyesmith wrote:there would need to be a method of stopping people who joined that guild for only the battle, but genrally a great idea at stopping guilds who would struggle to even beat NPCs from owning outposts
yeah, i was thinking about it... it's possible to somewhat stop this behaviour by disabling guild invites when guild outpost is under marauders attack.
ofcourse, for it to work, marauders attack needs to be total surprice.
checking guild member join date and only allowing to take part in defence if member has been in guild for some time may also work.

ofcourse, best solution for this all outpost mess would be if they would allow guild to invade other parts of Atys (tons of regions in Ring, they can use those ;-) , so each guild can hold outpost if they strong enough.... (yes, yes pve outposts ;-)
Post Reply

Return to “General”