DCP

[jennaelf]

Hmmm, I'm still inclined to believe that constant loosing is an inherent evil of any PvP feature. Any balancing mechanism put in to give an advantage to the loosing side just forces things into a permanent stalemate and makes the entire feature pointless.

But that's probably just how I feel because I look at it expecting a story advancement; that eventually one side wins and things move on. I suppose outposts (and spires as well) were really meant to be locked in an eternal stalemate battle where no side can ever truly win.

I actually agree with you.

Though I don't think Outposts = Factions. *smiles* So while homins may eternally fight over outposts, that doesn't mean that the factions will always exist as they do currently.

[sidusar]

Is that so unusual? You agree with me on the RP thread too

No, they're not. They're more of an alliance thing. Even if the Karavan and the Kami would both disappear from Atys tomorrow, I don't think it would change outpost politics much, if any.

[calel]

Hmmm, I'm still inclined to believe that constant loosing is an inherent evil of any PvP feature. Any balancing mechanism put in to give an advantage to the loosing side just forces things into a permanent stalemate and makes the entire feature pointless.

But that's probably just how I feel because I look at it expecting a story advancement; that eventually one side wins and things move on. I suppose outposts (and spires as well) were really meant to be locked in an eternal stalemate battle where no side can ever truly win.

Aah, but perpetual conflict and pointless, unwinable PvP-features make great instant content. Or at least that's what every current MMORPG wants us to believe.

The truth is that making them really meaningfull or a clear win is a gambit; to much winning on one side and loosing on the other and demoralization strikes which leaves innevitably to a player exodus and thus income for the developpers.
Non-meaningfull or no clear win and your playerbase will start feeling cheated and loose interest (especially when it is the only available 'content' for the fabled 'endgame'); again loosing in players and income.

Which is probably why some developpers have chosen to include win conditions and a reset for those features. No long lasting effect for a win, everyone starts the feature over with minimal dents in moral, and if there are rewards they are usually more on a personal level, based on involvment. (I'm thinking of games here like Dark Age of Camelot, RF Online, WoW, and a few games in developpment such as Pirates of the Burning Sea and WAR. Oh, and ofcourse most FPS games.)

And then there is ofcourse Alliance mechanics in some games, most often limiting the number of guilds/clans based on their achievments; again a feature or mechanic to ensure conflict is perpetual, breaking up your playerbase into multiple alliances. This allows for small wins, ever changing possession of conquerable features, but never domination.

Truth to be told; we have another thing to keep in mind in Ryzom: Story advancement. This wouldn't be as much a problem if the game had but only one shard.
The official storyline evolves over time and at the same pace over all 4 shards. Winning would mean we're done with the feature, so we'd expect things to progress. Which would be practically impossible as no developper team will want to expand on available content for just one shard. It takes away resources over time, 'spoils' for other shards or makes them feel left out. Or the shard on which the 'win' was achieved will have to be without new content till the other shards leg it up. Neither of those possibilities seem apealing.

Balancing mechanics wouldn't make a perpetual conflict meaningless; they are already by nature. They just make sure the playerbase doesn't get demoralized when loosing (out).

[sidusar]

Ah, so either the PvP is pointless because it's always the same side that wins and the other side that looses, or it's pointless because the mechanics ensure that you can't really win at all. Lovely

Win conditions followed by a reset could keep things more meaningfull than a single everlasting battle. I believe some suggestions in that direction have been made with regards to outposts: Have some of them dry up, have new ones randomly become available, simply reset them all to bandits every few months.... It keeps things in motion, but there's still the risk of one side winning every time if that side simply has more players.

Right, any feature that advances the storyline would have to have a set time-frame to it. As in "at the end of this year, we'll evaluate the number of spires, and whichever faction has the most spires will then dominate Atys on that server". No feature that's meant to be perpetual, such as outposts or spires, could have any effect on the official storyline.

Balancing mechanics don't make a perpetual conflict meaningless, they make a conflict perpetual. If it isn't already, ofcourse.

[danolt]

I think the center piece of the Ryzom conflict was to be R2. That certain zones would be available for the winners and certain zones for the losers, with areas in between to be contested. There is no reason at all why there has to be continual contact/conflict between both factions in every region of Atys. There should be zones where access is faction aligned only.

R2 was suppose to be a tool that pretty closely mimics tabletop gaming. Meaning that with a small staff and in short time periods the game could be added to. I suspect the dominant factions would have more control over the local governments and more sophisticated settlements advancing tech/magic for the cities, while the other faction would be forced to a borderland where they would be more dependent upon the factions or recovering ancient power and with a much lesser ability to develop tech/magic.

Outposts were suppose to be a key to rebuilding, a gateway to migration and resettlement. Instead they became a battery, a source of power to advance the levels of an individual/guild/alliance. I do not think they were ever intended to have such value. They were merely suppose to be a step to newer and more exciting things.

If you stop and think about the ability to make episode 2 like events and new zones in a matter of days you can see how the balance of the known areas becomes less important. I think the vision for OP's was something entirely different then how it has turned out. That the story has/had reached a critical need for advancement into a more 'building/growth' phase but the mechanics are simply not there.

OPs have no impact on the factions, I think that is proof enough to show that they have not reached their intended purpose.