Technical proposal

[danolt]

The point I was trying to make is that the present community OP program is not different from any other existing form of alliance in any game. No matter what steps you take, unless you limit participation, the alliance model where allies support allies will always prevail.

Even in the random attack model, I really don't see what would change the status quo. Allies would continue to support allies random attacks are not going to change that. I would think we would quickly end up with guilds of 50 to 100 players owning multiple OP's, something like the Cho model.

[viper579]

there is a system we used in a space rpg mod i admin'd / helped develop . basically each faction has its core worlds, those cant be attacked. the fighting between factions was proxy battles. in op terms it basically means this

35 percent of ops belong to kara
35 percent of ops belong to kami

30 percent can be fought over

it makes where one side doesnt have the risk of losing everything. while at the same time giving good pvp for those who want to.

[xtarsia]

Ok i will be a bit clearer, at that specific OP battle of Gu-Qin WoA combatants outnumbered PF combatants by 10-1 (if not more)



as for 160v40 or what ever it is only an example to make a point.

such situations like this are little fun. even if i am on the side with greater numbers. (the only satisfaction i get from being the winning side when things are insanely in my favor is frapsing the battle and timing how short wipes can be achieved - but it gets old fast)


The most fun i had at OP battles was me+arixia running around as a duo near the end.

survivability was greatly increased and things lightened up alot with fewer numbers.

[katriell]

GvG = RP guilds can't have outposts because they naturally have less members than guilds with looser membership requirements.

[xzizoux]

an other idea would be ...

Matis and Tryker = kara lands ,that means only karavan Guilds can own Op´s there and they are not attackable

Zorai and Fyors = Kami Lands,only Kami Guilds can own Op´s there and they are not attackable

Open PR Op´s and make them PvE or something (Kitins owns then ) and then make them like my first Post,that when a Guild attacks the Op ,then the Guild gets it for 1-2 weeks then it goes back to the "Kitins" and the next Guild can attack it,nice dapper Sink and i think Op Fights in PR against Kitins would be alot more Fun and its like a lil Kitin inVasion ,hehehe

[xtarsia]

an other idea would be ...

Matis and Tryker = kara lands ,that means only karavan Guilds can own Op´s there and they are not attackable

Zorai and Fyors = Kami Lands,only Kami Guilds can own Op´s there and they are not attackable

Open PR Op´s and make them PvE or something (Kitins owns then ) and then make them like my first Post,that when a Guild attacks the Op ,then the Guild gets it for 1-2 weeks then it goes back to the "Kitins" and the next Guild can attack it,nice dapper Sink and i think Op Fights in PR against Kitins would be alot more Fun and its like a lil Kitin inVasion ,hehehe

How about giving bonuses for civ faction alignment on OP production rate when owning OPs in lands that match your civ/faction

and penaltys for owning OPs that are not in your own lands

also bonuses for owning OPs in your own lands

based on guild fame of course

[katriell]

<xzizoux' post>

Flaws:
- Neutrals could only own the 1-2 weeks PR outposts?
- Detraction from Ryzom's freedom ideal.
- Another idea reminiscent of Horde vs. Alliance.

At the least, such a mechanic shouldn't be a hard restriction, but rather something like Xtarsia described.

[champ024]

Ok i will be a bit clearer, at that specific OP battle of Gu-Qin WoA combatants outnumbered PF combatants by 4-1 (if not more)

I dont normally post much at all but this really gets to me... I was the PF team leader at this specific battle and also helping command the entire attacking force so i remember it well. I recall having around a full team there of PF members, so what you are saying is that WoA had 36 members there? Maybe more?!? Hmm don't really remember seeing half of the defending force being WoA members... . I'm gonna go ahead and pretend that you just didn't see the other PF members in the healer mass standing in the middle of the OP...maybe you just saw me and nyveah up front throwing nukes and thought that was it?

sorry for the off-topic, just had to throw in my 2 dapper on that. ok, i feel better now

Edit: WoA members may have outnumbered the amount of PF members, that's not the issue i have with your statement. The issue i have is when things get exaggerated to such an extent.

___________________________________
Pharamos - Pegasus-Foundation co-leader

[arfindel]

How about giving bonuses for civ faction alignment on OP production rate when owning OPs in lands that match your civ/faction

and penaltys for owning OPs that are not in your own lands

also bonuses for owning OPs in your own lands

based on guild fame of course

Would make sense that the thr be +1 or +2 for a fyros (fyros civilisation, not having some tall people inside) guild that owns an Op in the fyros lands.

Guild fame in civilisation and religion which is so hard to attain has no employment in the game right now. Maybe it should be revised and at same time solo guilds fame should be limited by their 1-2 members.

[xtarsia]

changed thresholds is an interesting idea, tho i was thinking more +/- a % on OP Production rates


though i suppose both could go hand in hand, Production rate being based on faction fame

Threshold modifiers based on Civ fame.


Neutral Guilds getting no bonus or penalty

id say Guild fame for the curent faction territory/5 = the % penalty(or boost) (for faction fame)

ie a Karavan guild in Zorai lands with -50 Kami Fame would suffer a 10% loss in weekly produce


threshold being based on Civ fame/25 = threshold penalty (or boost)


a guild could be only civ aligned, or only faction aligned too.


(pst game forge this would work much better instead of nerfing TPs with the spires!)