fallen kami will asking about op-wars

[murmadog]

I look here will soon go on the route planned from above, to hugs with each other and to represent from self the best community of players?.. Wars under the schedule in consent the parties?.. Who will be allocated out of operation - silence forever?.. War declarations = harassments for community?.. Where freedom of actions of the player?..

I apologize, we precisely play one game?..

[inifuss]

The Arispotle server and the CSR team have used common sense in the past regarding general gameplay behaviour and rules, but lately we have had increase requests to post some sort of guidelines similar to the French server.
I will therefore post a translation in the near future, alas with all lists of "rules" there will be debate so it will still be left to the discretion of your CSR team for final rulings.

Mokoi
SGM Arispotle

Really sad for us that we need to be treated like 14 year old kids.

In the end, it is what is is, a game.

Inifuss

[holina]

PVP engagement rules are always a tricky thing to get right in any MMO, especially if it involves territorial conflict [edit]for special, otherwise unavailable stuff[/edit]. IMHO with Ryzom's current subscriber base and opmat mechanics/availability an "everything goes" rule set wouldn't be beneficial.



Adding an alternative way to get opmats, that does not require an op might make the above ruleset valid/desirable even on low population servers. My idea for an alternative opmat source (might have been suggested, haven't been around for quite some time):

• Create neutral op sites that players can take control of by staying in it's close proximity. After every minute (or 5, 10... whichever works best) 1 to X forage spot spawns containing a total of Y opmats. These would work like normal forage spots (same digging rules) but would yield opmats.

• Only place the above sites in GuildPVP or TeamPVP (would recommend the later, would allow for cross-guild cooperation) areas. If more then one guild/team is in the sites close proximity for at least Z seconds/minutes no forage spots are spawned. This is what is usually referred to as "King of the hill" in FPSs, if I'm not mistaken (with a bit of Ryzom flavor added in).

• Ballance the opmat yield/hour so that these neutral sites are clearly not as good as an op.

• (Optional) Put some of the better / more sought after opmat sites into aggro areas for added fun (/waves to KP ).

The above would keep ops still the easy (as in, not having to be logged on) way to get opmats but wars with full scale dirty tactics could be fought over them.



If a guild can't be online 24/7 and their challenger can they still have the option to dig the mats themselves. Yes it could mean PVP, but could also forge new friendships. And if a guild should rise that controls all guild op sites AND the new neutral sites 24/7 then

• Ryzom's owners would be bathing in money since loads of players are needed to control all sites.

• The whole server will have one guild to hate giving loads of PVP related fun for them and the rest of the server

What you think? Baaaaad idea or could it perhaps work and solve/lessen the building tension?

(And no, I don't know how many people are online on average, so I could be way off with my assumptions. Also, I haven't been personally involved in any serious op wars since I way mostly /afk for the last years. And I have no idea how long this would take to code/test/fix and if it's even worth having a look at currently or if there are more pressing matters - I usually just dig and craft if I log in and that works )

[blaah]

What you think? Baaaaad idea or could it perhaps work and solve/lessen the building tension?

imho, devs should first fix the loophole where guilds not powerful enough can hold the outpost by making semi-random marauder attacks to outposts. can even be a dapper sink, so that if guild does not feel like fighting, they pay the marauders to go away

[r1vver]

ok, two of my ideas:

1. To reduce the number of fake attacks.
Increase the amount of dappers that the attacking guild pays for the attack x100. In the case of q150 OP, it would be 400'000'000 dappers instead of 4'000'000. Or x1000 - then 4'000'000'000 dappers instead of 4'000'000. Even if dapper does not cost anything - this is more serious amount. And it's easy enough to implement for developers.

2. To solve the problem with inactive and weak guilds holding outposts.
Trial of Proof. To do this, once a month, the guild which is owns outpost should be able to withstand the attack of marauders of this outpost. Only members of the owning guild are defending, without any assistance of the community, alliances, other guilds, etc.
In order to exclude the possibility of a temporary move to this guild members from the other guilds to help - set the threshold of growth of the members-defenders in the guild by 6 members per mounth for example. 6 members increase per mounts - not so bad for for Atys today, i think.
If the guild loses a large number of members (6 members but now in 1 week) - at the end of this week - Trial, but now without that 6 lost members.

Or another variant - only a certain number of guild members-defenders will be able to click defend button and take part in the Trial. For outposts of different levels - different maximum number of defenders. But with rules of first variant (threshold of growth of the members-defenders in the guild per mounth).

In the weekend of Trial, nothing can interrupt trial (no OP-wars during Trial on this OP)

It's much harder to implement such thing but this is looks fair enough.

[ajsuk]

er... yeah... Way to prevent any newer players/guilds from taking part in outposts.

I do like the idea of marauder attacks but I don't trust our wonderful devs to implement a proper system which takes in to consideration our (lack of) population. *I'm thinking any kitin nest raid events in the past 3 years*

[gavin205]

OK, here’s my two dapper on how to revise outpost combat dynamics to address the issues presented in this thread.

First, allow the defender to select when the defense phase occurs, perhaps any time within 36 hours after the initial attack. This would eliminate the issue of attacks at times that are inconvenient to the defender, as both the attacker and the defender get to choose a time that works best for them.

Second, as suggested prior, there needs to be some system of outpost control being tested or simply reset from time to time. I suggest making use of all the additional dormant outpost sites. The story behind the outposts is that they are over a rich material vein of some sort. So like all other resources on Atys, allow them to deplete over time, and have active outpost locations shift at reasonable yet random time period. For example, every four to six weeks have 25% of the outposts revert to abandoned and have the same number of new sites become active. These numbers could even be adjusted as server population changes. The key here to make it fair, and interesting, is to make when an outpost shifts and what site will replace it unpredictable.

Oh, and lastly, just to make life really interesting, how about we throw in the ability to force an outpost site to go offline thru a high cost faction point purchase. Karavan tactical-nuke from orbit anyone? BAA-BOOM!!!

[zarozina]

*sigh*

Sorry Norb but if you cannot see how declaring on an OP, showing up alone and failing to even tag up for more than one round constitutes an exploit then I feel very sorry for you.

A complaint was made to the devs and a decision was made by them. Deal with it.

Claiming that my guild is inactive as an excuse for this attack-that-was-not-an-attack holds no water when there were the same number of night hawks present as there were Swim Team. At least, if I remember correctly, the Swim Team were at least tagged for battle, unlike Nighthawks. Turning up to attack an OP alone and un-tagged cannot possibly be seen as anything other than an exploit/harassment/waste of everyone's time. Everyone else can see this. claiming it to be otherwise in the face of overwhelming opinion to the contratry does little good for your cause or your reputation.

If a guild wishes to declare over and over, then fine, so be it. If a guild wishes to declare at a time suitable for them not the opposition, then likewise: fair enough. Neither of these are the issue here. Declaring then turning up and doing NOTHING: THAT is the issue and it has been dealt with, so I say again: deal with it.

[murmadog]

Declaring then turning up and doing NOTHING: THAT is the issue and it has been dealt with, so I say again: deal with it.

nope. =)

i still dont see any rules about op-wars in CoC... so i dont see why my guild must be tagged at op... i pay 4kk dappers for declare war, but i have rights dont show there... tactics of war in many games... i dont know noone mmorpg where you have chances be banned after "you a bad player, you not showed at war"...

you know why NH attacking Demons op... and still will be between NH and that outpost... be prepared for next defence (fake? not?) then...

[blaah]

i still dont see any rules about op-wars in CoC... so i dont see why my guild must be tagged at op... i pay 4kk dappers for declare war, but i have rights dont show there...

to follow your logic, mutual defence declarations are perfectly acceptable. hmm...