Ryzom

caitiff wrote:If you want to go off the polls you may want to look again. The current results are 11 for open, 13 for none, and 24 for some pvp and some areas with no pvp. This means taht 35 people out of 48 people want at least some pvp areas. This means nearly 75% of the population wants some PvP which also seems to be what Nevrax is doing. Looks like they actually are doing what the majority of the people want?

Sorry, Don't mean to pick on you at all, but you were the first one who posted saying how nevrax doesnt listen when to me it seems they do.

The poll is massively flawed in its base question.
The third option can be taken to include any PvP.
Most people won't have any problem with duels, or event based PvP.

Thus the results are distorted and more easily interpreted in favour of PvP.

The previous poll, which had a much larger response had a sliding scale and by collating the overall results people generally wanted a slight lessening of PvP (From the stage it was at then, with duels and the prime roots).

The majority either wanted the status quo preserved or a slight lessening.

Open, I say. Kill 'em all! *torch torch torch*!! =D

I'm one of those who don't like PvP at all and that means any kind PvP. If PvP is open in some game, You will not find me in that game.

On my opinion, PvP just cause too many problems in the games. At least games what aren't design to be PvP games from start. It cause disturbs between players.

Haven't we all played vs. video games, on Nintendo, Playstation, Doom on computers, whatever? The only video games I've heard of where people react so badly to vs gameplay are the kinds of games we end up getting addicted to and treating like much more than a game. One day, when none of us are playing Ryzom anymore, our characters and what we did with them are all going to mean squat. Your toon will be gone, and everything we've done here and tried to preserve is going to be gone, and the frustrations we had over the game are going to seem silly. These games are best taken with a grain of salt and a very, very relaxed attitude, IMO.

grimjim wrote:The poll is massively flawed in its base question.
The third option can be taken to include any PvP.

1. Open PvP, includes PvE.
2. No PvP at all, means PvE only.
3. Both, should be PvE and PvP only with consent.

As much as I dislike PvP (I would prefer none at all), I have begun to think that it is the way forward for this game.

Takeing the current kami vs. karavan events, it is clear than Nevrax is trying to move SoR from a peaceful world, to one where there are (more) conflicts.
For conflicts to work, the opposing sides must be able to confront each others in one or more ways. Which for now appear to be PvP, FvF and outposts.

So to me the increased amount of conflict zones makes sense, it is part of the saga and hence what SoR has as a (story) goal.
In that regard I think they should make every part of the world pure PvP, except for towns and around shrines/teleporters.
I know it sound extreme, but this is the way I could see it work.

• Anyone can attack who ever they like, in team, out of team, NPC and creature. What you do have consequence. You accidentally nuke your tank while hunting, better wake up boy!
• You can cast heal on anything you like, homins, NPCs and creatures alike. You better cast that heal on the tank and not the torbak!

This way you have to think more about what you are doing, and with the healing of NPCs you can actually help your NPC allies if they are under attack (I really miss that one, not much fun in seeing your Gibad friends being attacked by a yetin and no way to help since you are in focus armour ).

Would have been much better poll without word "open".

mmatto wrote:Would have been much better poll without word "open".

Not really, as then there would not be possibility select PvP with consent.

magick1 wrote:For conflicts to work...

... you need more RP ppl. a lot more. othervise it's just ganking - because i can / bored etc excuse.

PvP event is different.

aelvana wrote:Haven't we all played vs. video games, on Nintendo, Playstation, Doom on computers, whatever? The only video games I've heard of where people react so badly to vs gameplay are the kinds of games we end up getting addicted to and treating like much more than a game. One day, when none of us are playing Ryzom anymore, our characters and what we did with them are all going to mean squat. Your toon will be gone, and everything we've done here and tried to preserve is going to be gone, and the frustrations we had over the game are going to seem silly. These games are best taken with a grain of salt and a very, very relaxed attitude, IMO.

MMORPGs are different to normal video games in the same way that a round of poker played for matchsticks is different to playing for money.

These are roleplaying games, you are encouraged, you SHOULD get into the role of your character, enjoy playing them, building them up. Each character is the hero of their own personal story.

This is not the same as playing Tekken or an FPS, even against other people. Die or lose in those and there are no consequences, you are playing a simple cipher, not a character in the truest sense of the word. Defeat means nothing, doesn't affect your (or the character's) self image or impinge on your fun.

There IS a way to have the challenge of PvP without the griefers, gankers, children, small-gender-organed ego junkies or other problem players and its a model I wish games would adopt.

Allow the guides or GMs to directly and indirectly control the bad guys. There's no better AI than another 'player' and human controlled enemies could give us greater challenge, tactics and otherwise a fine old time without turning players on each other so much.

PvP has a place here, due to the storyline, but the implementation doesn't seem to match that and is being worked on and added to in spite of a lack of general interest amongst the existing playerbase.

This MAY be a business decision, there aren't a massive amount of us after all, perhaps the PvP a**hole option would provide more income and keep the game running, you can't really fault Nevrax for that... you can fault them for the implementation though.

These new zones? Wouldn't it make more sense to make them the border territories between the opposing factions?

Outposts? Why promote a faction storyline and then introduce an element that is FAR more likely to get people fighting their own races and guilds?

It just doesn't make sense.

PvP creates an antagonistic _OOC_ atmosphere and sours the enjoyment of games, breaking up communities and heavily increasing the amount of complaints, cheating, exploiting and OTT competetiveness. We've already seen the negative effect introducing combat-taken uberloot had, that's nothing.