Re: What kind of outposts would you prefer?
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:44 pm
What he said.dakhound wrote:bah I cant decide
anything but GvG
Ryzom
This is the community forum for Ryzom.
https://bb.ryzom.com/
What kind of outposts would you prefer?
Page 2 of 3
Re: What kind of outposts would you prefer?
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:41 pm
GvG, well balanced, all the way
Like it was meant to be
Like it was meant to be
Re: What kind of outposts would you prefer?
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:43 pm
That's a loaded statement. If it was meant to be only GvG they wouldn't have allowed other guilds to participate...vladww wrote:GvG, well balanced, all the way
Like it was meant to be
Re: What kind of outposts would you prefer?
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:47 pm
Lets just vote & not argue in this threadsehracii wrote:That's a loaded statement. If it was meant to be only GvG they wouldn't have allowed other guilds to participate...
Balanced PvP > Cheesy politic & huge zerg numbers (imo)
Re: What kind of outposts would you prefer?
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:20 pm
thought i was going to manage to avoid any more reading of op threads but this one is a simple question, so..
i think having all 3 (ie each op designated as a particular type) is not an unworkable objective for Nevrax, and it could be benefical.
GvG keeps the large uber guilds, or those seeking a challenge happy
FvF and AvA, or just as they are now has lots of positive and negative points but its been discussed to death elsewhere. Only point i will make is its nice to draw guilds and players together for a common cause.
What would be really nice is some mechanism for lower level guilds to be able to compete and have op's without being pushed out by more powerful guilds/alliances/etc but heaven knows how that could practically be done. You could deny q50 outposts to any guild with a lv201+ player i suppose but its hardly ideal.
i think having all 3 (ie each op designated as a particular type) is not an unworkable objective for Nevrax, and it could be benefical.
GvG keeps the large uber guilds, or those seeking a challenge happy
FvF and AvA, or just as they are now has lots of positive and negative points but its been discussed to death elsewhere. Only point i will make is its nice to draw guilds and players together for a common cause.
What would be really nice is some mechanism for lower level guilds to be able to compete and have op's without being pushed out by more powerful guilds/alliances/etc but heaven knows how that could practically be done. You could deny q50 outposts to any guild with a lv201+ player i suppose but its hardly ideal.
Re: What kind of outposts would you prefer?
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:31 am
Not sure, I'd like more variation in the way outposts are to be held or taken. neun's suggestion seems like a good start.
Re: What kind of outposts would you prefer?
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:11 am
Im not voting because i would like to see them all. They all work with the mechanics for a reason, for the players to decide the way it will run 
Gives us more free choice.
Gives us more free choice.Re: What kind of outposts would you prefer?
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:46 am
For deities sake, dont go Faction v. Faction.. the Neutrals are being screwed over enough already. plus it will mess up the guilds that have gone faction-for-TPs-only, and neutrals in Factioned guilds.
Despite all the problems, AvA still has the most potential.. but its up to the players to come up with Allies.
As a suggestion, have multiple options for declaring war..straight up as it is now, or limited numbers (costing the attacker much more).
Even let the defenders make a counterbid as to the defense type. The limited numbers model Im thinking of would have both a max participants - and a balanced number , so you CANNOT join a side that greatly outnumbers the other, and if several people (not dead) drop from a side then an equivalent number of randomly selected players are kicked from the other side.
Limited numbers is fairer than GvG, if you are going to be excluding people anyway.
(still would like to see Sashtans idea of mining cats at an OP .. with my addition of hostile miners being attackable
)
http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showpost.php ... stcount=22
http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showpost.php ... stcount=45
Despite all the problems, AvA still has the most potential.. but its up to the players to come up with Allies.
As a suggestion, have multiple options for declaring war..straight up as it is now, or limited numbers (costing the attacker much more).
Even let the defenders make a counterbid as to the defense type. The limited numbers model Im thinking of would have both a max participants - and a balanced number , so you CANNOT join a side that greatly outnumbers the other, and if several people (not dead) drop from a side then an equivalent number of randomly selected players are kicked from the other side.
Limited numbers is fairer than GvG, if you are going to be excluding people anyway.
(still would like to see Sashtans idea of mining cats at an OP .. with my addition of hostile miners being attackable
)http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showpost.php ... stcount=22
http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showpost.php ... stcount=45
Re: What kind of outposts would you prefer?
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:52 am
Spires are/were supposed to be FvF.
If we were only allowed 1 type I'd have to go with GvG; preferable to have more then 1 type of OP though.
If we were only allowed 1 type I'd have to go with GvG; preferable to have more then 1 type of OP though.
Re: What kind of outposts would you prefer?
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:33 am
Speaking as someone who has been on the losing side mostly... I am fine with the way they are now... I would like to things added to them... but no limitations put on the current ones... Maybe open some new ones and make them GvG or something... But I like AvA which is really how it is now