Conflict

[calel]

Are you actually arguing that OP battles have no effect on Atys? Are you saying when Infinity left the game it did not change the story? That the two alliances have no meaning?

Absolutely;all this only matters in player realtions and politics. None of this progressed the story, changed the face of Atys, entered the lore or got acknowledged by factions or governments. There are no consequences to Outposts for lore/storyline in it's current implementation, it's merely a mechanic that could be repeated ad infinitum. Change of ownership will not have lore/storyline implications.

That is why the nations leaders took their hands off them and why the factions do not react to wars or pleas save the brief initial texts on the apearance of Outposts; because the only reason for them to react would mean something has to be at stake for them, there'd have to be storyline implications (consequences/rewards or progression if you will) which obviously did not interest the Designers, or they would have implemented that in the first place.

Remember how Outposts were originally envisioned? Guild vs guild features; your guild would have to acquire the Outpost by being on good standing with the local tribes, fight perhaps an npc battle and you were set. At any time after you'd be open for a war declaration by another guild or alliance who could then own the Outpost instead if they had won. The end, ... till you got attacked again. Consequences and rewards for player politics only on guild and alliance level. Save for the fact current Outposts are a mere dumbed down version or the original idea, the NPC tribes got taken out of the loop and almost completely rendered useless, and they got labelled as 'now you can compete over them in the name of the factions' not much has changed. It wasn't meant in the first place to have an impact on the storyline; why would it's recycled version now?

Epics are about how people react to great events. They are not about the actual event. It is what characters do in the face of uncontrollable circumstances that makes the story eternal.

Well yes and no; uncontrolable circumstances means again consequences, something that is at stake. If you know the outcome won't matter and the story has already been set in stone, would you still bother? Both you and me participated in the Temple Wars for a reason, there was something to loose and something to gain on more than the player level; we influenced the outcome and the story progression. We did not participate because it was a dull night at the stables (or slow TV night) and had nothing better to do.

Perhaps that is why some folks are neutral, they want control.

Possibly, but not a foolproof assesment as most people seem to want to have things under control or have a means to some security. Spires seem(ed) to be designed to be all but controlable yet the loudest complaints on it have been comming from factioned players out of fear of loosing that control/security.

I myself prefer that we have a part in the story. I don't think we should be the story. Can you imagine how screwed up this game would be if players controlled the factions and racial governments? That is just scarey.

True enough, that's not what I want either. Though I doubt the character Pero would have the same ideas you now stated, hehe.
What I meant however was that we as players can not leave a mark on the storyline if the storyline itself ain't progressing or when there's only footnotes available in a big blank book. We could try to write up our own pages, but you can be sure of it the book won't see the presses and go into circulation.

[grimjim]

Perhaps that is why some folks are neutral, they want control. I myself prefer that we have a part in the story. I don't think we should be the story. Can you imagine how screwed up this game would be if players controlled the factions and racial governments? That is just scarey.

No, it'd be great. Much better.

I don't play RPGs to follow someone else's story.

That's called 'Reading a book'.

[dakhound]

to Pero - Thats about the first post I've ever seen eye to eye with you and I agree totally.

At the moment we have pretty much ground to a standstill with wars every now and again. The kami are working to re-gain their lands from the karavan and the karavan seem to be working on the defensive as a unit with a few players still being aggressive.

The politics if I'm honest wind me right up, I dont like having to beg to get enough support for a battle nor will I in the future. If the politics were done away with both sides could have a proper war rather than the tit for tat crap we have now. For the moment I cant see it happening and hence why I have stopped working to that end.

Bring in a system to take outposts by PvE, get the others who dont PvP involved in the war, Bring in 2 outposts in every land and make it so if kami own both the kami cant use their TP and if both sides own 1 it means all can tp there. There would be a large element of strategy involved then.

Reduce outpost battles to 1 phase (the attack phase) the defending side already has a massive advantage with the guards. This would mean the turnove rof outposts goes through the roof and create a real feeling of war.

just my 2 cent, many will disagree

[riveit]

I don't play RPGs to follow someone else's story.

I see the ongoing story of the players and guilds of Atys as a collective story belonging to all of us. We each play a role unless we choose to stay aloof.

What I meant however was that we as players can not leave a mark on the storyline if the storyline itself ain't progressing or when there's only footnotes available in a big blank book. We could try to write up our own pages, but you can be sure of it the book won't see the presses and go into circulation.

I believe there is a huge and engrossing parallel storyline created by the players since outposts appeared. It is a enormous dramatic epic that fills homins with passion. There are heroes and villains, saints and sinners aplenty - of course they switch positions depending upon where one stands. There have been many bitter defeats and sweet "by the skin of your teeth" victories. A complex tangle of politics is always shifting but unseen by many players. The full gamut of human emotions from joy to despair gets run through regularly. We have seen many fascinating chapters from the initial Great Landrush with it's big winners and big losers, to the recent Kamist Reconquest of Malmont and AA's failed Second Assault on Woodburn. It is a story that many of us wish to see continue, rather than to stagnate with peace and compromise.

The great shame of it is that it is a story that we are afraid to write. Two hundred players gathered to fight at Woodburn last Friday but there was not a whisper on the forum. By the way, congratulations to the winners and to everyone who came and participated. It was a great battle and free of any chat nastiness. But how can new and uninvolved players see that amazing history of Atys? It would be nice to have some sort of non-partisan news service to let people know what has occurred.

[danolt]

to Pero - Thats about the first post I've ever seen eye to eye with you and I agree totally.

Might have something to do with the fact that may well have been my first completely OOC post.

My take on the present mood of the community is that no matter how simple the mechanics became in taking an OP, there would still be very little turnover. It is my guess that if spires went live now, there would be a huge outcry and attempts to use peer pressure and shame in hopes that no one ever used them. "Peace is the only way, Ma-Duk and Jena want us to love each other, blah blah"

There is no middle ground between the philosophies of the two factions. I am not saying that there always has to be conflict, but open friendship should be rare and have tragic consequences ( star crossed lovers etc..)

In my talks with new players almost all of them ask about how PvP impacts the game. They all like the idea of spires and more OP battles. They do not seem to be satisfied with the status quo but yet they are working very hard to get the levels to contribute in the OP fights. It is a tangible purpose, train up your skills in order to help the cause.

As for the game being player run, what happens to the losers of the inevitable power struggles. Guilds would be banned, players exiled. I am not saying their accounts would be terminated, but access to cities and events would certainly become very limited. I think North Korea would look pretty hospitable compared to a virtually run nation. The chances of a player run community reaching out to the rest of the players in the game once their political opposition is destroyed is very, very small. Imagine if one faction controlled all the OP's, how many high level OP items would players on the other side see. Now think what a faction would do if they controlled everything and were led by real executives with real in game power.

There is also a stability issue, players do leave the game, they take breaks, they can oversleep and miss events etc... It sounds great in theory but eventually the consequences become to great and the game folds as no one wants to spend their time playing a serf for their beta player overlords.

[xenofur]

Pero: Purely brilliant. I tried to explain similar things to grimjim a while back, but failed. Perhaps you are able to succeed.
I see now why people wish to build a statue for you.

[kipestia]

these are games, which are already hugely artificial. to have our effect on this virtual world actually be artificial even within that artificial construct is... just really hard... most people don't notice. even the person doing it for himself has a hard time holding on to it. It's like all our effect on the world is merely a video game that our characters are playing. it has no effect on the world of our characters.
but this game isn't designed to be otherwise, so I'm really barking up the wrong tree.
it really would be nice if they would make things like Kitin invasions that block off towns and regions and such...

[raven41]

I don't like the idea of spires for a few reasons, One it will take more TPs from people, and we all remember what happened last time.... And 2 I don't understand why a faction would lose the right to TP to a region but Neutrals would still be able to use the TP, That just doesn't make since to me O.o ... Why would a faction stop letting its supporters use its TP but let someone who doesn't support them keep using it... And I can already see an answer 'well the Karavan would stop the Kami bla bla', But How could the Kara control a Kami TP >.>

It just doens't ,make alot of since that way to me, And takes away any consinsual part of it really... Just because someone is factioned doesn't make them PvPers, On another note, If we want to stop caring about consinual, Then Impliment spires and make the effects effect everyone and not just factioned players, As I stated, It just doesn't make sence, For neutrals to be able to use a factioned TP that factioned players can't use

Tho I like this idea better...http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26834

Even tho it seems some people in that thread just want to see --"Everyone else get nerfed because we did"--Which

[raven41]

stupid dbl post..

[danolt]

Red,

What I am trying to get across is that it is irrelevant what PvP system is in place. If it were the greatest system ever created a large group of players would condemn, with extreme malice, those who participated in that conflict.

I am suggesting that if there were more conflict, there would be more turn over of outposts and allot more opportunities for new guilds and players to get involved in the game.

Pero