Ryzom

raynes wrote:No the truth is that patch notes are exactly inline with what the game is about. There are going to be changes in the game. Since the purpose of Ryzom is to tell the Saga of Ryzom over 8 years, then it's VERY important that all content, all NPC's, all events, everything tie into the story/game lore. Or at least have a reasonable explaination as to why things have suddenly changed. Take the GM mounts for example. It would totally go against the core purpose of this game to suddenly have GM's mounting animals when they couldn't before without a reason why. So they came up with a story to explain why no one could ride them before.

I would agree with you Raynes if they had the luxury of a perfected engine and gaming system and all they had to do was tell a story. In a book, all must be brought in correctly, in a movie the same applies. But when dealing with software you don't have that luxury. Mounts were supposed to be in the game from the get go. It didn't make it for TECHNICAL reasons, problems with the software and had nothing to do with storyline.

Maybe this will be conclusive for you. How many 'stories' do you know that have recieved a 'patch'. What version of Little Red Riding Hood did you grow up listening too? Was it 3.7 or 3.9? Someone complained that I shouldn't have used the term 'Cliff's notes' because I put some bias and slant on things. Well then I say they had no place calling these 'Patch Notes' because the term 'Patch' refers to SOFTWARE and they muddied anything that truly told you about changes to the software with that story. If they'd called them 'Story Notes' or addendums or something referring that had a literary reference then maybe we wouldn't be having this pleasant discussion about it.

I appreciate and welcome the RP community. It is the RP legacy that spawned the ideas for the games we play today. But there is a point which you have to look at these games for what they truly are at a basic level, and that is software. Still not conviced? How many books do you have to accept a EULA every time you're going to read them? What are the system requirements for your encyclopedia? Have you had compatibility problems with your bookshelf? Look Dungeons & Dragons is the oldest RP game I personally am familiar with and with every revision of the players guide they didn't shove crap down your throat about how the D&D world was changing and causing the saving throws vs. poison for Dwarf mages to change. No, there was an imbalance in their system so they changed the numbers, period. Old system didn't work, new system should work better. That was their stance every time. Dwarf's did not have an evolutionary change in their physiological makeup.

Are we done here? These patch notes, aside from the very small amount of anger I vented through them, were meant to be useful for those of us who accept the fact that this is software and need some basic, fundamental information about it to decide how we are going to interact with it.

~Elf

elfmatic wrote:I would agree with you Raynes if they had the luxury of a perfected engine and gaming system and all they had to do was tell a story. In a book, all must be brought in correctly, in a movie the same applies. But when dealing with software you don't have that luxury. Mounts were supposed to be in the game from the get go. It didn't make it for TECHNICAL reasons, problems with the software and had nothing to do with storyline.

Maybe this will be conclusive for you. How many 'stories' do you know that have recieved a 'patch'. What version of Little Red Riding Hood did you grow up listening too? Was it 3.7 or 3.9? Someone complained that I shouldn't have used the term 'Cliff's notes' because I put some bias and slant on things. Well then I say they had no place calling these 'Patch Notes' because the term 'Patch' refers to SOFTWARE and they muddied anything that truly told you about changes to the software with that story. If they'd called them 'Story Notes' or addendums or something referring that had a literary reference then maybe we wouldn't be having this pleasant discussion about it.

I appreciate and welcome the RP community. It is the RP legacy that spawned the ideas for the games we play today. But there is a point which you have to look at these games for what they truly are at a basic level, and that is software. Still not conviced? How many books do you have to accept a EULA every time you're going to read them? What are the system requirements for your encyclopedia? Have you had compatibility problems with your bookshelf? Look Dungeons & Dragons is the oldest RP game I personally am familiar with and with every revision of the players guide they didn't shove crap down your throat about how the D&D world was changing and causing the saving throws vs. poison for Dwarf mages to change. No, there was an imbalance in their system so they changed the numbers, period. Old system didn't work, new system should work better. That was their stance every time. Dwarf's did not have an evolutionary change in their physiological makeup.

Are we done here? These patch notes, aside from the very small amount of anger I vented through them, were meant to be useful for those of us who accept the fact that this is software and need some basic, fundamental information about it to decide how we are going to interact with it.

~Elf

Angry Troll #XXX

Once again why I would love to squelch other peoples posts...

This is a game, we have impact on the storyline unlike any console rpg, where everything is laid out all nice and neet and you follow the steps along the way to get to point X in the storyline. Each server will follow its own story based on the players actions. No, its not a set story either, its an evolving one. And we are just starting out...consider this the overall calm before the storm. We don't know exactly when it will hit, but it will. And I personally can't wait for the ride.

Giving out the notes in an objective manner is one thing, slanting its message, one way or the other, is inconsiderate to those who are trying to get something useful out of a post. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you always should. Ex- Going and accosting people door to door preaching your religion might seem like a nice way to get converts, but I can tell you what, you come to someones house who just woke up and they probably wont take kindly to your expounding your beliefs and views upon their less than friendly state of mind.

Learn some courtesy for crying out loud. No one likes to hear people complain and whine unconstructively about things. So how about considering how others may take what you say. Use *gasp* tact.

Zzeii - it is YOU who needs to learn some courtesy lol.
I could see nothing trollish about Elfmatic's post.

elfmatic wrote:
Maybe this will be conclusive for you. How many 'stories' do you know that have recieved a 'patch'. What version of Little Red Riding Hood did you grow up listening too? Was it 3.7 or 3.9? Someone complained that I shouldn't have used the term 'Cliff's notes' because I put some bias and slant on things. Well then I say they had no place calling these 'Patch Notes' because the term 'Patch' refers to SOFTWARE and they muddied anything that truly told you about changes to the software with that story. If they'd called them 'Story Notes' or addendums or something referring that had a literary reference then maybe we wouldn't be having this pleasant discussion about it.

I think the better question is, how many stories do you know if that are made up of chapters? Why do I say that? Because if you look at the patch notes and read the patch notes, the patch is chapter 1 of part 1 of the Saga of Ryzom. Remember that the game is a story. Each major patch is an update to the story.

You say that mounts were suppose to be in the game from the start. You are right, they did not make it into the game for technical reasons. But that still means they were not in the game. So how exactly do you explain that one day no one in any of the races could ride a Mektoub, then suddenly there are people riding them? Are you actually trying to argue that there shouldn't be an explaination?

Quite frankly it doesn't matter when things were suppose to be put in the game. It matters if they are or are not. If they are not in the game and suddenly one day they appear, there has to be an explaination given.

raynes wrote:So how exactly do you explain that one day no one in any of the races could ride a Mektoub, then suddenly there are people riding them? Are you actually trying to argue that there shouldn't be an explaination?

That's a ridiculous arguement as the mounts have been standing outside the stables since day 1. Try explaining that through a story line.

[bad rp]
Garcher Mc'Karnak says, "Well you blind fools, they's been a standin' right in front of yah the whole time!."
[/bad rp]

Patch notes are patch notes.
Storyline is storyline.

Call it one or the other both don't make one document try to be both. Either tell us that we won't be getting patch notes (looks to be the truth) but will instead be getting storyline updates OR give us patch notes and a storyline update.

kamagi wrote:Zzeii - it is YOU who needs to learn some courtesy lol.
I could see nothing trollish about Elfmatic's post.

Pot -> kettle -> black~

pcheez wrote:Ur doing something wrong then
I currently have 520 magic sp points with all my magics upgraded. I can afford all the spells i dont have atm.

OK I'm a bit reluctant to believe this. If it costs around 50 SP for every starter:

Then fear, root, slow move, slow attack, heal, acid, cold, rot, SAP crystal, blind, madness, life gift, stamina gift, and stun add up to 700 SP.
This doesn't count any AOE, or any of the other things avail at 50th lvl.
And that doesn't count ANY upgrades or stats, or DOT. I call BS.
Or do low level spells become cheaper at high levels?

gralen wrote:That's a ridiculous arguement as the mounts have been standing outside the stables since day 1. Try explaining that through a story line.

Oh really? Since when is a packer a mount? Do you ride your packer? No, it's something you put stuff on and walk beside. It's not different than if you were putting stuff on a mule in real life and walking beside it.

As I said get used to this cause this is the way patch notes are done for major patches (not bug fixing ones). Your telling me that they should either be patch notes or story notes. And what I am saying to you is that is wrong, becuase the patches ARE story updates. You can argue till your blue in the face. That is the fact.

seedyman wrote:OK I'm a bit reluctant to believe this..... I call BS.

Call it what you like, its true, he's not the only one with lots of spare magic sp after having bought nearly everything.

seedyman wrote:OK I'm a bit reluctant to believe this. If it costs around 50 SP for every starter:

Then fear, root, slow move, slow attack, heal, acid, cold, rot, SAP crystal, blind, madness, life gift, stamina gift, and stun add up to 700 SP.
This doesn't count any AOE, or any of the other things avail at 50th lvl.
And that doesn't count ANY upgrades or stats, or DOT. I call BS.
Or do low level spells become cheaper at high levels?

magic lvl 1-21: 200 SP
lvl 22-51: 2 * 300 SP
lvl 52-101: 4* 500 SP

-> 2800 SP