Ryzom

rundll32 wrote:Yeah I completely agree, I've been here forever now but dont have a huge problem with the way things are going. The way I see it the Ring will (hopefully) increase subs dramatically, thus increasing the size of the development team.

This in turn will mean that once R2 is released, they can go back to fixing bugs and developing new content. All the people that complain about the lack of new content seem to forget that the ring on one hand was made for the players to create there own, but on the other was created to make creating permanent new content easier for the devs.

So roll on R2 is all I can say.

Then they can increase the lvl cap to 300, and i can spend all my time wishing id levelled axe craft as well as axe like last time, cause no one can can craft what I need

Increasing the cap would be cool. With no being able to use cats for the last 50 lvls

I seriously want to use my teeth to tear out the spleen of whichever vapid web coding tard set the forum login options so that it suddenly logs you out after a half hour. Isn't it just splendid spending an entire hour carefully writing an informative, helpful, positive post only to have this rediculous login screen devour it... I'm honestly THIS close to not even bothering to spend another HOUR of my ____ing time redoing everything, but I will... for love of the game.

Alright, time to spend an additional hour of typing and careful thought trying to empty my brain a second time. I know this forum topic is probably close to dead, its been months since it was started, but honestly I'm very new to the game and thought "Well, I have no right to complain about where things are headed if I don't offer my own input".

So here it goes.


PvP / PvE / GvG / FvF Outposts:

Firstly, its my impression that outposts shouldn't be common, you shouldn't be walking through the world pointing to the various hundreds of outposts from various guilds that have cropped up everywhere all over the landscape. And that means that PvE outposting is a rediculous idea. It would be splendid if we could all choose to cooperate against the enemies in regards to outposts, but honestly from my point of view this was intended to be a GvG element of the game, and I think it should -stay- GvG and FvF. But by the same token outposts shouldn't be so very rare that only the most elite of player groups should be able to possess one, nor should a single powerful group of players or a consortium of different player groups hold the vast majority of the OPs. And this means that you have to develop a balance, you have to have something to deter more powerful groups from destroying the smaller groups who manage to succeed at either creating or capturing an outpost of their own, but by the same token you don't want to leave in place a system that is open to exploit by various groups. The system should be highly transparent, in such a way that groups understand exactly what is required to capture or create, and how to maintain and defend outposts of their own.

Strong Vs Weak :

Honestly, there are two ways to keep people from choosing to destroy anyone beneath them to get their hands on 'another' outpost. You have to find some way of encouraging them to develop and defend what they have and you have to find a way to punish them when they choose to take deliberate and agressive action on a large scale. The best way that I can think of is to choose something that punishes groups for choosing to attack others, I'm going to offer up "Agression Points" as a method to help keep things under control. A group gains a certain ammount of agression points every time it chooses to attack any NPC or PC controlled OP, based directly upon the level difference between the groups involved. Careful tinkerring will have to be involved so that guilds don't deliberately pad their rosters with lower level characters to try and drive their average level down. Perhaps it should be the average level of the highest level members of their group. As your group's agression level rises it creates a negative faction modifier than can affect two very important factors, how often other groups may choose to attack your own OPs, and how many NPC defenders you are allowed to have at any OP as well as the price for hiring these defenders. No one wants to defend the front gate of the fortress of a group that is universally hated across all of Atys, because they know that people will strike repeatedly at you over time. This means that regardless of the size of the guild they will have more and more trouble holding a larger number of OPs if their agressive rating is high. You can choose to allow groups to burn off this aggressive rating by performing faction quests specifically designed to effect it, or you can make it slowly fall according to how peaceful they've been lately, or a combination of the two.

Attack Schedule :

Having -any- sort of schedule for attacks is a rediculously stupid notion because it directly influences whether or not a smaller or less powerful group is even capable of contending with a larger group. Even if my guild is full to the very brim with complete <insert nasty plural expletive> if I know that your much smaller group is going to attack me at exactly noon, every last one of my members can turn out to beat you down and laugh at your corpses while we wipe the blood off of our swords. But if you're allowed to attack us in the middle of the night the only defense we're going to have is the one or two players who might be online and whatever NPC defenses our OP has. Which of course, will be directly influenced by how much aggression we've accumulated. Aggressive groups that choose not to 'play nice' and choose to pick on weaker groups will quickly find that they have trouble attracting NPC defenders, and because they have trouble attracting NPC defenders they'll find that they're losing OPs due to nasty sneak attacks. This further encourages people to play nice to keep their aggression rating under control... (Sidenote : That said, this also gives the GMs a LOVELY tool with which to punish guilds that are choosing to engage in antisocial behavior or behavior that is against the EULA like deliberately training people.)

Forge An Empire :

Now to the fun stuff. For OPs to feel like an accomplishment and be more meaningful that a simple way of gathering higher quality resources and XP crystals, they have to develop over time, they have to rise and fall in strength. Perhaps we should put directly into the hands of the leaders of the guild the ability to develop an OP over time, to decide which areas to persue. This encourages guilds to engage in their own diplomacy to decide what facets of an outpost need to be addressed first, whether the defenses should be bolstered to help turn aside attacks and strengthen the NPC garrison of the OP, whether to clear more land around the OP (increasing the footprint of the OP, an area 'around' it in which higher level forages spawn, this gives your harvesters a tangible role in the development of the OP and gives them a reward for their efforts). Perhaps choices for crafters would be to include forges that can be used to create special weapons and armor that can only be used by members of your faction, which bonuses dependant not only on the materials used, but also on the forge itself. And to help the crafters settle into their role in the OP, these items can be used to equip the garrison of NPC characters guarding the outpost. There are tonnes of wonderful ideas about ways you can improve your OP floating around in my head.

That said, as your OP becomes more powerful, it becomes a much tastier looking target for NPC raids. As the footprint of your OP increases in size and you begin to delve deeper into the surface of Atys in search of more materials, you anger the kitin, provoking them into raids on your OP which just like the player controlled raids, aren't based on any perticular schedule, but unlike the player raids, have nothing to do with your agression rating. A powerful OP should expect to have to turn aside these attacks on a regular basis. By the same token as your coffers and your forges improve, you become a richer target for bandits who are also seeking to take your carefully crafted empire from you for other reasons.

The City Is In Flames, Sir :

That said, if you're building a sand castle, you have to watch out for the tide. Attacks on your buildings should cause physical damage to the building itself, perhaps the bandits manage to get access to the vaults and steal days worth of production or damage the resource drill so that your production is hampered for the next couple of days. Perhaps their attack weakens the buildings, or kills enough of your NPC guards that it takes a few days for them to regenerate. Perhaps if you fail to turn them aside real damage is done to the structure that must be repaired. This can be accomplished by giving your OP various 'levels' that can be permantently taken away by attacks that successfully manage to pierce your defenses. And in the case of PvP raids, when all of the defenders of your structure are dead, the opposing group takes control of your OP, but because of the battle its lost much of its splendor and will need to be repaired by the invaders as they settle it... If the thought of a 'quick' raid bothers you, perhaps every time your OP loses a level a number of additional, increasingly strong NPC defenders spawns... Of course, the -number- of these defenders should be dependant directly on, what else? Your agressiveness rating, further making it risky to attack consistantly or to pick on weaker groups.

And perhaps? Perhaps this is a great opporunity to create a sink for all the worthless, useless dapper in the market. Perhaps you should have to pay for various repairs and upgrades and pay your NPC defenders a wage to keep your building....

*sigh*

Not nearly so flowing a post as the one the forum code ate, and it lacks some of the best ideas that just wouldn't let me tug them out of shadows in the back of my skull for show and tell again. But the general principles are all here. Let me know what you think?

Just a note,Unless they forced GvG only(Which IMO would ruin a big part of the fun and make it even less likely for a new guild to ever get an OP)If the 250 OPs defences were increased, It would be nearly impossible to take them... Unless you outnumberd your enemy atleast 3-1 (if only increased about 20%) at 50% increase you would probably need no less then 5-1 odds atleast(Probably more)...

You do have some interesting Ideas tho Bandit raids would become annoying if they happen to much... Kitin raids would be fun, But also annoying if done to much...

I would defently like to see OPs have more buildings and such... Maybe they will work on them soon *hopes* Id rather see OPs added too then spires be released

raven41 wrote:Just a note,Unless they forced GvG only(Which IMO would ruin a big part of the fun and make it even less likely for a new guild to ever get an OP)If the 250 OPs defences were increased, It would be nearly impossible to take them... Unless you outnumberd your enemy atleast 3-1 (if only increased about 20%) at 50% increase you would probably need no less then 5-1 odds atleast(Probably more)...

You do have some interesting Ideas tho Bandit raids would become annoying if they happen to much... Kitin raids would be fun, But also annoying if done to much...

I would defently like to see OPs have more buildings and such... Maybe they will work on them soon *hopes* Id rather see OPs added too then spires be released

Unless a crack squad of nasty buggers jumped you right in the middle of a kitin attack, riding over the hill to catch you from behind? *grin*

Or nailed you in the middle of the night, picking off your defending NPCs one at a time...

But that's my point, battle shouldn't be a matter of making appointments, you shouldn't be looking at the calendar when you plan your attacks, you should be looking at your enemy, watching... waiting...

raven41 wrote:Just a note,Unless they forced GvG only(Which IMO would ruin a big part of the fun and make it even less likely for a new guild to ever get an OP)

I'm not saying that OPs shouldn't be available as a PvE encouter, just that you shouldn't be able to -sustain- one as a series of purely PvE encounters. I have nothing against them slowly adding more OPs as time goes on and letting people scrap over them. One would need to find a proper balance of OPs to players so that there are 'enough' of them available to give everyone a 'shot' at one, whether you have to take it from someone or take it from some NPCs.

But you shouldn't be able to just wander out into the bush and go "Oh look, an OP! Lets take it!", it shouldn't be simple, it shouldn't be quick. It should require a lot of effort to take one even if it doesn't require a lot of power to do so, and it should require even MORE effort to hold one. Just like everything else in the game, it shouldn't be an easy ride, it shouldn't be "Oh, you're level 200, heres your free OP to distract you from the fact that levelling is so darned hard now"

When I envision the 'epic' portion of a game, the final stages of it, I imagine something that takes a great investiture of time and planning, and it should feel worth it when you come to that point. It should be a point of absolute pride, something worth fighting for, not a free sack full of resources every day and a hearty slap on the shoulder for being a really good arse kicker...

raven41 wrote:Just a note,Unless they forced GvG only(Which IMO would ruin a big part of the fun and make it even less likely for a new guild to ever get an OP)

Enforcing GvG instead of the current AvA wouldn't make the slightest difference unless they limited guild and/or battle size. If not, the few large guilds that are currently allied could just amalgamate into even larger guilds so they could keep always winning.

Unfortunately, I can't see an administration introducing guild-limits after there already are guilds containing several hundred (maybe even a 1000?) homins that are well-established.

City of Heroes and Villains currently limits guild ("supergroup") size to 75 and limits GvG battles ("base raids") to set numbers to give every guild a fighting chance (16 on each side, if I remember correctly, though they have talked about battles limited to 8 or 32 toons). It is still the keen, PVP-focused guilds that do best, but it isn't so completely unbalanced as in a system where simple numbers can be used to steamroller a win.

A similar argument can be made about the WoW battlegrounds, which limit levels and numbers on each side so that you can fight knowing that your enemy is not massively stronger or weaker than you are (Neither of which is fun for me, at least).

nephy13 wrote: Unfortunately, I can't see an administration introducing guild-limits after there already are guilds containing several hundred (maybe even a 1000?) homins that are well-established.

City of Heroes and Villains currently limits guild ("supergroup") size to 75 and limits GvG battles ("base raids") to set numbers to give every guild a fighting chance (16 on each side, if I remember correctly, though they have talked about battles limited to 8 or 32 toons). It is still the keen, PVP-focused guilds that do best, but it isn't so completely unbalanced as in a system where simple numbers can be used to steamroller a win.

Honestly, I think its quite fair that a guild be able to use its size as a way of controlling more OPs, the fact is that if you have a really large group the proceeds from an OP are (if the guild management is fair) going to be divided by a much larger group of people.

But just as I suggested, there should NEVER be a system by which you're forced to schedule your attack against someone, because if an attack is on schedule you immediately have to contend with the fact that a 100 man guild has no chance against a 500 man guild.

If 100 men storm your OP in the middle of the night because they're well organized and have planned their attack well, then they should carry the day. But if they have to wait around until noon tomorrow and give you 12 hours to call -all- of your friends, there is no point in them even trying to win, they've lost before they started. And when people see these insurmountable retarded odds of victory, it is then that they get disenfranchised and start to look for 'other' ways of hamperring the larger groups, like false declarations.

kirzen wrote:Honestly, I think its quite fair that a guild be able to use its size as a way of controlling more OPs, the fact is that if you have a really large group the proceeds from an OP are (if the guild management is fair) going to be divided by a much larger group of people.

I think it is reasonable that a large guild can control more outposts, but in proportion with its size. For example, if there are guilds of 100, 100, 200 and 600 homins vieing for 10 outposts, then they should (at equilibrium and assuming that all members are of equivalent power and activity) hold 1, 1, 2 and 6 outposts. The current system means that the largest guild (or alliance) can control all the outposts if it wishes to - in this example, the 600-homin guild could control all 10 and the other 3 guilds, even if they band together, will find it very difficult even to get a single outpost between them (They will be outnumbered 3:2 in every outpost battle).

This system reminds me of the first-past-the-post system of elections that most nations use, compared to proportional representation. A small party, even if it holds 20% of the votes nationally will never get even one seat unless it holds a majority of votes within a single constituency (OK, I'm using terms specific to British parlimentary elections, but I'm sure that other nations have parallels).

I've heard the larger guilds claim that the current system is fair because they set aside outposts for the smaller guilds. Rather than dispelling the idea that a cartel runs things, it reinforces the fact that the cartels are so powerful that they can control more than they need. It is not the smaller guilds being able to take things from the larger ones, but rather that the larger guilds give away what is virtually useless to them to prevent people questioning (not physically challenging) their position.

I blame only the game system that is in place for this state of affairs, not the guilds themselves, who are only working within that system.

(For reference, I have only read of the political system on Arispotle as I arrived in Atys with the opening of the Cho shard. There I am in a small guild (Nightsong) that has been offered a small (q50) outpost by one of the dominant guilds, though we have not as yet taken them up on that offer for various reasons).

nephy13 wrote:
I've heard the larger guilds claim that the current system is fair because they set aside outposts for the smaller guilds. Rather than dispelling the idea that a cartel runs things, it reinforces the fact that the cartels are so powerful that they can control more than they need. It is not the smaller guilds being able to take things from the larger ones, but rather that the larger guilds give away what is virtually useless to them to prevent people questioning (not physically challenging) their position.

I blame only the game system that is in place for this state of affairs, not the guilds themselves, who are only working within that system.

The biggest reason for the current sad state of affairs in my eyes, is the fact that you have to declare war significantly before you can stage your attack, giving your enemy a chance to ready their defense against you. In such a situation numbers are honestly the ONLY thing that matters. Tactics don't matter, preparation doesn't matter. It becomes a sheer matter of which group can drum up the most support for their side of the field. Which essentially turns it into a giant popularity contest...

And that's not fair.

Its MAGNIFIED by the fact that you have to declare a long time in advance, the time span between declaring your attack and actually striking at your enemy is so rediculously open that unless smaller groups choose to attack multiple bases at the same time or choose to make false declarations against bases that they have no intrest in taking they will lose EVERY time, regardless of how well prepared they are.

Those same 600 men you speak off could even hold 40 or 50 outposts under the current system, because the only way any other group of 100 men would have a chance against them would be to gather a number of allied groups together to oppose them in a battle of sheer numbers. Which means if there is one super-group of 600, there has to honestly be -6- other groups to take ONE OP from the super-group.

So despite the fact that if that super group has all -50- of the OPs and can only honestly field 12 men for each OP if all of them are attacked at once, it becomes an impossiblity under the current system for someone with 100 men to defeat them, simply because the huge ammount of time involved means organization is a complete joke...

I'm sorry, if every battle in history had enough notice for everyone to forge an entirely new set of armor, fortify their defenses, create brand new battle plans, and gather support no one in history would ever have lost a conflict. War would always go to the defender unless the attacker had such superior numbers that the defender didn't have a chance in the first place...

And because of this, we see dirty, underhanded crap like declaring war on Christmas day, false declarations to divide a larger army between various sites, and other things that people are considering 'dirty pool'.

These aren't symptoms of people who suck... They're symptoms of a system that sucks, and I honestly hope the Dev's are really listening when I say that...

Declaring in advance is a complete joke guys.

I've said it, I'll say it a dozen times. If you honestly want the ownership of the OPs to be fluid, you had best discard the concept of declaring ahead of time. Its very true that I don't want to have to wake up at 3AM to defend my OP...

But guess what? If you take my OP at 3AM in a lightning fast raid when I'm not looking. Guess where I'm going to be at 3AM tomorrow?

And that, my friends, is -fair-.

Waiting isn't fair, it only helps the big boys.