Ryzom

ishark wrote:Now, I can understand that you want to keep hidden your secrets (well, actually, no, I can't understand, but that's me), maybe I was not clear: what I find surprising is that there is no discussion on the MECHANICS. Recipes I can find myself, thank you, but why there's no shared pool of collected data, no modeling, no discussion, nothing at all. It looks like everyone is sitting in his cave (ok, maybe the guild's cave) collecting data, writing down numbers, trying to understand how it works in his little corner, hiding whatever he finds for "fear" that someone may learn it.
And all this is for a +1% in some stats, which will make absolutely no difference in the end and is dwarfed by a lucky proc with an OP-mat tool. Go figure.

Indeed, completely ridiculous, isn't it? I doubt many could argue that it is.

And the fact that it's so ridiculous doesn't make you consider that, perhaps, that's not how it is? That perhaps most of these people do refrain from discussing the mechanics because they're afraid they'll spoil the game for others, rather than because they're afraid to lose their meaningless +1% advantage?

Most people I've known who knew the crafting mechanics inside out and chose not to publish their knowledge were not multi-master crafters, and ingame they didn't really benefit from their knowledge at all.

Most people who I've heard argue most strongly against the public discussion of crafting mechanics weren't multi-master crafters either, but rather budding crafters who wanted to figure all that out for themselves.

In fact, the multi-master crafters, who should be the ones to benefit the most from keeping their crafting knowledge secret, seem to generally be the ones most willing to share it.

Most people hiding their numbers in their caves are more than willing to share it with other players, they just don't want it publicised open for everyone to see. So they only share it with people whom they trust won't publicise it for all to see either. Not to keep their recipees; they don't give a damn about their +1% advantage. But they remember how appealing the mystery of the crafting system was to them before they figured it out, and how much fun they had figuring things out, and how boring it became when they had it all figured out. They want to preserve that experience for others who don't want things spoiled.

Imagine someone you hardly know asking you "hey, could you spoil me the ending for [new movie]? I'm not really interesting in seeing it anyways, I just want to know the ending so I can spoil it to as many people who haven't seen it yet as possible!" That is how we feel when someone who's just been playing for a few months demands we tell them everything we know about the crafting system.

ishark wrote:Can you tell me what you find "hard" in ryzom (or maybe we have a different meaning for hard)? The only activity which I find to be hard is solo-trekking.... all others are either "max all possible stanzas" or "don't bother maxxing because it's irrelevant".

First of all, I beg your pardon for the delayed response. I've been away from the forums for a few days.

Personally, Ryzom is the measuring stick by which I judge other games, as it was my first MMO, and the one I still play after having abandoned all the others I've tried. To me it is neither hard nor easy, it just is what it is.

However, I have attempted a few times to recruit people I've met elsewhere to try out Ryzom. Almost invariably, they describe it as "too hard" in comparison to their own experience in other games. In many games, it's almost impossible to get killed until you are finished with the "beginner area" and move on. (I certainly found that to be true in the last Other Game I tried - that one with winged characters...)

I've tried to explain that Ryzom is not designed to be a hand-holding game where nothing too challenging can get to you while you are a beginner, but rather a deep and immersive experience which is worth the effort to learn. But none of those recruits is still around, alas.

So that's what I meant. I personally think Ryzom is the proverbial "just right" in difficulty. At least for me.

Back on topic:
I'm not very concerned about raising or not raising the level cap, so long as whatever changes come about keep the game fun.

grimjim wrote:I think more skills to learn would be a better approach than raising the cap.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Specifically, I think the addition of advanced skills is what they should do.

The lore already includes references to advanced stages of development.

"By following the pathways of Enlightenment, the faithful take the steps that lead to other dimensions. The homin who demonstrates sufficient merit reincarnates into another world as a Kami, until he is capable of attaining the supreme blissful state of Kami-Ko. At that stage, he enters into Kaminhood for all of eternity."

They could create a new advanced kami and karavan skill tree. Once players have high enough standing and have maxed the prerequisite skill then they could complete a rite and be given access to the advanced trainer.

The advanced skills could be more powerful than the regular ones, but also level more slowly.

This way they wouldn't necessarily need to create q250+ content and no-one would have to feel like their skills had all suddently been "unmaxed" by a skill cap lift.

Example skills.

If you've maxed elemental magic + a melee or range skill, advanced skills could open for each of the magic damage types that allow weapons (advanced weapons created using advanced crafting skills) to do both physical and magic damage, with a requisite sap cost as well as stamina for each swing/shot. Those effects could only be applied to weapons you've maxed the base skill for, though.

A melee skill + healing could open a vampiric drain effect skill for melee weapons instead of magic damage.

As for magic...

If you've maxed ele, it could open up subschools for each of the magic damage types that offer spells that do more damage (and look flashier!).

If you've mastered both affliction schools, it could open a new line of stronger affliction spells.

If you've maxed healing, it could open subschools for each of the healing types (i.e. health, sap and stamina). These could allow eg. spells for hp, sap or stamina regen auras (which aren't on timers), weak remote healing spells (i.e. no range limit), heal over time spells, stat buff spells or auras etc. etc.

I'd be opposed against any skills that require levelling another skill to 250 first before they open up. However, I'd agree wholeheartedly with skills that require, for example, a certain amount of fame to open up. I'd also welcome specific stanzas that require having two skills at a certain level before they can be bought. (Though don't focus entirely on magic there, we'd need combination stanzas for two melee trees as well.)

I think the important thing we agree on however, is that more skill trees is a much preferable way to keep us grinding than higher skill caps. And sure, make these new skill trees require 10 times as much XP as the current ones if you want to keep us grinding a long time.

Also note, the current skills trees... well, the melee and ranged ones all use the same stanzas, only the weapon is different. So opening more trees is as simple as taking an existing weapon, throwing the stats around in a novel way, and calling it a new weapon. The forage trees all use the same stanzas, just in different terrains, so introducing a new tree is as simple as introducing a new terrain. The craft trees all use the same stanzas, just in different patterns, so introducing new trees is as simple as new patterns (for the new weapons, for example, or a 1h amp).

And the current magic trees... DA has 3 spells of which 1 is hardly used, OA has 5 spells of which 2 are hardly used, elemental has really just 1 spell that comes in 7 damage types, and healing really has just the healing spell in 3 energy types. So introducing a new magic tree really doesn't have to require many new spells.

Yes, some of you might see introducing new skilltrees like that as a cop-out, but wouldn't it still be less of a cop-out than just giving us 50 more levels of the same skills and stanzas?

sidusar wrote:Yes, some of you might see introducing new skilltrees like that as a cop-out, but wouldn't it still be less of a cop-out than just giving us 50 more levels of the same skills and stanzas?

...Which don't even have to be combat-based, but rather provide ways to increase the depth of our gaming experience: music, furniture, social clothing... and 50 other things already brought up here.

sidusar wrote:I'd be opposed against any skills that require levelling another skill to 250 first before they open up.

In this context I think it's necessary.

Their goal with raising the skill cap is to push "end-game" back a bit. They are specifically trying to add things to do for more established players.

If you open new, more powerful skill trees that don't have skill pre-requisites, no-one's going to waste their time using/levelling the weaker ones. Many of the existing skills and all of the effort put into raising them would become obsolete overnight. They may as well just opt for a complete skill-wipe.

sidusar wrote: Also note, the current skills trees... well, the melee and ranged ones all use the same stanzas, only the weapon is different. So opening more trees is as simple as taking an existing weapon, throwing the stats around in a novel way, and calling it a new weapon. The forage trees all use the same stanzas, just in different terrains, so introducing a new tree is as simple as introducing a new terrain. The craft trees all use the same stanzas, just in different patterns, so introducing new trees is as simple as new patterns (for the new weapons, for example, or a 1h amp).

And the current magic trees... DA has 3 spells of which 1 is hardly used, OA has 5 spells of which 2 are hardly used, elemental has really just 1 spell that comes in 7 damage types, and healing really has just the healing spell in 3 energy types. So introducing a new magic tree really doesn't have to require many new spells.

Yes, some of you might see introducing new skilltrees like that as a cop-out, but wouldn't it still be less of a cop-out than just giving us 50 more levels of the same skills and stanzas?

No - adding a new skill that is the same as the old skill but harder to level is effectively identical to raising the existing skill cap.

I think to keep things interesting they really need new combat abilities that give us different options for combat.

Eg. even though it's not a huge difference, having new skills with combined physical + magic damage would add another (thin) layer of complexity to the game. You have to think about the mob's physical and magical resistances and tailor your weapon choice and weapon magic buff accordingly.

Similarly rather than just adding more powerful healing spells, creating a new skill line that buffs statistics, physical defence (1 for each type), magic defence (1 for each type), or something like that, would add variety for healer type players. Eg. if the buffs were maintained (i.e. you can only sustain one) you'd have to decide whether to buff the tank's defence, the nuker's damage and switch around as circumstances change. Not that they often do in pve - but it would keep healers awake in pvp.

Elemetnal magic is trickier but advanced spells could eg. require attunement. Players might need to attune themselves to that particular damage type to cast the advanced spells. Attunement would lock them into that damage type (for advanced spells) but they could still cast all of the regular ele spells. Again a relatively minor change for pve, but it would spice things up for pvp. If you find your target is resistant to your attuned damage type, do you re-attune (which takes time), hit them with weaker regular ele spells, switch targets or maybe ask an advanced affliction caster to debuff their resistance to that damage type?

End Game ? You mean the content I started playing even BEFORE earning my first master ? I don't think there is such a thing as "End game" in Ryzom. There is higher level content, sure, but you are NOT obligated to have any maxed skill to participate in it and be helpful. Mastery only means you are more efficient at it.

Ryzom has a lot of "grind" already (although it doesn't feel like a grind to me, it does discourage some of the newer players). Making the gap between newer and older players bigger or forcing them to be lvl 250 to access some content isn't the way to go.

Ryzom doesn't start at level 250... it just RESTARTS at level 1, 20, 50, 100 or 150 in another skill branch...

We don't need more "grind" of the same stuff... we just need something new and different to do... someone was talking about ew mechanics earlier in the thread... THAT would be an interesting "content" to see. More levels of the same old skills ≠ new content.

kalindra wrote:Ryzom doesn't start at level 250... it just RESTARTS at level 1, 20, 50, 100 or 150 in another skill branch...

We don't need more "grind" of the same stuff... we just need something new and different to do... someone was talking about ew mechanics earlier in the thread... THAT would be an interesting "content" to see. More levels of the same old skills ≠ new content.

I agree with Sherkalyn on this. It's one of the reasons I've never seen a reason to rush any skills to 250 and I guess I was lucky to play with people who did not care what level I was.

A hope of new content is why I returned. Not just stretching out the skill trees. As said, something different, new. One of old arguments people always used to say is that it's a sandbox, we don't need new and different things. Well sorry to say my old bucket and spade are worn-out, I need new ones.

If the skill trees are to be made bigger it HAS to come with content that justifies it.