Ryzom

kyesmith wrote:the karavan are far far from perfect you only need to look at the fact some karavan and netural are attending outpost wars to fight against you.....

Well we "PWN" and "outnumber" so we must be doing something right...

ajsuk wrote:All sounds good to me but I dunno how its going to do any good to your numbers 'problem'...

Theres diggers on both sides, are we going to have to agree numbers are something people are gunna have to sort themselves?

More options. One faction might have more impetus and ability in one type of thing than another.

Numbers won't sort themselves out because it's a positive feedback loop, there either needs to be some inbuilt braking mechanism or the importance needs to be toned down.

grimjim wrote:More options. One faction might have more impetus and ability in one type of thing than another.

and it could be the 'winning' side making your 'problem' worse...

grimjim wrote: Numbers won't sort themselves out because it's a positive feedback loop, there either needs to be some inbuilt braking mechanism or the importance needs to be toned down.

Its switched around before, it will again...

vguerin wrote:This would only lead to inter-guild battles to raise the THR again. It's pretty obvious the some guilds have enough organisation and trust in each other to do this. This idea solves NOTHING.

More opportunities for battle, thresholds all the way down to zero and NPC battle requirements breaking up monolithic attacks since some people have to go and retake their 'own' op, plus making people work for their outposts.

ajsuk wrote:Well we "PWN" and "outnumber" so we must be doing something right...

clearly, show me where i said otherwise...

sprite wrote:Why would or should it be otherwise? But this quote I don't get.

I didn't say that it would be otherwise. We all knew that it would happen (well, all of us except for Nevrax, who seemed to think that "this time it would work"). As far as to why it *should* be otherwise (And these ideas really only apply to a game):

Smaller Guilds do not have the same access to the same content. If they fold in with the larger group, they start to loose thier identity (not as big of a problem on Atys as it is in other games)

The system itself becomes self defeating. Once all the availble territory is held, the battles will stop. As momentum grows in the favor of the Uber-Team, they get the new recruites, and thier opponents get dispirited and leave the game (or leave the server).

Now, it could all be reset if the Uber-Team controlls everything, and then falls apart; but typically splinters tend to be small fractions of the whole (typcially, mind you, not all of the time, I can certainly think of more than one exception). But, if conquest leads to stagnation, which leads to bordom and revolt, things might get interesting again. It has happened before.

So, basically, once a single group get the whole server, the game get less interesting, people get bored and quit, and the game dies a slow and sad death. That is why it should not happen.

The numbers started because Matis are the most populous race -->Fyros -- Tryker(Fyros and tryker are pretty close in numbers I believe)-->Zoraï.

So Kara Have the most popular race and Kami have the least popular. Ofcourse this will lead to inballance...And this problem is even further amplified by there being less people willing to fight then on the Kara side.

But the imballance is here, Nothing will fix it anytime soon, An limiting will only lead to tons of Karas (And some Kamis)whining ... So lets just move on and try to have what little fun is left of OPs without to much whining.

And yes, I do believe Kara woul lose if they had less numbers , Thats why they lost malmont... Then they came back with greater numbers and retook it... Numbers is the game,Politics can only bring more or less numbers to the field, And thats the only effect Politics do, Because there is non between MA and the Kami.

Tactics play a role, But a much tiny'er Role then Numbers, Iv seen the Kara make mistakes and the Kami do great, And then the Kami still lose, Because we get overwelmed by higher numbers.

There as been battles wher Kami was = or > the Kara, But they are few and far between... Feel free to argue any of these points, But im sure deep down in side you know it to be true lol

---I can only ask this --- Karas, Please stop gloating after you win, It does nothing but show your arrogace... The opposing force is already demoralzed, Why rub it in their face?...

--Everyone-- Please stop with aggro dragging, And other such cowardess acts.

--people using two accounts at OP battles-- Common now...

Lets try to have fun here... Because once the Kami are one what will you Karas do then? Sit in the corner twiddling your thumbs? ( I am NOT saying to stop your attacks and let the Kami punnish you, I am simply saying try to make the battles as fun as they can be for everyone, So when it is over, Atleast we had fun.

Woo long post sorry lol.

sehracii wrote:Players have chosen their allies as they see fit with no restrictions by game mechanics.

Just thinking out loud on this, but could this be an inherent flaw to OP or other 'conquest' gamemechanics (even non-Ryzom related)?

There's two points of percetion to this: players don't like much to have restrictions on who they choose to ally with, feeling railroaded in their choices due to artificial constraints but rather choose for personal affinity, friendship and ideaology.
On the other hand in a game you can not rely as a developper on common sense (or fairplay, bug exploits, botting, ...) by players when there aren't those artificial constraints in an already completely artificial environment.

Purely theoretical it would mean such lack of alliance restrictions allows the forming of 'super-alliances' (encompassing a large percentage of the playerbase under one banner) who could practically unchalleneged 'conquer' and dominate the gameworld or at least the conquest features. Eventually such a thing leads inevitably to demoralization for those not part of the 'super-alliance' and ultimatly an exodus of subscribers. Which will in turn mean that there won't be much competition left, boredom sets in, the alliance splinters, more subscribers leave. I guess that that is self-explanatory as to what it would do to the game company's financial status.

In that theoretical scenario I can personally see only two possible solutions:
- forcing others to create a counter-'super-alliance' in the hope they don't leave the game
- outside interferance by developpers (forcing artificial alliance restrictions, change in gamemechanics to provide balance)

All just purely theoretical ofcourse.

But it strikes me that Outposts don't have such alliance/balance mechanics whereas the proposal on Spires (where both factions can be seen as 'alliances') do have a balancing mechanic to counter the possibility of one side completely taking over, well to a degree at least. (the more you own, the more vulnerable you are)

Just a thought.


*sighs* I guess it was to be expected the thread would turn out to be almost completely dedicated to Outposts instead of other forms of PvP that could need some tweaking. Like the actual meaning to skirmishes and raids, the all to important role of healers and the almost uselesness of afflictions, ....

Ah, OK now I get what you mean, but I don't see the problems you describe as being likely in this specific situation.

If they fold in with the larger group, they start to loose thier identity (not as big of a problem on Atys as it is in other games)

Agreed, not a problem on atys imo.

The system itself becomes self defeating.

Hmm, imo this is only a problem if you assume the system is designed to be an "unwinnable war" which is supposed to last forever - as I've said previously I believe that the situation on Atys was designed so that it could indeed be won.

Now, it could all be reset if the Uber-Team controlls everything, and then falls apart

My belief is that this would not happen in SoR if the "ka" won (possibly not if the others won either, but that's not really for me to say). What is a more likely outcome imo is that once one side controls all of the OPs the produce will be shared around (the winning side first obviously as it is now) and if the lust for battle is present, then "friendly" OP battles could be fought - possibly even inviting some people from the "opposing faction" to join in. I think this is probably what a lot of the "anti-PvP" crowd want anyway, but to me the concept of "having a battle" is completely divorced from "fighting a war", and to me the war comes first since it has a lasting effect on things.


Edit:

--people using two accounts at OP battles-- Common now...

Is this where the "heal-bot" accusations are coming from? Dualboxing doesn't mean botting, and if someone has paid for two accounts they should be allowed to use them however they like within the CoC. If you think someone is botting then report them to the CSRs

You re-lost Malmont because half of your side buggered off when we went past the THR... Its a game of two halfs y'know... =)