Ryzom

boinged wrote:It's not obvious from the page mentioned in the first post, but how will Neutrals be affected by the teleportation/respawn rules? A region can be Neutral/Kami/Karavan. If Neutral, then anyone can port in. But if it's Kami can only Kami's or can Kami AND Neutral people port?

Neutrals won't be affected at all by the Spires: whatever the Spire built in the region, a neutral could still teleport and respawn there.

The Spires document is becoming quite outdated now with all these little changes added; I have to think of updating it.

Marjo wrote:Neutrals won't be affected at all by the Spires: whatever the Spire built in the region, a neutral could still teleport and respawn there.

The Spires document is becoming quite outdated now with all these little changes added; I have to think of updating it.

Please do. That change is very different from how I read the initial notes.

From a gameplay perspective, I understand it. But from a storyline, I'm not sure it makes sense. You're saying the a Karavan tp in a Kami controlled region will continue to work, but just not for the people most loyal to the Karavan.

Also, can you answer how the spires will affect those that are aligned with that spire, but not pvp tagged? Will they get any benefit?

It feels like you are now thinking of two groups of players and ignoring a third (unless something else has changed that I'm unaware of):

1. pvp-enabled, faction aligned players: Can't tp into regions controlled by opposing side, but gets benefits when in their own regions. So, it's a trade-off. i.e. balanced.

2. neutral players: no affect at all. Beyond complaining about the already in-place tp changes, I guess they're all good then.

3. faction aligned players that do not like OPEN pvp: Can't tp into regions controlled by opposing side, but get not benefits when in regions controlled by their side? Doesn't quite seem balanced.

Maybe that updated document will help shed some light on these issues?

oldmess wrote:1. pvp-enabled, faction aligned players: Can't tp into regions controlled by opposing side, but gets benefits when in their own regions. So, it's a trade-off. i.e. balanced.

In addition to not being able to TP into a region controlled by the opposite faction, I believe that if you are in a region controlled by the opposite faction, you get the opposite effect of the buff (i.e. a de-buff or opposite effect)

Noin.

oldmess wrote:3. faction aligned players that do not like OPEN pvp: Can't tp into regions controlled by opposing side, but get not benefits when in regions controlled by their side? Doesn't quite seem balanced.

but what do you suggest then ? (just some thoughts that it's kinda complicated)
non-PvP faction aligned player can enjoy the benefits while not doing nothing for it (being PvP flaged) ?
yeah, it suxs, but according to initial spire document, there is different kind of spires...
ie, one for HP regen, one for SAP regen, etc. if 2 areas with spire in them are linked, then spire effect is shared.. so, 3 areas with HP/SAP/STAM regen spires got linked, you get 3 benefits all at once in those areas.
that is huge benefit (maybe not regen, but other type of spires maybe) which should require more than simple rite.
yep, to get benefits, you are forced to PvP (turning tag on, open to attacks).

and for tp loss... how do you want to explain "PvP tagged player cant use tp, but non-PvP tagged can" ?
yep, you are punished for not to pvp (turning tag on, open to attacks).

now, neutral players... they get tp ability, but dont get bonuses. but why ? they also dont do anything for it.

like i said, a bit complicated any suggestions how to handle it ?

blaah wrote:non-PvP faction aligned player can enjoy the benefits while not doing nothing for it (being PvP flaged) ?

How do you know they did nothing for it? If I'm a faction aligned crafter and I've supplied you with much equipment so you could build/hold a spire, then, yes, I helped. Heck, I might have helped with the pvp battle to build or take the spire, but I don't want to pvp today and so I turned off the flag.

now, neutral players... they get tp ability, but dont get bonuses. but why ? they also dont do anything for it.

No TP loss and no benefits. So, no change. What's the question again? Sounds right to me in terms of gameplay. In terms of story, as I said, it seems odd that a given faction would continue to sell to neutrals but is blocked from selling to it's supporters. But sometimes gameplay has to outweigh story.

like i said, a bit complicated any suggestions how to handle it ?

Didn't know it was my job to design the product. Was just giving feedback and asking questions. I honestly don't know the best solution without redesigning the entire concept. I'm just pointing out an area that seems unbalanced to me.

Here's my root problem: Structured pvp works for me and open pvp doe not. Open, unstructured pvp encourages ganking, IMO. (yes, many will disagree, but that's my opinion)

So, my hope with the spires would be to activate the pvp flag when a spire battle is active, but leave it off when I just want to dig or hunt shalahs. But if I do that, I get the benefits during the battle but I get the penalties all the time. And until a method of discouraging stupid pvp behavior is found, I'm not inclined to leave my pvp flag on all the time.

oldmess wrote:but I don't want to pvp today and so I turned off the flag.

.. and you effectively turned off the benefit spire gives. turn off risk, turn off reward.
about tp's - you are in enemy faction, therefore you can't use tp in enemy territory without your faction spire there. (see next answer)

In terms of story, as I said, it seems odd that a given faction would continue to sell to neutrals but is blocked from selling to it's supporters. But sometimes gameplay has to outweigh story.

it would be perfectly OK, if there would not be faction tp's at all (q200 and lower regions) and spire would disable opposing tp even for neutrals.
true, neutrals would be like bunching bags when spire changes hand.

why there is faction tp's in q200 and lower areas dunno. but then again, we only have less than 50% from the "big picture" currently.

Didn't know it was my job to design the product.

design is ready and in production and in testing already (hopefuly)
just "I dont like it" does not change it. give some info how it should be changed and then there is slight chance that devs will listen.

more and more i'm starting to like the pain spires bring for factioned players. i hope nevrax is done with punishing neutrals for a while.

oldmess wrote:No TP loss and no benefits. So, no change. What's the question again? Sounds right to me in terms of gameplay. In terms of story, as I said, it seems odd that a given faction would continue to sell to neutrals but is blocked from selling to it's supporters. But sometimes gameplay has to outweigh story.

You seem to be misunderstanding something

You can't teleport to a region with a spire. Not even with your current tps (it has been mentioned in the current Question and Answer). It's not the karavan or the kami deciding not to sell to you, but an effect stoping you.

akicks wrote:You seem to be misunderstanding something

You can't teleport to a region with a spire. Not even with your current tps (it has been mentioned in the current Question and Answer). It's not the karavan or the kami deciding not to sell to you, but an effect stoping you.

I understand it perfectly. So, are you saying the in-story game effect is that the spire affects *me* or the *TP*? If it's me, then that method of explaining it makes sense. If it's the TP, then it doesn't.

Either way, it's just the IC explanation anyway. I'm more concerned about the other issue as it seems to affect balance and force me into a gameplay style I don't like.

oldmess wrote:I'm more concerned about the other issue as it seems to affect balance and force me into a gameplay style I don't like.

Ryzom is turning more and more Kami vs Karavan conflict. if you want to stay out of it, become neutral (and hope they dont nerf neutrals even more).
and as Nevrax has demonstrated, Kami vs Karavan conflict is full scale PvP like it or not. PvP flag is just there to keep you from mindless ganking when you choose side.

blaah wrote:Ryzom is turning more and more Kami vs Karavan conflict. if you want to stay out of it, become neutral (and hope they dont nerf neutrals even more).
and as Nevrax has demonstrated, Kami vs Karavan conflict is full scale PvP like it or not. PvP flag is just there to keep you from mindless ganking when you choose side.

1. I don't want to stay out of the conflict and never said I did. I just want to control when I'm in the conflict and when I'm not.

2. Yes, the PvP flag keeps me from mindless ganking (which is why mine is off except when an actual battle is going on and not just all the time). But that's not what we're debating.

If, as you say, the kami/karavan conflict is full scale, always on, PvP, then why do they even have to stupid flag? If that's the case, just split the population into pvp'ers (factioned) and non-pvp'er (neutral). But that's not what they did.

The bottom line that you have still not addressed, but keep trying to divert me from is this: If I'm a factioned player (and I am) whose pvp flag is off, then I get the negative from Spires but not the positive. I understand the story reasons for it, but from a gameplay perspective this seems unbalanced.

I also understand that you want me to provide C++ code along with any suggestion, but I don't have a solution. Does that mean my concern is irrelevant? Maybe to you it is, but I'm trying to get my concern through to Marjo and the devs (she's the one I responded to) and not to you. You don't get what I'm saying, fine.

Back when this was first introduced, various people raised concern that turning off certain tp's for everyone seemed wrong somehow. Marjo said that's being changed, but in my mind there's still a loophole. So I point that out and you just want to argue that I should shut up and accept the direction of the game. I already have or I would have been gone with episode 2.