Ryzom

Right mylord Redslayer,
Your point has been vocalised now let's get the thread back on track

______________________________
BUT the main idea: A neutral guild of warriors, helping defending side (when outnumbered) for the sake of balance and upholding the law? What you guys think of that?

They can just come to op fights as observers and only interfere if the defending side is outnumbered...

That was my main idea, but I see no comments on it...
______________________________


OOC: LOL am I going to have to play the railwayman throughout this thread... geez....

spoloh wrote: 1. 1op per guild - it is possible to limit that to a certain time. For example: A guild should not possess more than one OP for over 2 weeks. This will cover the "transaction times" and all.

Good idea. And let's limit the max number of players a given guild can have to let's say 20, so we avoid big conglomerate guilds ruling too much. Some payers may think that having guilds that are too large may negatively affect the other guilds. It's better to have guilds of a similar number of players; so the feeling of accomplishment is greater.

Now that we are here; let's also limit the number of mats a given player can hoard, after 30 supreme zun, you need to trade them, to avoid selfish and hoarding behavior that will affect the community. Also, limit the amount of dappers one player can have, so things are more evenly distributed, fostering more trade and balancing the economy.

Let's also limit the number of levels a player can get in a day; so casual players are less affected by the level gap.

Remove supreme gear. Leave only one quality and grade so everyone can have the same equipment without these nasty differences, since there are players that cannot dig PR and cannot get sup q250.

2. Different time zones. This can be helped by guilds defining their "guild timezone" (judging by the majority of players) and stating it on the main forum in the guild section

Yes please, and do not allow players playing out of their timezone, and if a guild has players from several timezones so no simple timezone can be defined, just kick those annoying members out anyway;

BUT the main idea: A neutral guild of warriors, helping defending side (when outnumbered) for the sake of balance and upholding the law? What you guys think of that?

With all due respect... we are talking about outposts with lots of things involved. If players would just want a perfectly balanced, fair, with no feelings involved, carebeared field of roses, why don)t they gather at the arena with no stakes, no lands to conquer, no expansionism, etc..


The lasts few threads are just interesting but imho rushed ideas thrown sometimes without taking into acount the overall aspect of the game, and I'm not sure that looking for that perfect balance that benefits the most players is either doable, without side-effects or simply interesting.

spoloh wrote:BUT the main idea: A neutral guild of warriors, helping defending side (when outnumbered) for the sake of balance and upholding the law? What you guys think of that?

They can just come to op fights as observers and only interfere if the defending side is outnumbered...

That was my main idea, but I see no comments on it...

Great idea...

But its been done, and is being done. Half the Tryker guilds only help the Kami because they dislike the "imperialism" of the Matis groups.

I know for a fact that a large number of guilds would stop helping the Kami if the boot was on the other foot.

Heck, maybe the other side would start hiring us if they were losing.

Best of luck with it to you mate, but honestly its nothing new

The tryker guilds though are doing it on their own... They do not discuss it with anyone and as a result. The kami alliance accepts them (well at least one) but labels the rest "kamivan" (well at least in the listings of kami forums) so what will it be? a kami supporting kamivan that claims it's a kara guild striving for balance?

Not to mention the karavaneer dislike for the "treacherous fake kara renegades from tryker"...

What I had in mind however was a NEUTRAL guild that states upholding the balance as it's prime directive. And even if not everyone is ready to embrace these "warriors of balance" at least everyone will know where they stand...

If nothing else their position would be clear to all.

And I didn't say it was a brand new idea. I just said it can compliment the GvG turn of events where it to happen on Cho...

Respectfully your

iphdrunk wrote:Good idea. And let's limit the max number of players a given guild can have to let's say 20, so we avoid big conglomerate guilds ruling too much. Some payers may think that having guilds that are too large may negatively affect the other guilds. It's better to have guilds of a similar number of players; so the feeling of accomplishment is greater...

With all due respect... you are just being silly.

Exagerate _anything_ and its a bad thing. You can die of drinking too much water, but if you are thirsty you still want some...

Of course its interesting how people on the winning side are so happy with the challenges of this "epic war", and see no need to balance things.

I admit there is no perfect solution, but I really feel we can do a lot better than 3am weeknight fights.

spoloh wrote:The tryker guilds though are doing it on their own... They do not discuss it with anyone and as a result. The kami alliance accepts them (well at least one) but labels the rest "kamivan" (well at least in the listings of kami forums) so what will it be? a kami supporting kamivan that claims it's a kara guild striving for balance?

Ick, I do hope thats not true...

spoloh wrote:Not to mention the karavaneer dislike for the "treacherous fake kara renegades from tryker"...

I wouldnt be so fast to call the Matis alliance karavaneers. There has been no feedback from the Karavan themselves, and certainly not Jena, over which morality is closest to the true one.

spoloh wrote:What I had in mind however was a NEUTRAL guild that states upholding the balance as it's prime directive. And even if not everyone is ready to embrace these "warriors of balance" at least everyone will know where they stand...

If nothing else their position would be clear to all.

That would be cool. Would cut down flames I would guess. Go for it IMHO.

aardnebb wrote:With all due respect... you are just being silly.

Of course I am... --although I would rather say that I was exaggerating for dramatic purposes -- but yet, it's not that simple. First, your point and ideas have been sent and stated, again and again and again. Every single thread, you complain about how you see things, to the point that, by mentioning GoJ on the other thread, I could not help wondering about simple envy "I want the toys other peeps have" "it's not fair that a small guild owns an op and we don't" -- by stating that it's not good that a small guild owns an op just because the alliance, does that mean that only large guilds deserve ops? so size does matter --

I want them too, but let's not get into that. I also hope alternative means to get those goodies will be available.

Why is a 1-op per guild constraint good and a guild size limit not? Why are constraints on playtimes good and constraints on wealth not?

Of course its interesting how people on the winning side are so happy with the challenges of this "epic war", and see no need to balance things.

Heh, I may be officially labelled as "on the winning side" but I think you know nothing about how many stacks a day I get; whether I ask / beg for them or not. My guild does not have an outpost. Are you assuming that myself, "on the winning side" I am overflowing with catalyzers? that I see no balances issues? that I did not identified them months ago?

My point is more about artificial constraints.

I admit there is no perfect solution, but I really feel we can do a lot better than 3am weeknight fights.

And I don't think that suggesting not-really-thought-over suggestions is helping a lot (one op per guild? does that take into account guild sizes?) (each guild notes the timezone?) There are things that are consequences of being in a multi / inernational shard, and this has been raised and mentioned before, waaay before., even when OPs were not released and under test.

spoloh wrote:Right mylord Redslayer,

o.o

Your point has been vocalised now let's get the thread back on track

as for this...

spoloh wrote: 1. A GvG system: 1OP per 1 guild. At any given moment any guild can declare on another guild's op and they fight it out on a GvG basis.

since you said that I believe I was on topic... And just stating why I didn't like it... And defending that reason against a few people...as for the rest.

______________________________
BUT the main idea: A neutral guild of warriors, helping defending side (when outnumbered) for the sake of balance and upholding the law? What you guys think of that?

They can just come to op fights as observers and only interfere if the defending side is outnumbered...

That was my main idea, but I see no comments on it...
______________________________

I like that idea and the only reason I didn't comment on it before was because I had no reasons to post why it should or shouldn't happen... Unlike the 1OP per guild.

So Now that it has been made clear that I didn't go offtopic I am finnished with this thread because I am tired of people telling me im offtopic when im not.

/annoyed

As another alternative to timezones: If it's a fight at 3am for you - ask your ally to field the required amount of warriors + the balance warriors it will do just fine... This is where the alliances get involved.

edit: well sorry for telling you how to behave, but you surely noticed those 10 pages of hmm... I am not sure what to call it if you don't like the term Derailing... I'm just defending my ideas no need to get offended You might be an extremely respected and tough player but we are both real humans you know

spoloh wrote:4. Warriors of balance: The main instrument of getting "equal numbers" of fighters (+ attack ratio) is a neutral guild (or guilds) that provide "additional" warriors for every op battle (if needed) to make up for the difference in numbers. Since they are neutral they do not care neither for kami/kara issues nor for the guilds battling, all they care for is the balance and the law...

So what if the Warriors of balance don't show up or too few show up? Is the battle canceled? If the defenders lose in such a situation, what will they do in response?

What is the right number of Warriors of balance? Equal numbers of defenders and attackers means the defenders will (almost) always win. Are the Warriors of balance only fighting on the attacking side to balance the npcs? Or will they add to the defenders if the attackers are far too many? Won't the attackers complain in such a situation?


[Sorry for going off-topic before. I'm just irritated from statements in other threads over the past few days. I actually deleted my post but Red responded to it before I could delete, so I put it back in. ]