Ryzom

I like the idea of adding more. Taking away PR access was something I would not have done. Removing should always be a last desperate resort. However, I would make it very clear that the new "old" lands would not be accessible to non factioned players. (why would the kami or the karavan send a non follower to compete with their own?).

We have outgrown outposts. Guilds are stable, racial identities are stable, there is very little need for them in story sense. In fact, I would argue that outposts are actually harming the kami culture as the players have decided to incorporate all sorts of different beliefs in order to survive. It backfired. Two weeks ago, the Kami alliance could have owned the server. I don't know what happened before the Loria fight but they just didn't show up.

Genia touched on something when she brought up the temple event. Giving the players something to fight for that is bigger then our individual desires is something all religions (factions) need. We had no idea what the rewards were going to be. We fought for our beliefs, our politics, our friends (and against them). Even in defeat a faction could grow from that experience, that is not the case with OP's.

My guess is that OP's were supposed to be a transitional piece to a greater goal but Nevrax's resources ran out. OP battles can not be 'fair'. They can not be 'fixed'. We need more. More to fight over, but most importantly, a way to make a permanent difference on Atys without having to do violence to another player.

Pero

ajsuk wrote: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... =)

Honestly I was't able to come, But from what I gathered you outnumbered 10 -1 odds ... So by my calculations... You had about a 1.5-1 advantage... Which in battles of 60+ per side can add up... (And yes lol, I have come up with a way to devise the actual numbers from the annual 10 - 1 answers )

Where as Kami outnumbred Karavan slightly when we took it... Think alot of US peeps were on vacation at the time...And/Or Karavan had low comunications at the time, Not eactly sure why you were outnumbered there, but thats why you lost... And there hasn't been anymore accounts allowed to be made since then... So You had the numbers then, they just didn't all show.


PS. As of this point, Jy has posted 27 times in this thread, with second place being Jayce with 17, 3rd is spiriteh(sorry if I spelled that wrong) with 8... I have only posted twice heh... And I voted back when this thread only had 3 posts in it

Does PvP work in this game , From my relitively short time on ayts Not at all.
For PvP to work it hast to be about fame glory bragging rights and in many peoples minds recognition of their deeds. so no PvP Dosent work , do i care if an OP changes hands, yes does it have an impact on me yes, do i want to participate in the battle for the OP NO and absolutely No way. I am a violent anti-pvper having seen what it does in other games when introduced late into the game. If you desire Viable PvP in this game here are a few ideas to enhance the current designed PVP game
1. Limit the defenders and attackers to the level of the op battle if you attack a q150 outpost then it limits/clamps your fighting/casting to 150 skill level doing this would definately cause it to be far more about skill and tactics then about who has the most players of overpowering skill/levels that can overwhelm the ops' defenders.
2. add some unique/can only be obtained by pvp, items to game.
3. If you want more pvp then add a few new "portals" that have to be constantly defended that have some sort of unique benefit to controlling ie who controls the portal controls its access.

In reality the PVP thing doesnt work because the Risk/time/effort versus reward/percieved reward for doing so isnt balanced. PvP in this game is simply a diversion from the on-going issue of many games lack of something tangable to do past a certain point.

Sadly to increase the value and effectivness and worth of PVP in this game would also bring in what to me is a very unwelcome crowd of gankers/greifers and general yahoos that ruin far to many games.

calel wrote:
*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, ....

We could talk about that, but it woudl be a short conversation, and the poll does specify "Mass PvP".

Healers are all-important in any combat venture, PvP or PvE; and afflicitons are in need of work all the way around. They are handy when you are against a single target, but, yeah, in PvP they particularly suck, as all of the afflictors time is spend hindering a single target.

The smaller scale PvP events are (if you don't incluide the PR zone, which really needs to be turned off) completly consentual, and are of no lasting consquense, that is why they are disscussed far less.

sprite wrote: 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.

Kinda offtopic here, but ... isn't that an oxymoron? Winning an MMO? If one side wins everyone looses, since you're story is over. Server wipe?

vandie wrote:Does PvP work in this game , From my relitively short time on ayts Not at all.
For PvP to work it hast to be about fame glory bragging rights and in many peoples minds recognition of their deeds. so no PvP Dosent work , do i care if an OP changes hands, yes does it have an impact on me yes, do i want to participate in the battle for the OP NO and absolutely No way.

imho a game where you bash the hell out of each other for the sake of it is more likely to attract the gankers/greifers we all don't want here. PvP with a goal, some point to it is all the better...

calel wrote:Kinda offtopic here, but ... isn't that an oxymoron? Winning an MMO? If one side wins everyone looses, since you're story is over. Server wipe?

Hopefully it would just open up another chapter (if there was enough money for the ink)

ajsuk wrote:Hopefully it would just open up another chapter

It could work that way, but it may be pretty hard.
If you want to preserve the PvP-conflict aspect of the game you'd need one of these two at that point:
- a split or schism of the faction who won, forcing those who fought side by side previously to turn on one another. And that's something you'd need to happen brutal and short so attention isn't lost.
... or ...
- the rise of a new faction; but then you'll have a newly established faction starting from scratch facing those who have everything. For that the faction-players who previously 'lost' would need to get artificially convinced to join up if they haven't left the game by then, or joined the winning faction. That's a pretty tricky situation to pull off imo.

ajsuk wrote:(if there was enough money for the ink)

I'll pledge you one dapper for that.

grim..

i would not want to limit player numbers allowed at op battles as that would end up with people being left out because of low lvls and thats not right all should have the same chance to get involved.

my Idea for the OP´s are that the best is when NPC´s have the Outpost and when a Guild attack the OP and win the Op then the Guild is for 1 week the Onwer and then The OP get back to teh NPC´s first dappers are more worth again in Game cause everytime u need to pay for an Attack and second every Guild has the Chance to attack and win the OP for a week that the Guild get cats and Op mats too...so that is the best in my eyes,maybe this idea can be more modified but at all it sounds great and fair for all