Ryzom

uhuhu wrote:Some people dont like PvP, it's your choice! i don't criticize it! Some people like PvP, it's our choice! so, dont criticize and cry in forum "oinnnn oinnn, have been killed in Prime Root " "when you enter in PvP zone, you have 30 sec for stay in or for left and they said: "you're now in PvP zone.." - So, if ya dont agree with the PvP rules, you can go dig in safe Roots (200 zone: abyss of ichor - 250 zone: wastelands or us) but stop CRY in forum.

Here is the perfect example for you, ****. We currently have some non-consensual PvP areas. Since the CoC doesn't fully apply here then there are people who will think it's ok to say, "it's in the rules so if you don't like it then go somewhere else". This just restricts access to content from people, it doesn't add to content.

Surely we want more things for everyone to do?

btw - who are you oauitam ?

oauitam wrote:...snip... You see, ****, our server unfortunately has l33t kiddies. If we were all grown-ups then I agree 100%, all out PvP would be great. Many adults have matured past the stage of thinking that 'might is right'. As long as some of us need a parent's hand then we have to think of things from that perspective.

Wonder who these are

uhuhu wrote:Some people don't like PvP, it's your choice! i don't criticize it! Some people like PvP, it's our choice! so, dont criticize and cry in forum "oinnnn oinnn, have been killed in Prime Root " "when you enter in PvP zone, you have 30 sec for stay in or for left and they said: "you're now in PvP zone.." - So, if ya dont agree with the PvP rules, you can go dig in safe Roots (200 zone: abyss of ichor - 250 zone: wastelands or us) but stop CRY in forum.

Makes a note of this, could come in useful in the future.

PvP - is great when its dealt with by mature players (of any age).
PvP - is bad when it involves the usually hate tells and immature behaviour which has come common place these days in PvP games.

Ryzom has in the past be policed by the players, the opportunity for greifing was limited and the community was in the most part friendly and helpful. We really don't have much choice in the direction of the game, if Nevrax wants to add PvP, we might influence its form, but it will be added regardless.

We will have to see what the reactions of the pro PvP players are when they are caught alone in PvP areas (griefers tend to run in packs) or if they lose something important to them as a result of being killed in a PvP area (Most of the time its ok for a griefer to kill you, but they are usually the one to cry when they are killed themselves. The difficulty here is the a true griefer cares little for anything except spoiling someone elses fun)

There is good and bad in everything, it all depends on how you view it or how its used.

Its not the gun that kills you, its the person holding the gun.

Your actions bring consqences, make sure you can live with the results of them as there is nobody else but yourself to blame.

dont understand but np google sucks

uhuhu wrote:Some people dont like PvP, it's your choice! i don't criticize it! Some people like PvP, it's our choice! so, dont criticize and cry in forum "oinnnn oinnn, have been killed in Prime Root " "when you enter in PvP zone, you have 30 sec for stay in or for left and they said: "you're now in PvP zone.." - So, if ya dont agree with the PvP rules, you can go dig in safe Roots (200 zone: abyss of ichor - 250 zone: wastelands or us) but stop CRY in forum.

The problem, dearheart, is that by tying non-PvP content, resources or other items to PvP areas you are effectively excluding people.

A non-PvPer has no way to _impose_ their choices in play upon another, but they can be attacked and imposed upon by the PvP player whether they like it or not.

The relationship is not even.

The inclusion of PvP (All PvP, but particularly non-consensual) automatically excludes a large part of the playerbase from being able to use the full potential of the game and allows others to exert their will and choice over others with a different preference.

I don't know how many more times or in how many different ways I can continue to explain this.

The aim should be the greatest enjoyment for the greatest number. PvP doesn't help that aim unless treated VERY carefully.

RP does NOT need PvP!

If anyone of you knows anything about roleplaying you should know it is all about to "live as your character", to feel and think like him/her would in his/her world, to talk and act accordingly.

If anyone of you plays pen & paper you should know that the main theme is to TEAM UP with other chars to fulfil quests and maybe (not necessarily) fight against enemies together. It's not about killing each other off!

To live your char doesn't mean to stupidly follow ANY command of your faction or culture! And it's not necessary NOT to be a peace-lover or NOT to tolerate other religions/cultures!!

Why shouldn't your char have his/her own ideas, ideals and doubts? Blind fanatism is not widely common in a real society, but rather seldom! Religious rules are always understood or interpreted differently by every person. It's NOT (RPG-)realistic to have an one-dimensioned personality! Also if you "live" your char, you will realize that its personality and beliefs will change with time (like a real person, or do YOU still believe in Santa Claus?).

You should try to LIVE your character as he/she were real, not make him/her to be a poorly drawn sketch or comic-like caricature who will call out his/her same old slogans every so often without ever thinking and ever changing a bit.
This is NOT RPG!

And RPG is also NOT solely about finding differences and having quarrels about them all the time, even if some players seem to believe so...

---------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ryzom.com/?page=lore_story_beginning
Our characters live in times of peace between homins. Why shouldn't we love this peaceful state and why should we not want to keep it?

We have spent our childhoods surviving in the prime roots, well knowing that wars between homins have weakened our former civilizations to the great swarming of the kitins and caused thousands of homins to be slaughtered. There in the dark we homins learned to tolerate and help each other.

Why shouldn't we have learned from the errors of the past?

---------------------------------------------------------

On the surface of Atys our civilizations were rebuild from scratch and every homin helped with that. Tribes of different factions live as close neighbors sometimes (Void and Haven). Altars of both factions are positioned close to each other. Our RECENT leaders (Yrkanis, Wyler, Dexton, Mabreka) signed a peace treaty in 2515 in Fair Heaven. Ambassadors are stationed in every capital, Karavan-Teleporters can be found right next to Zora and not far from Pyr; Kami-Teleporters near Yrkanis and Fair Heaven.

In every town and city you can see homins of every other culture and faction walking around peacefully! This is what most of us homins experienced for the past years (ingame-time)!

Now why should we player-chars NOT be friendly to each other when we can see all the NPCs living peacefully with each other all over Atys too?

Since we youngsters have come to believe that peace is the normal state of living it is by no means easy for us to think of former friends as foes suddenly and even change to be berserkers against other homins when being called to arms! Most of us are reluctant to the idea of war between homins we have until now traded, fought and harvested with or have fulfilled lots of missions for. (This includes NPCs.)

We are also bewildered about the changing of king Yrkanis who has always been a peaceful and wise leader, even tolerating the Kami. Some of us think that some Matis-generals have perhaps murdered Yrkanis in secret (noone has ever seen any of our great leaders, right?) and are now hasting to a war to justify all the tax-money put into the guards and army!!!

Some of us have talked to both of the factions (at altars) and homins of higher position in our cultures (ingame to the NPCs ), but never got ANY answers to important questions; so more and more our old belief in our "deities" crumbles...

---------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15214
How long have you been living on Atys? If you know that a war between the Karavan and Kami may be coming to Atys then you should also know that THE GUILD OF ELIAS has brought this news to us! This guild is neutral and exists in all of the lands. This strenghtens the beliefs of many younger (player-)guilds who also want to stay neutral in the coming war - and some also will try to bring peace to Atys again.

Since these homins and guilds have only experienced peace until now it's rather hard for them to think that they will soon have to fight against other homins!

This is very realistic and shows how those great RPG-players really LIVE their characters!

---------------------------------------------------------

Even IF we believe in our factions, why shouldn't we be able to decide to stay out of fighting? Some of us are just like priests, trying to persuade everyone to join our faction with words - well knowing that you cannot convince someone by killing him/her! Lots of Kami-followers see themselves as peaceful, only ready for defense if needed, but never for aggression.

Also: some of us are only harvesters and/or crafters, but NOT fighters or mages. Why should they also readily storm into battle where they will only be slaughter cattle because they have no fighting-skills at all? Of course they won't!

---------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ryzom.com/?page=news&id=857
One day I asked our deities about bringing peace to Atys again. Here is the answer (Xavier Antoviaque from Nevrax):

However, here is what a pacifist politician leader from one of the homin nations could answer to such a request – anonymously, of course :

"Keep expressing yourselves! Keep shouting that you refuse to enter an unjust war. Keep speaking your need for peace and fraternal harmony. Do not give up your ideal, even if the world in which we are living is harsh and unforgiving of such ideals. The stronger our voice, the stronger our point of view, and our cause needs strength to be heard...

Some homins and their political leaders don't share our point of view. Also, we shouldn't forget that the homins aren't completely independent; the alliances with the Kamis and the Karavan are important due to the help they provide to us. Without their help, our existence would be in danger. Who allows us to teleport? Who would bring back to life our fearless harvesters, hunters and warriors? The Kamis and the Karavan...

Even if our leaders were willing to break the alliances with the Kamis and the Karavan, it would only kill our recovering civilizations. Our willingness to keep peace and harmony will never go through death and destruction.

We need to accept the harsh truth: we are held in fiefdom by the two superpowers. We need to negotiate and make compromises. The stronger your voice, the stronger your leaders will be when they have to face the Kamis or the Karavan. We have to be patient and work for better days, where we will be able to free ourselves."

More colors, caps and "!!!!!" ? Not very respectful for readers...
But here's a short answer.

I ended the comparison with pen&paper rpg with grimjim for a reason: in a pen&paper rpg session, we are half a dozen that often know each other. So of course we play in team, together, because we designed 6 characters sharing more or less the same goal. Now you're in a MMORPG with hundreds of other players that don't even connect together at the same time. You will likely have competitions in addition of teams.

Also Roleplay is to play a role. You can choose the role of a character nice with everybody, that wants peace and all. But you also can play a character that is stubborn, violent and sociopath. Why would you have to play a role according occidental ideals?
So if I decide to play a stupid warrior, others will likely laugh at his manner and lack of intelligence, but the stupid warrior may be upset to hear them laughing and hit them (because not able to resolve his problems through discussion).

If anyone of you knows anything about roleplaying you should know it is all about to "live as your character", to feel and think like him/her would in his/her world, to talk and act accordingly.

My character is mad to see her rivale tearing her heart and in her madness she decide to go on a killing spree. I've no possibility to talk and act accordingly.

Now why should we player-chars NOT be friendly to each other when we can see all the NPCs living peacefully with each other all over Atys too?

We mustn't be playing the same game. I see bandits, I see rivalities between tribes, I see NPCs attacking me on sight. Peacefully? not really.




Well back to grimjim: I understand that you see by PvMers eyes what you loose with PR in PvP area. However if there is PvP content that is not reachable by PvMers for any reason, there's also PvM content not reachable by PvPers. Just an example: a PvPer that don't want to hunt kings will loose access to lots of mats. You may say he may ask someone else to sell him, but it's the same for content accessible via PvP. You can't get Zun in PvP PR? Ask someone else.
There will always be people that don't to PvP. Fine. Still they have access to PvM content. There are people that wants to PvP and not bash monster. Fine, they will only have access to PvP content (which nowadays in Ryzom is only PvM content with PvP influence). And there are people that wants both. So they will access to both contents. Do you want to forbid one to get access to what please him?
(As long as PvP does not prevent PvM to exists on its own)

Currently Outposts is rewards for lovers of PvP (and that includes most of the followers of the storyline). They won't prevent those who don't want to PvP to PvM all they want.
I'm sorry but what's worse is that PvM does exclude people. Whether you want it or not, you don't gain skills in PvP. So you have to PvM before entering PvP. Should they write a thread "Do we need PvM?" ?
Hehe that would be funny




I agree that PvP shall be addressed VERY carefully. But as PvP will be in SoR nonetheless, you'd better help so it'll be fun for all rather than close your eyes and say "No no no that won't happen I say noooo!".
For example I suggest you ask that PvP content doesn't remove PvM content and only add PvP content. That way you shouldn't feel deceived. And if you think that it would break the community between PvPers and non-PvPers, I'd answer that it's already broken. Just that some players have to shut their mouth and wait.
Also all that depends on the community. Personally when I see how players respect themselves in PvM, I'm trustful for PvP. You know on Aniro when a group hunt a king and another group comes, the first ready takes the first turn, then if they fail the other group take its turn. Fairplay when there's no rule to oblige to do so (you always can surf on CoC limits like "no monster stealing"), I don't see that in games where PvP has gone trashy. But maybe on your servers it's not the same.


PS: I would gladly welcome Audrey on Aniro. Some people have bad a prioris. Personally I don't shout at my computer when a Vorax eat my character, so I don't shout at other players if their characters come and kill mine. I'm not even 100 in any combat skill, but I've a compass and a /who command if I really fear other players.

**** wrote:Indeed some developers believe in the RPG with "freedom". But you know that Morrowind is far from free. For a basic player, you only have the main plot and a few parallel quests. For a more involved player, you have stories and lots of parallel quests evolving all around a main story, and if paying attention a second way to "beat the game" without following the main story. Finally for a few hardcore players with more talent, there's the world editor (TESCS). If you look carefully, how many player really reach the freedom given by the TESCS? Not a lot.

Even the basic player can have a sense of greater possibilities. And the TESCS did huge things for the game. It gave players the power to alter and expand on any aspect of the game world (which was intoxicating to me - I made a number of modules that I never ended up playing - creating them was the whole point). It allowed ambitious users to create custom content and distribute it to the basic players (and the library of models, textures, areas, and quests that are available for download dwarf the original "official" game). And it let players understand the game world to whatever level of depth they wanted - it gave them control of the production magic. (Well, the scripting system could have been better, but still)

I found the main story of Morrowind underwhelming. I was also relatively unsatisfied with the expansions. But I logged probably more than 1000 hours into the game altogether - in fact I'm going through it right now - just finished Tribunal and I'll be moving on to Bloodmoon too - in preparation for Oblivion. The reason the game appealed to me was the freedom, plain and simple. It's true that most players don't seem to want that now. But in the first place, is that because people really don't want freedom, or because they've learned to expect a set of rails? And in the second place, there may be whole untapped markets who aren't into "gaming" right now. Really "gamers" right now represent a pretty narrow sliver of the population - mostly introverted well-off white males. I don't think we have begun to scratch the surface of what games are capable of. So the fact that there seems to be a small market right now doesn't worry me too much - the market can grow, and even if it doesn't, I fall into that particular niche and so those are the types of games I'm looking for.

And for linear/non-linear war, remember that Final Fantasy and Seiken Densetsu series always worked when linear (very linear), and didn't work when freedom was given to the player like for Isle of Mana.
So basically I'm really not against giving player more freedom, but first of all it's always in the limits of the code contrary to the pen&paper games, and secondly it is a dream of developers that are people with more imagination than the average and would like to give other people with such imagination the possibility to express it. But they often forget they have to eat and that lots of players don't have the imagination requiered nor the shoulders to bear a totally free world. They wouldn't know what to do and would feel very uncomfortable.

First I'd like to say that my favorite experience ever with console RPGs was the World of Ruin in Final Fantasy 3 (US). That was the greatest. Why did I like the World of Ruin? Because it was highly nonlinear. That allowed for a feeling of being in the world, instead of just observing it.

And keep in mind that while sales of nonlinear console games were always a bit sour, there has been a market for nonlinear PC games since nethack. Ultima, Wizardry, Might and Magic, Bard's Tale, Wasteland... There were many of them, and they were all pretty free relative to the console RPGs.

But not everyone has to get involved in the creative work. I think allowing for "on-rails" gameplay is very important (and I'll be the first one to say Ryzom needs more "stuff"). What is also important is player choice in the matter. I want to be able to choose my own level of freedom - that's what is so great about games like Morrowind. You can choose to follow the main story. Or you can go off and do your own thing. Or you can make your own story! It's your choice. You are free to create, but you are also free to be hooked up to rails. I don't want to get too existential, but I think a game where you are forced to be creative is no better than a game where you're forced to follow rails. Choice is what I'm all about - player choices that matter.

And sorry if I misunderstood, but I read that grimjim was against any form of PvP. He's saying that choice is wrong and never works.
Of course I'm not for rubbish PvP without rule. I'm just arguing that SoR needs a kind of PvP.

Well, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, Jyudas) that he is fully in support of consensual PvP. It is nonconsensual PvP that worries him. I don't think many people are up in arms over duels or the matis arena; but if we are forced to engage in PvP in order to travel from land to land, that's another story. I think J has some different ideas about certain implementations than I do - for instance I would be fine with a PvP flag but he would probably say that's not really consensual - but the basic principle is the same. I don't want to be attacked unless I choose to be attacked.

Personally, what I'm worried about in terms of PvP isn't getting ganked. What I'm worried about is a shallow world in which every conflict is solved using violence, and blood and guts take the place of character.

Also I'm not saying that playing a character that refuse violence is not good (but it's even funnier if there's PvP btw). Thank you to learn me that I can emote *giggles* or *shakes her fist with anger*, I never RPed.

*drives her sword into his belly*
You're dead.

Oh that's poweremote! naughty naughty!
Emotes have a limit. But I guess we should use /random when two characters are upset and can't seem to agree.

I disagree. I would say an appropriate emote would be, *lunges at him with her sword, trying to skewer him*. At which point he could say *dodges quickly and rolls out of the way* or maybe *stumbles backward as the sword pierces his heart*. The assumption you seem to be making is that "she" wants her character to win, and "he" wants his character to win, and there is no compromise. It evokes childrens' games of imagination where one player can simply claim to be totally invulnerable and ruin the game. But we are adults, not little kids, and I think the typical role players can be willing to sacrifice some ego in support of the collaborative project of the story. Arguments about whose character is stronger and such can be handled civilly in an OOC context. If you really want your character to kill my character, it might be best to discuss it with me OOC before the scene (it may make things a bit less spontaneous, but I think the serious consequences merit it - particularly in games that feature perma-death).

It is definitely easier to apply this kind of thing when (character) lives aren't on the line (and you could argue this applies to Ryzom, with resurrections). But I would rather live in a world in which every character automatically dodges every attack than in a world where player consent doesn't enter into the picture. And believe me, there are some strong role-players in this game who would be happy to throw a battle here or there to keep things interesting.

Lots of intresting feedback in this thread.


Do PvP players kill the weak?

Yes they do and quite frequently. Quite often you will find lower levels begging not to be killed (emotes) and as there is no real point killing them you let them go (I do). But the point i'm making here is that lower levels in PvP will almost in all cases not engage a higher level player as it is almost certainly going to result in there characters death. But they will engage lower levels where they are almost certainly going to win.

If PvP is introduced a problem I see here in the leveling system it's too long and the difference in levels of skills of characters is vast.


Does PvP introduce realism?

No, it does not the player cannot be harmed therefore it still is only a game and will be played differently to RL. If you were to fire a bullet that bullet can do as much damage if your skilled in the use of that weapon or not, not the case with a game leveling system.


Is PvP fun?

Yes it is in the right type of game.


Should games be linear?

If you want a game to last no they should not.


Can events be linear?

Yes they can, once an event is over it's gone.


Big problem as I see it here is that the people who want PvE only will get fed up and leave the game if they are prevented from playing this game in the way they would like. Community holding them here, for a short while maybe. But with the introduction of actual conflict ingame it is almost certainly going to change the community as it functions today. If that happens then the PvP people will get bored here and go and play a real PvP game. Result 'Death of Game'. Well that's my view anyway.

**** wrote:Currently Outposts is rewards for lovers of PvP (and that includes most of the followers of the storyline). They won't prevent those who don't want to PvP to PvM all they want.

Just a short comment on this:

Maybe the problem with the Outposts in specific is, that they were originaly, according to the first version of the players handbook, designed for both, PvP and PvM. Some should be taken by diplomacy others by force. And everyone (PvPers and PvMers) were excited about them and wanted to have them. Then Nevrax changed the design and dropt the PvM part completely (al least for the first version). So the PvM part of the playerbase was getting angry for the first time, since the outposts were not seen as something the PvPers will get and has no effect on PvM but as something what was taken from the PvMers without compensation.
And the anger stays, because until now all Nevrax is talking about is the Outposts and new PvP-Features while not mentioning any new features/gamemechanisms that will be added for the PvM players. "Just" the story, you can take part in, during events and the everyday RP which has nowadays absolutely no influence on the Story.
Ok. More recently they were talking about Episode 2 and some mysterious Factionpoints and rewards at the end of Episode 2, but no facts. Nothing about how we will be able to earn the factionpoints, if it will be a simmilar mechanism to Rites or something different...

I think if they would have dumped the OP system completely and instead had worked on other PvP content, while describing a little more about the new PvM features of Episode 2 there wouldn't be halve the anger. Cause then the Outposts would have been taken from everyone (not only one side) and boths sides would know that there is content for them in the pipeline.

But thats all a big WOULD HAVE and so we have to live with "Outposts are for PvP players only" and the small hope that there realy is some new PvM content in Episode 2.