Ryzom

slay13 wrote:Playtesting hopefully.

Remove/balance guards with how many is in the confict. ... Allow the attackers to hire mercenaries for assaulting the OP.... Theres lots of solutions that would either make it better or worse. But we'll never know anyways until someone decides to actually try to balance/fix things post launch of new additions, which never seems to happen much.

You'd never get a group of people to agree on what constitutes "balanced." Its not clearly defined at all. We could have another 10 page thread arguing over the definition


Edit: Another problem...
If numbers are limited at one battle, the side with the supposed tremendous number advantage could just declare simultaneous battles at other locations and field two full forces.

sehracii wrote: If numbers are limited at one battle, the side with the supposed tremendous number advantage could just declare simultaneous battles at other locations and field two full forces.

I wish I were as smart as you....

That is brilliant!

danolt wrote:Do we want the new owners to change the OP system, so that whenever a side starts to lose, the devs will step in and restore 'balance' or would we prefer more content so that everyone gets something new?

I think we would all agree on more content open to all, but the problem comes in the current OP situation when in theory guild "A" with 20 members has no chance of an OP against guild "B" 10 members, because of who will fight for guild "B" on purely factional lines.

You can argue all you want about making alliances work but when for whatever reason guild "A" could only maybe draw support from 35% of the server population what do the 35% do?, give the 65% another 2hrs to pat themselves on the back as another OP goes down and the game gets tougher for the 35% and easier for the 65%.

I would argue that server wide PvP can never be fair, without removing freewill from the players.

sehracii wrote:You'd never get a group of people to agree on what constitutes "balanced." Its not clearly defined at all. We could have another 10 page thread arguing over the definition

Well i dont disagree with you, so i guess a better term would be MORE-balanced. Certainly not everyone will be happy with every change, i'm just saying i'd like to see SOME change is all, some signs of life. There are an awful lot of things that are in game now that have not been changed at all since lauch of the game, or their inclusion (pvp being one of them), and this isnt a good thing in my eyes.

Guild wars (whether you love or hate em/or like their updates) change things almost daily to "balance" classes, it shouldnt take 2 years for similar smaller changes to things. If a class is not being played, it should be balanced/changed to either make it useful in comparison to others, or at least fun.

As far as OP's, i'm for taking out guards all together lol. There's plenty of other ways to have a "win" other than killing NPC's, we get as much of that as we want in PvE anyhow...when i PvP i wanna kill actual PEOPLE!! lol

Why not just have the opposing team "hold" a checkpoint for the time period, or points based on # of kills and holding/taking a waypoint, king of the hill style. Or even "capture the flag" would be sweet!! I wants variety!!!

danolt wrote:I would argue that server wide PvP can never be fair, without removing freewill from the players.

Agree entirely, no choice, two sides cant talk to each other, seperate lands hmm seems familiar, but its not Ryzom

wardone wrote:So anyone managed to come up with a suggestion that could be implemented in op pvp?

Yeah.. here -- http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27696&page=4 -- post number 33 .. Atleast it would be more interesting.

wardone wrote:also reason kami always lose is most our members refuse to enter the year 2000 and buy decent computer that can handle them.....

**looks at Red**

uhwha?... Oh hey! I got my PC in feb 2001 FYI!

raven41 wrote:Yeah.. here -- http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27696&page=4 -- post number 33 ..

or here : http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showthread.p ... post354670

I would argue that no one really wants balanced. What they want is combat where intelligent, tactical, strategic thinking all come into play. Numbers and level should not be as important as the others. Factor yes, as important, no.

marct wrote:I would argue that no one really wants balanced. What they want is combat where intelligent, tactical, strategic thinking all come into play. Numbers and level should not be as important as the others. Factor yes, as important, no.

Perfect summation IMO, wish I had said it.