Ryzom

"I bet you a team of lvl 50 can beat a team of lvl 100 if the lvl 50 team is well balanced and work well together as oppose to a lvl 100 team just trying to nuke the enemies to piece"

Have to disagree here. The games mechanics are such that 15 or 20 lvls is the most you can hope win against consistantly. Resistances and Defense Mods simply play too important a role...if the combatants have same gear.

Heh, ok seh. I started this thread mainly to try to allevate some concerns from some of the players of the PvP element that outposts will bring. You weren't my target victim then

Cept for this bit,

I just have no interest in participating in something that comes down to levels, especially when there's not even an incentive to do so other then "I can kill you so I will." There also needs to be some sort of end to conflicts, so it doesn't turn to back and forth killing that gets increasingly personal.

This is where I fear what people think PvP is all about. Players ganking each other and cycle of viciousness.

It doesn't have to be like that.

Done wrong, yes, it will be like that, but done right, it's something quite enjoyable.

Ok I am going to pull the GuildWars card

PvP can be just for PvP sake, as in just as a form of competition, a competive game. This is why I bring up the comparision to Pong and Chess. Gamers like to compete, it can (and even enhance), by role playing and context, but it doesn't need those at all for it to work.

Guildwars have Capture the Flag games, King of the Hill, defend the hero, assinate the leader, different type of PvP games, and they work.

Another game that I see pvp worked in?

Risk Your Life.

If you're interested in learning how PvP can work in a mmorpg, try out RYL.

In its purest form this is how it work:

They have 2 races, human and demon.

They have 5 islands. 1 island of each race is "newbie" island and restricted terrritory for that race, the other race can't enter those 2 islands.

The next 2 islands are race owned, where the major towns are for that race, for but not restricted to the other race, so the other race can invade these islands if they wish to.

The final 5th island is neutral territory, where both race have equal towns and footing on the island and it's a constant battle to take control.

Human are free to attack demons anywhere anytime and demons can attack humans anywhere anytime on 3 of the 5 islands (with 2 being race restricted).

You can intitiate dueling for member of the same race for PvP'ing players of the same race.

There's also an Arena where there's a constant battle for 3 towers between the 2 race. If a race have control of all 3 towers, any players of that race guarding the tower will earn points that they can use to buy rewards with.

They also have 0 dialogues between the 2 races in game. Demons can't talk to Human and vice versa.

So, althought RYL is pretty lacking in content and the mobs are lame and its PvE is basically a grind-fest, the PvP portion of the game worked quite well.

I give these examples not to advertise those non-ryzom games, but to show how PvP can work, if done correctly.

Now if Ryzom can have both a great PvE system (which I think it already does with its level of environment and mobs detailed and back story), and also have a great PvP system, it will be the dream mmorpg game of all time.

eta:
for quasar

"I bet you a team of lvl 50 can beat a team of lvl 100 if the lvl 50 team is well balanced and work well together as oppose to a lvl 100 team just trying to nuke the enemies to piece"

Have to disagree here. The games mechanics are such that 15 or 20 lvls is the most you can hope win against consistantly. Resistances and Defense Mods simply play too important a role...if the combatants have same gear.

I was a lvl 100 something and I killed a lvl 150+ nuker once, but that's with using invuln and antimagic shield aura and timing things correctly.

And I probably got lucky

vinnyq wrote:I think what Nevrax is going for is a balance of both.

The post I responded to seemed to want PvP everywhere except towns. I'm also making the assumption that it would be non-consentual PvP, because otherwise there would be no point.

And I think a game like that, where I would have to be constantly watching over my shoulder when I'm doing a mission, where every blue dot is by default an enemy, is not the kind of game I'm interested in playing.

It doesn't matter that every PvP'er isn't necessarily a thirteen year old looking to work out their frustrations because they got picked on in school. Those are the only ones people are going to hear or talk about.

If PvP doesn't work out like that, I'm relieved, and I won't have anything to complain about. But my point is, that "balance" is extremely difficult to achieve.

Yeah, rakeesh, you beef is with armist, not me. He hijacked my thread But you two are welcome to duke it out in here about all-out pvp, I am still gonna read it

Interestingly its not all about combat lvls with resists (magic) , my base resist from combat is only 137 (highest combat = 162 heal) but jewel boosted i get 250 (highest lvls as signature) with apropriate jewels

Im intrigued to know what this would actualy mean in a PvP situation but have yet to test it ,melee or range would still woop me but i could be a tougher nut to crack for a mage (if i could cover all resist groups used)

Has anyone tried to work out resists ?

gonna start another thread so not as to hijack..

Any replys here thx:-

http://ryzom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14753

Hmm, these threads all sounds familiar. Oh yeah, it reminds me of when they implemented PvP in the roots in chapter 2. Of course PvP made Land of Umbra a lot easier to forage in, no more kitin patrols, but most everyone forgets about that.

So you say that a lvl 100 group would beat a lvl 50 group? What about the 100 NPCs the lvl 50 group spawned at their outpost because they're a bunch of high level forager/crafters and have lots of dapper to spend on defenses. Hmm, might make it a lot tougher to take over that outpost.

I remember during the invasion event in January, we had war camps (outposts) that needed to be defended. With 5 or 10 NPC guards it was hard to defend a camp, but when you spawned a 100 guards it was a different story.

At this point its really too early to pass judgement on outposts. Maybe once Nevrax gives us some more details and ATS is open, we will have a better idea of all the options available with outposts.

Ok I was going to ignore this example altogether because I think I am being too long winded already, but this is too good to pass up.

grimjim wrote: How would you feel if you were playing, say, KOTOR and you approach the final scene to face Darth Whats-his-name when suddenly some ubered up dark jedi player runs past you, slaughters your entire party, calls you a 'n00b' and then sprints on chuckling madly. It would totally interrupt and spoil the play experience.

Classic example here, grim, of you getting the wrong idea about PvP. This is not PvP, this is griefing, and should be treated as the ugly mutt that it is.

What would BE pvp, is if you're playing KOTOR, and Darth Whats-his-name is also another player that you have to fight against for the end game. Imagine that, think how manytime you would replay KOTOR if that's actually the case, and not just some computer AI. Because basically, once you figure out how to beat that AI, there are no more challenge.

edit: removing the "See?" because it made my argument ineffective, smell?

>ooo grim, we gonna rassel?

Put up your dukes

>Ok, I agree that co-operative plays are also pretty awesome in its own right.
>And even thought traditional table top rpg games start out as competitive >play, they don't need to be. There're room for both in the genre.

Sometimes it is fun to have a PvP element, a character in the party who is a spy, or has some sort of secret that runs counter to the rest of the group. That's always a conscious decision on the part of the player and added for emotional and plotline significance.

>I do not, however, agree that rpg can only be about co-operative play and >players working together to experience a story together.

I'll agree.

But a successful and stable game with everyone enjoying themselves equally does. The potential from problems and conflict outside the game is too great otherwise.

>It can also be about players conflict. No this or that is better, just different >style of players interaction, whatever you're in the mood for. You can and >should roleplay enemies against other players, and also as friends. Don't >know why you would limit it to players against the GMs/Game.

I'm trying to demonstrate how you build up from a traditional tabletop (or single player CRPG) situation to the MMORPG one. RPGs come from an entirely different paradigm to conventional board games or competitive games. Part of the reason they are/were feted by educators as tools for teaching gifted children.

>And speaking of context, yes, it'll be the highest form of PvP when it's in >context, where you are or pretending you are fighting for something. But >doesn't this still gives the argument that PvP isn't the devil? And that if you >just dislike PvP because of its competive nature and doesn't have context to >go with it, then you're being a tad unreasonable?

I dislike it for the competetive part, for the fact it causes strife and for the fact it will attract/perpetuate the kind of players who are the antithesis of the current cooperative, friendly and RP literate community.

From long and bitter experience I know what once you start pitting players against players the bitterness and recrimination starts. Hell, even in the FPS games you mentioned you'll see accusations (founded or not) of cheating, camping, lag exploitation, spawn camping etc etc. The competetive, aggressive play, brings out the absolute worst in people.

>This is true only if you have 2 guys holding sticks and standing there >whacking each other. But if you introduce only a tad more variety in skills >and number of moving parts (e.g. team vs team, invuln and auras, healing, >affliction, etc), then strategy will come into play. It won't just be about >number crunching. I bet you a team of lvl 50 can beat a team of lvl 100 if >the lvl 50 team is well balanced and work well together as oppose to a lvl 100 >team just trying to nuke the enemies to piece.

In the current game this isn't true.

1 - Nuking trumps everything else.
2 - Everyone pretty much has the same skill set, at least in terms of those that have a major influence on the battles.

As has been said elsewhere, 20 level difference the the winner is pretty much preordained.

>PvP don't makes enemies of friends, *people* make enemies of friends. >TYVM HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA![/QUOTE]

>.<

OK, this smacks of the argument used to excuse gun ownership in the colonies.

To which my argument is... PvP may not make people act like w*nkers, but it makes it a DAMN sight easier for them to do so.

"Classic example here, grim, of you getting the wrong idea about PvP. This is not PvP, this is griefing, and be treated as the ugly mutt that it is."

If you think anything different is going to happen, then you have the wrong idea about PvP

"What would BE pvp, is if you're playing KOTOR, and Darth Whats-his-name is also another player that you have to fight against for the end game. Imagine that, think how manytime you would replay KOTOR if that's actually the case, and not just some computer AI. Because basically, once you figure out how to beat that AI, there are no more challenge. See?"

Having someone called "Darth_SlapNutz" prancing around my corpse crowing does not add to my playing experience.

Sorry.

Oh you bore

Ok, agrument made on both sides, all guns are out, nothing left to be said, yadiya, thread locked (pretend it is), end of discussion, take your stand as you see fit.

*climbs off soap box*