Ryzom

iphdrunk wrote:The design decision driving this seems to be to apply the good´ol´ premise of you get what you work for and the satisfaction and pride in getting/after getting it (plus the eventual show off).

"I am a lvl 135 haverster I can't dig q150 yet....
"I am a lvl 4 ringer I can't place Karavan ambassadors yet...
"I guess that in 2 weeks I'll ding lvl 5 ringer whooohooo DING! GRATS!"

I guess you're right there Ani... to use a term I'm fond of, "MEH" I really thought R2 would have different goals, the main one being to get as many people as possible using it, including new players who've never seen Atys before, but who like the idea of building their own content.

I made a comment about the new R2 teaser, and it seems the same applies here too. Nevrax have to avoid tailoring and aiming R2 at current Ryzom players, it is not the way to promote a product that has been worked on for so long, and is obviously looking like a product that will appeal to more than just the current playerbase.

Also, I think Nevrax need a particular point of view when it comes to the current playerbase - many who've been here for a long time, and who desperately need something new to hold their interest. In my opinion, R2 should be given on a silver platter to these players, as they are crucial in ensuring new players have knowledge and experience to tap into - and of course some great people to share these new adventures with Thoughts of current players should not be driven by these 'work requirements', but by the fact that they have supported and maintained Ryzom since it's release, and are the main reason Nevrax still exists Come on Nevrax, give us some of the love you've obviously applied to R2

I see reasons for limiting brand new players, but I see only problems with limiting long-time players, and thus supporters of the game.

dazman76 wrote:I see reasons for limiting brand new players, but I see only problems with limiting long-time players, and thus supporters of the game.

We agree with you on this, that's why we want to relate the Ring points to the Ryzom character; currently we plan to give an amount of Ring points proportional to your character's level, but that's still being discussed - if you have better ideas, feel free to write them down here, we're reading!

--
Xavier.

Xavier Antoviaque wrote:proportional to your character's level,

The main drawback of this approach is that it benefits more the players with "leveling" as a goal, and less those who don't, and the latter may be very good content creators, in particular those who RP, organize player events, socialize. Some of them haven't hit lvl 200 in any branch, and I know a few.

A distribution based on a mix of account creation date / IG hours per week -- need to weight both imho -- would be another approach to consider, and probably not the only one.

Xavier Antoviaque wrote:We agree with you on this, that's why we want to relate the Ring points to the Ryzom character; currently we plan to give an amount of Ring points proportional to your character's level, but that's still being discussed - if you have better ideas, feel free to write them down here, we're reading!

Don't use point. That seems to be a prevailing view point.

Even linking to your toon's lvl is a bad idea. Take myself for example. I only play in the evenings when I get home from work. THis is about 4 hours or so a night. Now in 4 hours I can usually choose to work on only 1 skill and progress it a couple lvls. I only very recently got any of my skills to 200. This is mainly due to how I play and how often I play. And there are many out there jsut like me who don't have alot of time and work on many differant skills and thus have barely hit lvl 200 in any skills.

Linking to skill lvl will unnecessarily restrict even long time players in what they can create. Not to mention the restriction of new players that may come to ryzom because of R2.

"Hi I'm new. I wanna create maps"
"Oops sorry, your max lvl is only 10, you can't create anything."
"Oh. Okay. Well I'll be on my way then. Bye"

This is a conversation you want to avoid at all costs. Having points, and expecially linking them to lvls, is a sure way to cause this to happen.

If you base it on anything it should be on how many maps created. Make it easter eggs that can be opened. Somehting like this.

No maps made = Basics needed to make a nice rounded map
10 maps made = Additional items/scripting
15 maps made = Additional items/scripting
and so on...

Base things on interaction and use and creation using R2, not with how much you lvl or how many oints you grind for map making. That's jsut a disaster waiting to happen.

Xavier Antoviaque wrote:We agree with you on this, that's why we want to relate the Ring points to the Ryzom character; currently we plan to give an amount of Ring points proportional to your character's level, but that's still being discussed - if you have better ideas, feel free to write them down here, we're reading!

--
Xavier.

Personal point of view on that matter, I' m not to sure if the levels of an avatar controlled by a Pioneer (or whatever the Ring title was for someone who creates scenarios) would be that smart a move to be linked with Ring 'points' or the ability to acquire more 'Packs'. This would inevitably lead to 'grinding for new content' (again).

A couple reasons:

1) New arrivals to the game, who may possibly have a talent at creating scenarios, will have that 'talent' go to waste as they have to spend time grinding for avatar levels rather than creating.
Also consider the possible influx of interested subscribers who are more looking foraward to the Ring itself rather than playing the 'level' game you may turn away by this.

2) Heavily generalising now: those players that are most involved with roleplay and have been organising player events on the normal shards, are not really that much inclined to or care about 'skill level achievements', while they may possibly be the ones that would get the best use out of the Ring.

3) Not all long time players have maxed out and along with players who return to the game they find themselves penalized it seems if they would want to try out Ring scenario creation.

I' m sure there' s a few more reasons to it I couldn' t come up with right now.


Frankly I' m not to big a fan of these 'points' but if you must include it, then please, do keep them linked to the Ring only (but not as a reward for time-investment or 'grinding' per se) opposed to character grinding.

kostika wrote: No maps made = Basics needed to make a nice rounded map
10 maps made = Additional items/scripting
15 maps made = Additional items/scripting
and so on...

Wow.... I know it was just an example, but please, no. That could mean players dumping scenarios, creating them just for the sake of getting "enough" scens to get to the next ring level, and although obvious... quality can be way better than quantity...

Factors involved: number of scenarios, quality / rating of scenarios / number of instances a day / number of features used / account used / level of the player / difficulty level / generated income / popularity..... the list is huge.

While I agree there is a need to motivate players to use the Ryzom and get involved with it, and Nevrax may see the ring as an opportunity and a much needed source income - I still have my doubts about how many players are willing to pay to have their content hosted -... I actually see this "Ryzom Ring points" as a pretty unnecessary complex balancing problem ! -- not to mention there are already several unbalanced game areas and unfinished and buggy "point"-features like faction and civ points --

The player is the one that will be creating content, not so much the avatar - we seem to forget a player can have up to 5 different toons, with a disparity of levels...yes, the scenarios will be tied to the particular avatar that created it, and yet someone can be a lvl 250 crafter and 37 fighter -

I see more problems with this approach than without to be honest. That said, I'm afraid I think Nevrax has already made up their minds about using them -- regardless whether we all said 'no thanks'... the only remaining part is how.

But I cannot see the Ring as another "game" where we can apply the notion of level/grinding to a meta-game, to the design part. Not to mention that the psychology of both types of players - the one who conceives a scenario and the one that focuses on leveling, in a simplistic partitioning - may be different. As a french player more or less said: looks like if I had to write 3 novels with word to be able to get the bold font plus 3 poems later to be able to insert figures.

Despite what other players may have said, I don't think this is a way to get more time to finish unimplemented features, since the only mentioned thing that will be available in packs are entities and maps...

The ring isn't a game, is a tool to extend a game. True, in subscription based MMRPGs time = monthly fee = revenue, but the last question is: isn't there a better way to make players want to use the ring -- and eventually using it to generate more income, either directly or inderectly -- that turning it into yet another level based approach?

kostika wrote: If you base it on anything it should be on how many maps created. Make it easter eggs that can be opened. Somehting like this.

No maps made = Basics needed to make a nice rounded map
10 maps made = Additional items/scripting
15 maps made = Additional items/scripting
and so on...

With this method we will spawn many crappy/hurried maps to get to the next "level". There is no "good" way to please everyone on this stuff... though I completely agree being 250 IG does not equal a good map/scenario maker. This might compel those stuck in the grind to find another avenue worth staying for, but thats about it.

I still have trouble getting my head around Nevrax charging folks already subscribing to host content that brings them new customers.

[edit]Damn Ani for writing a longer better similar post !

iphdrunk wrote: Discuss?

Ty for the translation

<slipping into commercial mode>
One reason I would limit people is the time and resources (=money) I would have to spend to keep them running. For something like player created content there would have to be a support staff, server space, bandwith, manuals, additions, bugixes, adimistration etc. So giving everybody the space for 100 maps and all the tools could be a big dent in the operating budget. It is sensible to have some sort of limit on it.

The increase in budget from operating has to come from somewhere. Why not charge for the best tools/options ?

vguerin wrote:With this method we will spawn many crappy/hurried maps to get to the next "level". There is no "good" way to please everyone on this stuff... though I completely agree being 250 IG does not equal a good map/scenario maker. This might compel those stuck in the grind to find another avenue worth staying for, but thats about it.

Yep I agree.

vguerin wrote: I still have trouble getting my head around Nevrax charging folks already subscribing to host content that brings them new customers.

It costs them money to host for us, if it is good enough, the scenario can get picked up and hosted on nevraxes account.
I don't have a problem with paying for this service, it's like renting a game server for Quake or a TS server for your guild.

iphdrunk wrote: As a french player more or less said: looks like if I had to write 3 novels with word to be able to get the bold font plus 3 poems later to be able to insert figures.

Seems like drakfot will get all the tools in no time then