Ryzom

xfluffee wrote:How would that affect gameplay when one side or the other owns most of the spires, for whatever reason? ...

In explanation of how spires would be a faction balancing mechanism where outpost battles are concerned (that's all I said, by the way, I did not attribute any supernatural healing powers to them, or anything else) :

An extreme example to illustrate the point. Suppose that one faction controlled only one spire - let's say one in the Grove of Confusion - and the other faction controlled ... 20. For players in the dominant faction to be able to spawn at their altar in the Grove, they have to first destroy the spire in that region. Which has 20 times the hp of any of their spires. Until they do, after any wipe at an outpost battle in the Grove they will have to trek all the way from their nearest available spawn point at the far side of the Knoll of Dissent, while players of the weaker faction can teleport-spawn in the Grove. And, if they do destroy that spire and erect one themselves, it will only have 1/21 of the hp of the one they destroyed, so is far more easily lost than it was won.

So long as the hp pool of the spires is large enough - something like 10 or 20 million hp per faction, maybe? - then that's a pretty significant balancing factor.

I'm not saying that I am in favour of spires. This is the only thing thing in their favour, if you ask me, and I don't think that is quite enough, but then I don't give nearly so much value to teleport access as most people. I found the loss of those I had in the past not only unexpectedly easy, but even made a surprising improvement to life on Atys.

I don't quite understand the logic behind the current implementation of OP's as it is inevitable that, sooner or later, one faction has everything. And once that happens, there's no more sides and then what ?

-From the beginning, certain civilization, faction choices have built in advantages. The presence of the nexus is a prime example of this but only one.

-Once on side gets "an edge", the system leans towards maintaining it. For the purposes of discussion, for amoment let's say that the gateway from Silan was closed, a "side" with cats, OP mats, etc, all things being equal, is going to have a decided advantage. And please no "well if you work twice as hard arguments". People don't wanna have to work twice as hard. If forced to do so, they lose interest and look for other alternatives. Losing subscribers benefits no one.

-Opening that SIlan gateway again, the new "informed" arrival has a choice of joining the side with the advanatge or the side with the disadvantage. Tho some stalwarts will stand on principal, most will simply choose the opportunity that is better for them. Let's see I have two job offers one pays 90k a year with 6 weeks vacation, 10 sick days, a company car and I have to wear a red hat.....the other pays 60k a year, 2 weeks vacation no car and I have to wear a blue hat. I might not like red but for the difference in what's being offered to me, I'll wear the damn red hat.

If one factions "wins" then the whole faction lore / gameplay goes down the loo. If you want to retain that part of thegame, it must be assured that one side isn't driven into extinction which of all intents and purposes is "OP less". How spires COULD work as a balancing mechanism is if the benefits they offered served as channels for the faction "god's" power such that:

-Spires in "traditional" zones / civilizations had more power than non traditional. That is a Kara spire in matis / tryker would be more powerful than a Kami spire in matis / tryker. A Kami spire in Zora / Fyros would be more powerful than a kara spire in Zora / Fyros.

and / or

-Spires serve to channel a finite amount of power. That is lets say a faction "god" could provide 60,000,000 points of whatever. And let's say faction "A" had 20 OP's and faction "B" had 10. The amount of benefit faction "A" would get from a single spire "within range" would be 60,000,000 / 20 or 3,000,000 per spire. Faction "B" would get 6,000,000.

This would allow for incursion into on traditional lands but not to an extent of extinction.

jared96 wrote:I don't quite understand the logic behind the current implementation of OP's as it is inevitable that, sooner or later, one faction has everything. And once that happens, there's no more sides and then what ?

Again...OPs are not FvF...they are AvA. That the alliances are faction-based might be true, but it is due to player action, not design. That you have built a large part of your disscustion on a false premise sort of leaves you teeteering.

jared96 wrote: -Once on side gets "an edge", the system leans towards maintaining it. For the purposes of discussion, for amoment let's say that the gateway from Silan was closed, a "side" with cats, OP mats, etc, all things being equal, is going to have a decided advantage. And please no "well if you work twice as hard arguments". People don't wanna have to work twice as hard. If forced to do so, they lose interest and look for other alternatives. Losing subscribers benefits no one.

...positive feedback loop...

We have talked about why that effect sounds fun in theory but how it is limited in practise (if it were true, the kamist would still hold the majority of OPs, like they did in the begining.)

jared96 wrote: -Opening that SIlan gateway again, the new "informed" arrival has a choice of joining the side with the advanatge or the side with the disadvantage. Tho some stalwarts will stand on principal, most will simply choose the opportunity that is better for them. Let's see I have two job offers one pays 90k a year with 6 weeks vacation, 10 sick days, a company car and I have to wear a red hat.....the other pays 60k a year, 2 weeks vacation no car and I have to wear a blue hat. I might not like red but for the difference in what's being offered to me, I'll wear the damn red hat.

Again with the positive feedback loop. And how is taking the better opportunity a betrayal of principal? Anyway...the Kamist are getting more new recruites than the Karavan...so again, the theory of what you are saying sounds good, but in practise, it doesn't play out.

jared96 wrote: If one factions "wins" then the whole faction lore / gameplay goes down the loo. If you want to retain that part of thegame, it must be assured that one side isn't driven into extinction which of all intents and purposes is "OP less".

OPs are NOT FvF by design, but by player choice. Aris is unique in being the only server where the struggle is still alive. Implementing heavy handed controlls to overrule the world the players have created is not a very good idea.

jared96 wrote: -Spires in "traditional" zones / civilizations had more power than non traditional. That is a Kara spire in matis / tryker would be more powerful than a Kami spire in matis / tryker. A Kami spire in Zora / Fyros would be more powerful than a kara spire in Zora / Fyros.

Interesting thought, but the lands themselves are not alligned; even if the majority of the inhabitants might be.

But either way, spires would open a seperate front in the fight. A true FvF front. One completly separate from the OP battles. The only impact Spires would have on the OP battles would be if they were to limit the available 'porters; and I think the vast majority agree that would be a bad idea.

mrshad wrote:OPs are NOT FvF by design, but by player choice. Aris is unique in being the only server where the struggle is still alive. Implementing heavy handed controlls to overrule the world the players have created is not a very good idea.

On one hand, you have the will of the players, and a segment of the playerbase working together to achieve a specific goal. On the other hand, by that very action, the specific goal that has been created is to limit what is available to anyone who does not belong to that special group.

There are not separate "Kami" servers and "Karavan" servers. All servers are supposed to house various players and provide equal opportunities for all to have fun, no matter which faction you choose (if any). Because not everyone likes PvP gameplay and the game isn't a dedicated PvP game, PvP benefits should be negligible (or, preferably, not present at all) in PvE gameplay.

Situation: Kami have taken over all the OPs on a shard, and only share the rewards with other Kami, or with the Karavan/Neutrals only at very high and unfair exchange rates.

If I join that shard and ally with the Karavan, or remain neutral, I am then placed at a significant disadvantage to someone else who joins that shard and allies with the Kami, for no other reason than because I didn't choose what the dominant group wanted me to choose. My gameplay is artificially limited, but this time it's not by the game mechanics, it's by other players forcing their will upon me.

Elsewhere, that's considered discrimination or possibly harassment, and isn't acceptable. It shouldn't be acceptable in this game, either. It really boggles my mind how anyone could even stand idly by and let it happen, much less speak favourably about it.


Also, Outposts are a PvP concept, so rewards, if any, should be limited to PvP actions. But they're not, they have a striking effect on PvE gameplay. Even if it only affected PvP gameplay, it would be enough to warrant a serious correction. But it affects every single player who plays on that unbalanced shard, regardless of their stance on PvP.

1) Its a game, not real life
2) The game is about choice and about "players creating a story"

If the PvP in ryzom was "unwinnable" and meant to be neverending like in so many other games, I wouldn't take part. The whole point with that PvP here is that you're fighting for a cause, and it means something in the long run.

If you really want to see all these arguments dealt with in detail, I suggest you click here and do a search

xfluffee wrote:Elsewhere, that's considered discrimination or possibly harassment, and isn't acceptable. It shouldn't be acceptable in this game, either. It really boggles my mind how anyone could even stand idly by and let it happen, much less speak favourably about it.

You are actually comparing the in-game environment to RL discrimination?!?
Should someone be arrested for ganking me in PR?

A group of players are trying to create an environment of peace and order in a server that is full of chaos and murder. Elsewhere, that's considered a humanitarian action, and is lauded by the UN. It shoudl be lauded in this game, too. It really boggles my mind how anyone can stand neutral between those that are trying to bring peace, and those that foment destruction, much less claim moral supieriority about it.

xfluffee wrote: Also, Outposts are a PvP concept, so rewards, if any, should be limited to PvP actions. But they're not, they have a striking effect on PvE gameplay. Even if it only affected PvP gameplay, it would be enough to warrant a serious correction. But it affects every single player who plays on that unbalanced shard, regardless of their stance on PvP.

Let's say I agree that PvP events should not yeild rewards that can be used PvE...what do you think suitable rewards should be?

Really, the XP crystals do not limit your gameplay. Many of us did just fine without them, and a lot of us would like to see them go away. They do not double the rate you earn XP, or give you god-like powers, or make Atys a more beautiful place. They are pretty easy to get, even if you want to avoid OP fights.

sprite wrote:If the PvP in ryzom was "unwinnable" and meant to be neverending like in so many other games, I wouldn't take part. The whole point with that PvP here is that you're fighting for a cause, and it means something in the long run.

I always love this one, What do you think will happen once the Karavan have all the OPs? Do you REALLY think something will happen? ... (Unless GF gets something ready for that day...) It wont, It will be the same as now - some players, And - the freqent OP battles (some may say thats a good thing) and then... The game goes back to being steril... Nothing happening, Just anyone on the Kami side leveling slower.

If spires is ever to exist ingame... I REALLY don't want the OPs to end up all Kara... Because we all now where that will lead spires... Which will end in 90% of Kami either leaving game or going Kara when they can't TP anywhere...

In the end, Once one side wins,there will be no point to PvP... The game will sterilize and become boring for many.(With many from before PvP already gone, We are left with those that would leave without the PvP being here)

You could argue "Well then Karas will leave game, so it will give the other side a chance again" But that means a large portion of the pop leaves game... That is not good in any case.

Anyway sorry fo that bit of offtopic ...

On topic--- I think just limiting it to one OP in a 2 hour period... (So they can't overlap, but one can start the minut one ends) Would work wonders in this annoying age of "Oh we lost the attack round we may lose the OP... quick! declare on a few enemy OPs at the same exact time as the defence round!"(which IMO is BS and a coward tactic, but I'll leave it at that)

raven41 wrote: On topic--- I think just limiting it to one OP in a 2 hour period... (So they can't overlap, but one can start the minut one ends) Would wor wonders in this annoying ae of "Oh we lost the attack round we may lose the OP... quick! declare on a few enemy OPs at the same exact time as the defence round!"

We talked about that one, Red. One side can effectivly stop any attacks, any where on the server, just by declairing on thier own OPs every two hours.

I don't particualrly dig the current situation, but I don't think a global limit really solves anything.

Now, limiting a guild to one attack every 24 hours might be a good start. It woud at least keep the more crazy nutters from declairing on three or four OPs at once.

spires as originally proposed would have a benefit for some people and a negative effect for pretty much everyone else, which is fine and dandy if you are on the top side, and a challenge to overcome if you are on the bottom
.. but it is a totally un needed pain in the @ss for those other players who arent interested and dont WANT to be coerced into playing faction stromtrooper. It would have forced players to play a particular type of game, regardless of their own interests or desires.

The faction warleaders may think this is a good thing, but if you make players do what they dont want to, its easier for them just not to log in.

mrshad wrote:You are actually comparing the in-game environment to RL discrimination?!?

Yes. I am. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter where it occurs, no matter who is the benefactor or the victim.

Let's try to explain this in simpler terms, shall we? I'll relate it to something I'm a little familiar with: racial prejudice and discrimination in the USA. I have no tolerance for prejudice in any form (including reverse-discrimination), whether in real life or in a game.

Some people decide among themselves that, for whatever reason, they are better than another group of people. This could be "A bunch of whites decide they are superior to non-whites" or "A bunch of Kami-aligned players decide they are superior to non-Kami". There is one difference I'll touch on later.

The group in power ("whites" or "Kami") use their power and influence to adversely affect their target audience. Regardless of the merits of the individual, simply because that person is black (or Karavan/Neutral), that person does not get to participate equally in "society".

While the whites get to go to the best schools and receive the better education, and the Kami get the cats and OP mats/flowers, the blacks lag behind because of lower-quality education, and the Karavan lag behind because of a lack of these things (or, they are forced to put forth significant effort to "purchase" these benefits, which also increase the power of the dominant group). The dominant group institutes policies to ensure they remain the dominant group.

This is discrimination. Check dictionary.com if you don't believe me:

dictionary.com wrote:2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

The main difference is that in Ryzom, you can change your alignment. In real life, you can't change your race.

If the game is supposed to present a balanced gameplay for all players, and allow them an equal chance whether they choose Kami or Karavan or neither, then the "will of the players" is violating the goals of the game.

If even one person has looked at the situation and, while preferring to choose the Karavan, they chose the Kami instead because they had (or appeared to have) more advantages, then the "community" has utterly failed and has thrown freedom out the window.

THAT is why I say that Outpost rewards that affect gameplay should be eliminated until some sort of checks and balances can be implemented. If nothing is suitable (which is what I suspect), then the rewards should be implemented elsewhere, in a more fair manner.