Ryzom

grimjim wrote:It is bad sportsmanship and ganking at the very least as teleporters are also spawn points. It is the kind of frustration causing behaviour that makes PvP less acceptable.

Still, a long long way from bombing hospitals, wouldn't you think?

And my point is that you are defending yourself against an attacker who has already decided to try in interupt your game. The target, in this case, has very little right to complain. If they didn't want a conflict, they should not have declaired war.

We have already established PvP as being undesirable.
I just want act a quicikly as possible to end aggression so that we can get back to playing the game we enjoy.

mrshad wrote:Still, a long long way from bombing hospitals, wouldn't you think?

In the context of the game? No. Respawn points are where people appear to rest and regenerate. In game terms that's a fairly accurate analogue for bombing hospitals.

This tactic would be used by both sides remember, not just the defender.

It bothers me that in the proposed Outpost fights, the attackers risk nothing in terms of dappers or investment of any kind (that I know of). This seems very prone to abuse.

The thread's getting a bit derailed.

The thread for feedback on how to fight over outposts is here;
http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17951

This thread is the for the discussion;
"Does Ryzom need PvP ?"

grimjim wrote:In the context of the game? No. Respawn points are where people appear to rest and regenerate. In game terms that's a fairly accurate analogue for bombing hospitals.

This tactic would be used by both sides remember, not just the defender.

I would posit that is corelates more closely with preventing the establishment of a beach head, as the spawn points and TP give the aggressor the chance to stage an attack.

If the spawn points were places where players that could not again join the battle showed up, then I could see the hospital simile.

If an aggressor force has already show thier biligerance by delclairing war and attacking an outpost, do you really think they would have any second thoughts about sieging a spawn point?

mrshad wrote:I would posit that is corelates more closely with preventing the establishment of a beach head, as the spawn points and TP give the aggressor the chance to stage an attack.

If the spawn points were places where players that could not again join the battle showed up, then I could see the hospital simile.

If an aggressor force has already show thier biligerance by delclairing war and attacking an outpost, do you really think they would have any second thoughts about sieging a spawn point?

Hrm..This gives me a thought about PvP fights.

Still against them, understand, as they cause more problems than they solve, but there may be a way to limit their impact on those of us that don't want them around, while still providing a valuable use for those that do, as well as a decisive outcome.

You will be able to be flagged PvP/non-PvP, as I understand it, therefore, the server knows of your intentions, at least in the most general sense.

When entering a zone, the system window tells you what area you have entered, so the server also knows your location.

How about, if you are forced to respawn (ie. did not get rezzed) while flagged PvP, you automatically respawn at some neutral location, such as your races capital, or, better yet, the city in which your guild has it's guild-hall. For a given period of time (1-2 hours) the area in which you were killed is off-limits to you. TP tickets for that area are greyed out (like a used aura), and portals to those locales do not function for you.

This way, those that win a fight in a PvP area will be able to accomplish their goals as a reward for victory, whether it be the digging of a super-node, or hunting rights, or simply trying to get new members to a new land.

It would also eliminate the possibility of repeatedly killing people at the re-spawn point, while they are helpless.

oauitam wrote:The thread's getting a bit derailed.

The thread for feedback on how to fight over outposts is here;
http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17951

This thread is the for the discussion;
"Does Ryzom need PvP ?"

As they are at the moment, PvP and Outposts are too inter-mingled to seperate. This thread must also consider Outposts and the battles involved with them to have any merit.

thebax wrote:It bothers me that in the proposed Outpost fights, the attackers risk nothing in terms of dappers or investment of any kind (that I know of). This seems very prone to abuse.

it was already said that the attackers will have to pay a fee(and looking at the current system, will probably have to pay a good amount for attacking squads during the defense phase as well)

thebax wrote:How about, if you are forced to respawn (ie. did not get rezzed) while flagged PvP, you automatically respawn at some neutral location, such as your races capital, or, better yet, the city in which your guild has it's guild-hall. For a given period of time (1-2 hours) the area in which you were killed is off-limits to you. TP tickets for that area are greyed out (like a used aura), and portals to those locales do not function for you.

excellent idea! it would make the gameplay enforce what the frenchies are already doing on their own

Back to the thread:
It seems that a part of players believe that PvP is degenerating in griefing. From this reason they are against PvP.
On the other hand the ones that are pro-PvP are very trustfull in human nature and think that all the players will act mature and responsable. They believe that PvP implementation will only add spice to the game and will be no place for gank / grief.

The problem is that once implemented, the PvP will stay.
And when the forums will be full of "I've been random PK'ed (+3 players vs 1 or +200 lvl vs -100 lvl) in (insert area here) X times" the pro-PvP-ers will probably say "Stop whinning, is a PvP game" or "You don't get DP, why are you whinning?"

{question was answered}