Ryzom

The middle ground I refered to is that there are the nasty element that the Pro-PvP camp say won't be too much trouble (already in-game and already doing thier thang!) and this will effect the enjoyment of the Anti-PvP

Players who want a fluffy game - will be upset by the addition of more PvP (in am form) and will have thier content reduced/restricted by other players and this will be out of thier control. Everyone from both sides must see this point, even if they chose to ignore it.

Players who want a pure PvP game (regardless of motivation) - must admit that any game that has a PvP element to it, will attract more of the 'nasty' element gankers/griefers/et al.


The problem we have here..... is although the box talked about conflict etc, it wasn't there in the beginning and when outposts were first dicussed, deplomacy was an option. People we happy and there was much rejoicing.

However, problems and delays have meant we are getting trickle feed bit and bobs of stuff that doesn't quite fit together and kinda only works in certain conditions. Player have built a world based on 'Whats in the game!' and now the powers that be are implying that .... 'Sorry, we intended the game to be like this all the time, we just hadn't got round to doing it.'

If in 6 months time (About 10 years in Nervax time) Atys is full PvP the current player base will probably just go .... *shrug* lets go play xyz game of the month.

Btw - when I signed up for this I was promised an 8 year Saga.

Ermmm ... YEAR ONE has passed and I am looking forward to getting the Outposts which were the key part of the Saga of Atys - how long before we can leave Atys and take our skills with us and visit the next place in the Saga of Ryzom?


Going home now - so nolonger [email=B@W]B@W[/email]

vutescu wrote: And about the middle ground.
4. I'll ask my mentor / friend (I assume each player have at least a close mate in game) to come and careplan for me. I'll see if we get both attacked by the same person. Or I ask my guild to protect me while I'm harvesting.

This sort of misses out what your feelings are about being attacked, which was my personal interest, but it's still a very valid response.

For me, the best thing about harvesting is that you can do it alone, unlike most other aspects of Ryzom. I only harvest when I don't find a group of other players to muck about with. I'd really prefer not to have this last little bastion of solo possibility taken out of the game.

vutescu wrote:Or (is what I'd do) I change the harvesting place.

Probabaly me too. This is the root of my own dislike of PvP areas. Adding PvP areas risks dimininshing the places some people can play. (I'm not sure if I dare say "reduces available content"...)

xenofur wrote:if dexton tells me to take up arms for a good reason, i would do so.

An admirable attitude! However this assumes already that Ryzom needs PvP and you're explaining how it can be worked into the game. It's sort of putting the cart before the horse. If Atys were already full FvF then I would do the same thing - fight for my faction. Atys isn't already full FvF though. Do we need it to be?

trenker wrote:Perhaps it isn't so much as do we need PvP as does Nevrax need PvP?

Nevrax feel they need it because in their (and perhaps Jessica's) experience of the market it will bring in more players.

It probably isn't my place to say this, but I do know a little of Jessica's experience. Non-consensual PvP loses an awful lot more players than it attracts. (She was working on UO when they had all their problems due to free PvP and had to take emergency action to try and get players back).

trenker wrote:Do we need more players? Well if we want Nevrax to be here in the future then perhaps yes, indirectly therefore, we need PvP.

This is the bottom line, I think. We want Nevrax to succeed and therefore I would say that non-consensual PvP is the last thing we need!

trenker wrote:But we don't all want all types of PvP, so hopefully when it is implemented those of us who do not want some of the types of PvP going on will be able to avoid it.

I have a hunch that we will want some bits, like when your guild rallies to defend your outpost. Other bits some of us will hate, like the inability to walk safely through enemy territory what we once strolled without fear.

All the people will PvP some of the time, and some of the people will PvP all the time, but I don't think all people will PvP all the time, and herein is the balance for us all.

Excellently put.

Having regions that are all out non-consensual PvP all the time doesn't seem to satisfy many (any?) players. Many people do, however, seem to like the idea of the 'PvP flag' you can have on, or off, almost at will.

Maybe we should scrap this 'pvp regions' idea and think just about a 'pvp flag' idea? Switch on your pvp flag and you're advertising yourself as 'up for a scrap' with anyone similarly flagged, anywhere.

i probably didn't make it fully clear, with the current storyline conflict seems unavoidable, given the fact that there will be a war between karavan/kami and also taking yrkanis' last message into account. quite honestly, i don't think there is a way to continue this storyline without any kind of pvp.

oauitam wrote:Having regions that are all out non-consensual PvP all the time doesn't seem to satisfy many (any?) players.

my personal opinion it that these flopped, because they are essentially pointless, and were never heavily populated.
about the pvp zones: currently i interpret the stuff that nevrax said about them as them being only active when event-related or in border regions. in regard to the flag: it's not the flag alone that is enticing, it's the promise of the fvf being story-related, having a purpose and not just being thrown in front of us, to be (ab)used how we see fit. also, a *PvP* flag would be detrimental, there is not much reason for kamis or karavan to fight inside their own ranks.

http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showthread.p ... post227116

Oh look...

Still tell me PvP is a good thing...

that is prime roots, completely pointless uninspired full open pvp...
and i think there isn't one person in this thread who didn't agree that that kind of pvp was bad and unnecessary

There is two kind of PvP.

1. Consent PvP

This means that both sides knows why they fight and are willing to battle. Usually done in duels or roleplaying reason for group vs group with rules set by community. The most important is that both side did accept the war condition and knows who is the enemy. There is allways some reason why player attack other player and usually the one who get attacked knows that reason. Even if the other player get defeated there is no grudge or bad feelings.


2. Non-consent PvP

This means that player did not give permission to someone to attack him. Game just allows it to be done. Most important to understant this is that there is attacker and victim. Victim usually don't even know who is attacking him and why. Attacker attacks because it's possible and don't ask any permission from the victim. This is fun for attacker, but victim feals this is not fun at all.

So how You know the differerent, if there is possibility it to be both kind of PvP? Easyly, if there is victim, it's allways non-consent PvP.



Dueling is consent because the permission is asked every time from player.

Arena is consent because it has no other purpose than PvP. So anyone going there is ready for PvP.

PR is non-consent because it has harvest materials, so the area is design to have victims. If PR would be full consent, then the area would not have any other purpose than have PvP. It's also consent because player can decline to go there.

Outpost can be non-consent because someone else can deside if You get attacked and this I mean guilds and it's players. Guild could own outpost, but not wanna be war with some guilds, but wanna have wars with some other guilds. This means that as view point of guilds it's not fully consent and guild can become victim. Outpost is consent because player can decide not to belong to any guild and guild can decide not to have outpost.

When PvP is consent, it is full consent all the time, there is no exceptions. If there is victim, PvP is never consent.



Why non-consent PvPers are not happy in Ryzom.
- Not enough victims.
- Character balance isn't that good.

Why consent PvPers are not happy in Ryzom?
- No possibility create consent guild/aliance vs guild/alliance wars.
- Character balance isn't that good.

Why are PvErs not happy in Ryzom?
- Not enough PvE content for them.
- PvP cause balance issues what PvErs does not wanna.

xenofur wrote:that is prime roots, completely pointless uninspired full open pvp...
and i think there isn't one person in this thread who didn't agree that that kind of pvp was bad and unnecessary

In the words of the song...

"This what you want,
This is what you get."

trenker wrote:Perhaps it isn't so much as do we need PvP as does Nevrax need PvP?

Nevrax feel they need it because in their (and perhaps Jessica's) experience of the market it will bring in more players.

Do we need more players? Well if we want Nevrax to be here in the future then perhaps yes, indirectly therefore, we need PvP.

But we don't all want all types of PvP, so hopefully when it is implemented those of us who do not want some of the types of PvP going on will be able to avoid it.

I have a hunch that we will want some bits, like when your guild rallies to defend your outpost. Other bits some of us will hate, like the inability to walk safely through enemy territory what we once strolled without fear.

All the people will PvP some of the time, and some of the people will PvP all the time, but I don't think all people will PvP all the time, and herein is the balance for us all.

Tember
A good for nothing nobody

The problem, from a financial viewpoint at least, is that while a change to world-wide PvP (in any form) will indeed bring in players interested in that sort of thing, it will cause the exodus of those who have been playing Ryzom for the lack there-of.

When I began, the only PvP, that I was aware of, was when one player challenged another to a duel. This was ok, as nobody else was getting hurt, both had full choice in the matter, no-one was denied anything as a result of not being willing to kill another player, and no xp or rewards of any kind were available for PvP activity, they did it just to see if they could beat the other person, therefore, no one was required to participate, if they chose not to.

Then, PvP zones were introduced.
"They are far away",I thought, "and I have no use for them."
I didn't think the thing all the way through, the impact on everybody's gaming experience, from the sudden non-availabilty of mats and items (resulting in more player deaths, as they could no longer compete with superior mobs of "equal" level), to increased hostilities on these Forums, and numerous locked threads.

Places like the Matis arena...Great! No-one has any reason to go there, unless they wish to fight another player, therefore, should you not wish to kill another, you stay out, and are denied nothing, a free choice.

Those that argue that the resources available in PvP zones are available elsewhere, are simply wrong. A node a harvestor can not get too, a node swarming with creatures that agro, that kill in one shot (causing you to drop all dug mats), does not, in any real way, exist.

Now they plan to excerbate the situation.

Will new players arrive?

Likely, yes.

Will they be similar to the majority of players which make up our current, and much vaunted, community?

Not on your Nelly.

Therefore, arguments that our player-base is mature enough to behave themselves (with a few notable exceptions) is moot, as the introduction of wide-spread PvP (in the form of FvF, GvG, or whatever) will change the very nature of the community that argument depends on.

Will the introduction of wide-spread PvP cause players who chose, and stayed with, this game because of it's lack of PvP to leave?

Of course.

Will the leaving of older players, and their skills, resources, and outlook, combined with the influx of less mature players (whether chonologicaly or developementaly) cause many neutral players to leave?

Of course.

PvP introduction is a short-term financial gain, followed by death, due to starvation of players. For proof, view the current situation of other PvP-centric games, in cluding Shadowbane. "But our community is different." View above for refutation. It will not stay so.

thebax wrote: PvP introduction is a short-term financial gain, followed by death, due to starvation of players. For proof, view the current situation of other PvP-centric games, in cluding Shadowbane. "But our community is different." View above for refutation. It will not stay so.

I wanted to expand on that.

Ryzom has made itself into a nitch game for the people who want customization and have endured through the bad design choices Nevrax has made (i.e. Patch 1 survivors, because a lot of really interested players who loved Ryzom left then).

PvP is also however very much a Niche game. Only a subset of MMO gamers like PvP and PvPers often clash with non-PvPers and drive the other out.

So Ryzom would in effect make itself a "Sub-Niche" game, and not only that but try to enter the very competitive and well developed Niche of PvP. Does Nevrax really think they can steal enough true PvPers from DAOC, Shadowbane, etc to make up for what they lose?

All this in trade for an outpost idea that was truly revolutionary and drove a lot of players to try Ryzom when it launched. I hope Nevrax will reconsider very long, and very hard this idea.

grimjim wrote:In the words of the song...

"This what you want,
This is what you get."

tell me where i said i wanted or even condoned roots-like pvp, or, in all honesty, shut up.