Ryzom

marct wrote:The problem I see here is that the majority(BTW, that does not say ALL) of the people that are screaming are not providing any suggestions of what could be done differently to achieve similar situation without forcing the PvP or FvF.

All they do is SCREAM I don't want this, nobody wants this, etc.

I don't think that is true in the slightest, especially not of the people critical of PvP. There are tons of long threads in the feedback section of the forums filled with constructive feedback and suggestions. There are also a large number of suggestions and questions in these general forums.

Problem is Nevrax rarely responds to them, except to promote their PvP some more.

What I personally would like to see is more suggestions from the Mandatory-PvP (those who think everyone should be subjected to it) and Obligatory-PvP (those who think it is okay if PvErs are obligated to take part in PvP to have a part in the story or new content) how Nevrax should keep the PvErs who are leaving. Nevrax has created a problem catering to this group, what is their solution for keeping all other playstyles in the game while Nevrax listens to and caters only for them?

Another "mee-tooen" post.

Voting with your wallet is the most powerful method of getting a company's attention. After all, no money=no company. They can ignore posts, they can't ignore their finances.

Additionally, there's a lot of us wondering where all the promised features and plot went. Suggestions? Among others, bringing back the ideas we were originally sold on has been mentioned several times. After all, that's what got at least some of us on here. What happened to the Kitin threat? What happened to rebuilding civilisation, as opposed to tearing it down in a religious war? (Incidentally, if I want a religious war, I'll watch the news. But that's another rant.) How about figuring out what the deal with the goo is, and maybe stopping it? (Remember when the goo moved?) One wonders where we'd be if the devs had put the effort they've put into PvP/FvF into the things we were originally promised.

Plus, of course, a true "leave me out of it" option. I seem to recall more than one implementation suggested. At present, zero faction means BOTH sides view you as hostile. Does this mean folk with 0 will be totally unable to travel except for capitols? Seems likely, based on the present system.

And while we're at it, something more than "we hear you talking" would help. Maybe and could are not promising words.

We've done our part, it's time for Nevrax to do theirs. Yes, this is a great community. It isn't the players threatening to kill it, it's the developers and publisher. I'd love to stick around, but when you get down to it, I don't pay for services I no longer want. If I wanted PvP, I'd be in WoW. The clan I'm in has an active component there, and from what I've heard their implementation of PvP is far better than Ryzom's.

When Nevrax demonstrates through action that they are actually prepared to listen to their customer base _and act appropriately_, then I'll believe in the light at the end of the tunnel. Otherwise, I'm voting with my wallet.

grendel1 wrote:Another "mee-tooen" post.

When Nevrax demonstrates through action that they are actually prepared to listen to their customer base _and act appropriately_, then I'll believe in the light at the end of the tunnel. Otherwise, I'm voting with my wallet.

Me too.

On a side note, people keep mentioning WoW so I'll mention one thing that sets that game apart is there are non-pvp options. Entire servers dedicated to that choice. You know up-front what you're getting.

carrie wrote:Me too.

On a side note, people keep mentioning WoW so I'll mention one thing that sets that game apart is there are non-pvp options. Entire servers dedicated to that choice. You know up-front what you're getting.

When I first looked at playing MMORPGs (only last year) I thought long and hard about whether I liked PvP, the few online games I had played in had put me off the idea. At the time I thought great put PvPers on their own server. Then I thought some more about it. Firstly that increases the running costs of the service so you have to be sure that you will get a comensurate increase in the number of players. Second there are those that only want to try PvP when they are in the mood or if it fits some RP activity. Thirdly the biggest problem about PvP is really about anti social behaviour and quiet honestly you can get that even in nonPvP worlds.

I still dont really like PvP and I am not over the moon about the faction war but at least in SoR I dont lose xp, dappers or equipment as could have been the case.

marct wrote:The problem I see here is that the majority(BTW, that does not say ALL) of the people that are screaming are not providing any suggestions of what could be done differently to achieve similar situation without forcing the PvP or FvF.

All they do is SCREAM I don't want this, nobody wants this, etc. And that get you no where but red faced and more aggravated. Be constructive and you may be able to influence. I am not saying you make the game, but you can influence it.

There is clearly some lore/story related reasons for a conflict here, it is just the incarnation of that conflict which is disputed.

Noin. (still wishing for people to add constructive feedback)

P.S. "We all hate PvP" is not constructive feedback.

Actually I think you'll find that the majority of less constructive attitudes and posts have been from the pro-PvP lobby.

"It's here - get over it" isn't constructive either. It is a very PvP attitude though.

Svayvti is right about there being a lot of constructive feedback from the anti-PvP players. I agree with Svayvti, show me something constructive from the pro-PvP people.

something constructive from the pro-PvP people

You have constructive feedback on both sides, Noin himself has been writing up a couple of very interesting posts that could involve both pro-PvP and non-PvP camps in a competitive way without the emphasis put on 'black and white' non-choices. There' s a couple of other suggestion that linger in the back of my head but where I can' t quite pinpoint the author, but it is really incorrect to say that only the majority of non-PvP crowd has been giving opinions or thoughts on alternative ways to implement things.
But it is true that those who yell loudest will be noticed more, which doesn' t necessarily mean they make sense or get listened to.

GM told me online numbers are at a high since E2. Go on strike, dont log on for couple days. They actually think we like this stuff cause more people are logging on.

lorzazel wrote:GM told me online numbers are at a high since E2. Go on strike, dont log on for couple days. They actually think we like this stuff cause more people are logging on.

LoL... told you guys. If you take part in AD, even grudgingly and loathing every minute of it, they consider it a success since you DID take part in it.

Kinda hard for them to go "wow, people really don't like this event" when more people are taking part in it than were even playing before it started.

totnkopf wrote:LoL... told you guys. If you take part in AD, even grudgingly and loathing every minute of it, they consider it a success since you DID take part in it.

Kinda hard for them to go "wow, people really don't like this event" when more people are taking part in it than were even playing before it started.

Hopefully they're intelligent and perceptive enough to realise that participation (for rewards and not to be left out/behind) != enjoyment.