Ryzom

sehracii wrote: Jyudas, you seem to be arguing you would prefer smaller skill/tactic/level/equipment based battles. But the smaller you make the battle the less people that can participate, and therefore the less people that reap the rewards.

I disagree, smaller battles would happen more often & be less predictable, giving a chance to small groups would don't belong to a well established Alliance majority. It will also bring back fun & strategy to Ryzom PvP.

sehracii wrote: Perhaps you would enjoy more PvP oriented outposts, but I think the majority of us prefer the more social/teamwork/diplomacy based option we currently have.

The so-called current social/teamwork/diplomacy based option we currently have is so very basic & thick it's a bit of a joke imo:
We have an overpowered Alliance that control PvP in Atys (on every server) and well, thats it.. it's stagnant.
Nothing changes..The strong gets stronger. End of the story.

GvG, well implemented might well be an alternative.
With simple rules like:
- limiting to 1 OP / guild
- The longest a guild owns an op, the hardest it is to defend it
( Defense malus which increase with every week of ownership )

That would lead to more turnovers.
Every guild who gives it a bit of work/time would have a chance.
FvF would become Spire business.

Just my 2 daps

Smaller batttles actually favor defenders and stagnation.

If one side shows up with 100 people and the other side shows up with 100 people, if they play well there's a good chance they can wipe the defenders and the 20 guards and win a few rounds.

As opposed to 20 attackers show up and 20 defenders show up. Along with the 20 defenders there are 20 guards. Attackers are outnumbered 2:1 now. No chance, even with smart tactics, if the defenders fight with any sense at all.



Some people are suggesting a complete overhaul of outpost mechanics. I'm sure there may be some other methods that lead to a more dynamic situation, but its not going to happen. Nevrax isn't going to redesign what we already have. The best we can hope for are some tweaks and minor modifications, and that's really pushing it already.

argh..
been so many OP threads lately I cant remember if Im responding on the right one

I sortof agree with Grim , that the implications of Outposts in their current form probably werent fully realised before they were introduced.. but Im not expecting Nevrax to do anything substantial about it.

Why?

Because hopefully Nevrax have learnt something from the Ep2 exoduss and Patch 1 ( if anyone is left from that time ), and realise that taking stuff that players have, away from them, really offends people. If they want to decimate their playerbase yet again, they can remove OPs entirely, or deny players the ability to participate in what is for some, the only PvP they do.

Its very far from perfect, but its what we have and have to work with. We can hope for improvements, and suggest them as we think of them (DEFINITELY) but if the system/implementation/rules/whatever arent doing what we -as players- desire, then it is up to us to try and make it work.

I find the idea of a single alliance owning all the outposts offensive, and praise the restraint shown by the KA back in the days when they were looking at rolling over all Atys.

Not all of the OPs are operational ... perhaps they could open them up with alternate rules.

There have been some very good suggestions made that could revitalize PvP.

I would much rather see OPs with alternate rules then the spires.

sehracii wrote:Benefits of alliance based outposts:

Harvest/craft oriented guilds can obtain one.
New players can get involved
New guilds can get involved

Outposts become a SOCIAL (not antisocial) affair. You have to make friends, make allies, work as a team with many more people then you would if it were a guild affair.

Promotes trade.
Makes it more likely to field a force for battles at odd hours (A GvG of a US West coast guild vs Euro guild would jsut attack when no one from the other side could be online)

Basically, makes it more likely the 28 most influential guilds have outposts as opposed the 28 best PvPing guilds.

IF Nevrax were to introduce non-PvP outposts then I would take another look at shifting the PvP ones to GvG.

I think introducing new methods to obtain and reasons to gain (guild based) would be a good start. GvG doesn't have to mean an end to alliances etc but it could shift them to a bit smaller of a scale and allow a bit more mixing. At the moment every one is just a grand slam and thats rather dull.

Trade etc would be unaffected.

Harvester guilds could still take them with smaller alliances.

sprite wrote:Question. How is that any better or worse than a dominating alliance being only one faction or even only "part" of one faction?

Because potentially it is far more dynamic, alliances like that are not based on 'faith', there can be fallings out, its not related to the overall faction scheme and with new guilds coming on and offline there's more potential for a shift in power. The positive feedback loop still has its grip but there are less forces feeding into it making a reversal a touch more likely. It also means power isn't concentrated in one faction for any future factional events.

Here's a quick fix that's been mentioned before, I forget by who...

When an outpost is taken you get a threshold level.
Everything else staying equal, let the Threshold level slowly drop...

20, 19, 18, 17...5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0...

All the way to zero and when it reaches zero it goes back into the hands of the marauders.

This does a few things...

1. It makes taking over outposts a less permanent thing - even with fake attacks, unless people swap OPs back and forth, its going to drop to zero. This means Outposts become more constant, and PvE inclusive, content rather than stagnant pure PvP content.
2. It makes snatching outposts at very low levels a more possible prospect.

That's a very, very simple thing that could improve them IMO.

grimjim wrote:Here's a quick fix that's been mentioned before, I forget by who...

When an outpost is taken you get a threshold level.
Everything else staying equal, let the Threshold level slowly drop...

20, 19, 18, 17...5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0...
...

But the outcome is pretty predictable.
Guilds holding outpost would still feel entitled to them. Alliances would still form to take and hold them. At the end of the countdown, the holding guild would attack again, and probably win (as they would have the support of thier allied guilds). Then there are the opportunities for exploits that we haven't begun to think about (like creating a temp guild that takes the OP from the real guild before the countdown expires and without letting any other guild know)

It doesn't change the paradime at all, it just increases the frequency of attacks (And that is really the last thing I want. I don't like OP battles as they are. More would be even worse).

mrshad wrote:But the outcome is pretty predictable.
Guilds holding outpost would still feel entitled to them. Alliances would still form to take and hold them. At the end of the countdown, the holding guild would attack again, and probably win (as they would have the support of thier allied guilds). Then there are the opportunities for exploits that we haven't begun to think about (like creating a temp guild that takes the OP from the real guild before the countdown expires and without letting any other guild know)

It doesn't change the paradime at all, it just increases the frequency of attacks (And that is really the last thing I want. I don't like OP battles as they are. More would be even worse).

A lot of those exploits still/already exist.
Remember the fuss over the interlocking declarations? (This from many of the same people who still argue that anything allowed by the mechanics is fair game?).

Its not perfect, but its a quick thing that could be slung in there and would increase dynamism a bit and allow OPs to have a bit of a PvE flavour to them again. You could even make marauder guards drop a few crystals to be looted from them.

sehracii wrote:Smaller batttles actually favor defenders and stagnation.
If one side shows up with 100 people and the other side shows up with 100 people, if they play well there's a good chance they can wipe the defenders and the 20 guards and win a few rounds.

As opposed to 20 attackers show up and 20 defenders show up. Along with the 20 defenders there are 20 guards. Attackers are outnumbered 2:1 now. No chance, even with smart tactics, if the defenders fight with any sense at all.

Read my post again :

- The longest a guild owns an op, the hardest it is to defend it
( Defense malus which increase with every week of ownership )

The 20 guards are a detail, Nevrax just has to unspawn them.

I agree though that would need a small but simple implementation on Nevrax side.