Ryzom

thebax wrote:I know this was not directed at me, but it bares clarification that this is not an accurate supposition. I was a soldier in real life, I served to the best of my ability, and with distinction. That experience is probably one of the main causes of my pacifist stance.

Same here. I fought in Golf, in Somalia and Cecenia.
I have "elite sniper" awards. Those were not won at some contest, but in war.
I'm retired now, I work for a newspaper, and I extend my sick of killing other people even in games. This probably applies at all retired soldiers... who had their part of action.
Yes, I am a pacifist now, a tree-hugger if you want, but of course, if someone or something threatens me or my family I won't stop til is cold.

I know this have nothing to do with the thread or other sensitive subject, I just wanted to clarify my position.

I love good PvP, but the level differences, the need to change gear to harvest well, and some of the mechanics all make it unfair and uninteresting here. It's not near as fun as the better text mode MUDs I've played that were designed for it. Group PvP can be fun, but not near as much one on one, which happens.

The workable solution to killing low levels on both PvP MUDs I played was a level limit. On one, it was anyone within 7 levels of you ... on the other, 5. Both out of 50 max levels.

I'd be biased towards it, cause I know it worked back then and everyone was comfortable with it ... I'm not sure whether I think it'd be good or bad for Ryzom. It's all I'd consider personally though.

aelvana wrote: The workable solution to killing low levels on both PvP MUDs I played was a level limit. On one, it was anyone within 7 levels of you ... on the other, 5. Both out of 50 max levels.

Someone mentioned this a while ago. One of the problems I see in a classless Ryzom is that it is hard to tell a player level unless he acts in someway, then taking into account the max level used. Still it doesn't solve the issue with a master axeman hitting you with a spear and similar scenarios

see... it's PvP in IRL too: PvP!

uhuhu wrote:see... it's PvP in IRL too: PvP!

Mmmm... Yes very clear PvP picture that one! A nice bunch of Ryzom fans sitting on a stone wall.
But maybe I just fail to see what you mean in this one...

iphdrunk wrote:Someone mentioned this a while ago. One of the problems I see in a classless Ryzom is that it is hard to tell a player level unless he acts in someway, then taking into account the max level used. Still it doesn't solve the issue with a master axeman hitting you with a spear and similar scenarios

Level limit based on max combat level, so any melee or magic skill. Even in the earlier example a lv250 axeman using a spear at lv150 still has a massive advantage over a player where lv150 is their highest level. Doesn’t matter if they are using the skill at the time or not. I’d really like to see combat level indicators on players like we have in mobs, only visible in PvP zones and if player is PvP flagged. Not sure what the variance between levels should be though.. 25 maybe Should the lower level player be able to initiate combat with someone much above their level? Would allow for a team of david’s to have a crack at a goliath once in a while =)

sx4rlet wrote:Mmmm... Yes very clear PvP picture that one! A nice bunch of Ryzom fans sitting on a stone wall.
But maybe I just fail to see what you mean in this one...

You can't see Audrey, just off screen, charging the homins on the wall with a giant foam hammer with the full intent of knocking them back over the wall onto their heads.

Bad show really, given that they were all busy foraging for lunch.

Having read the numerous threads on the subject I just don't understand the objection to "consensual only PvP". The only objection is that seems to have any logical basis is that consensual PvP'ers are likely to be a) higher level and b) prepared for the action and, as a result, present an actual risk to the attacker. What kick a player gets out of hitting a harvester bent over his pick from behind is bhind me. If it is challenge you want, then try and stalk a similarly skilled player primed and ready for battle.

When two people are so inclined to beat the hell out of one another, it's called boxing. When one person beats on another without their consent , it's called mugging.

The simple solution is a series of checkboxes for each player:

I accept particpation in FvF ___ Yes ___ No
I accept particpation in GvG ___ Yes ___ No
I accept open PvP against indviduals on my Opponents List ___ Yes ___ No

The opponents could be just like the friends and ignore lists. See a player, add a name....he / she does the same, you can blast each other to your hearts content any time without having to offer a duel.

Your first selction would be immediate and then if you wanted to change your psoition it would take an Atys year to take effect so as to negate any sesonal selctions for mats gathering purposes.

The "you entered a PvP area so I am justified in killing you" argument is weak at best. For it to hold any water, the following would have to be true:

1. It offers nothing new or different with regard to visual or playing experiences than another area of the world of Atys. Provide nexus 1 and Nexus 2 with one being PvP and one not, then you have a valid argument.

2. The chance and risk of obtaining unique, especially desirable items must be the same in both regions....exactly the same, not almost the same.

Area PvP could be retained with some sort of time limitation. Battelfields or areas of hostility could change as they do IRL thereby allowing those who won't enter an area of PvP activity a chance to explore them. Town criers could announce that faction wars or other types of hostilities have broken out and these would be periodicaly spammed to sysinfo box, or peeps could check with a npc for the "world news".

Upon entering one of these zones, the tp attendant could advise that "hostilities are expected when the truce expires today at 15h" or "a cease fire has been announced which will start at 12h today". Again to make this functional, the same opportunities for harvesters must exist during non PvP times as PvP times. This is advanatges to both sides of the argument as :

1) PvP'ers will have new straegies to develop as terrain, obstacles and mobs change.

2) Non PvP'ers will get to enjoy areas of Atys otherwise locked off to them.

NO SIDE CAN AFFORD TO WIN THIS ARGUMENT ! The english server is not financially viable long term as it stands now. There are simply not enough players. If either argument wins, the other loses and many on both sides have clearly stated they will NOT play this game if they can't play the game they want to play. If the server loses population, the likelihood is that the game will cease to be hosted. BOTH SIDES LOSE !!!!

thbax said:
>>
PvP statement: "Some areas are PvP. Period. If you enter them, you have consented to PvP."
PvE statment: "Because of the strength of the mobs, a cost/benefit analysis of the PvE areas which offer nearly the same materials/content of the PvP zones, makes them non-desirable. I do not consider that I have any choice in the matter, comparing the amount of reward available in those areas to what may be gained by harvesting/hunting in any other land or the PvP areas."
<<

That one has *no choice* but to go to a pvp area because the cost/benefit ratio is better there, makes no sense. Is there some irresistable force that makes one go to the pvp area? If someone goes to a pvp area to get a better cost/benifit dispite risk of being PK'd, haven't they made a choice? The issue here would seem to be something else beside "lack of choice."

I think the issue is really one of fairness. A pvp adverse person should not have to go to a pvp area to get the same cost/benifit as a pvp lover. If so, then balancing the cost/benifits of pvp vs. non-pvp areas would seem to be the answer.

An objection might be that the better cost/benifit is added to pvp areas to motivate people to engage in pvp? I think that such a perk is not necessary, that for pvp lovers, the thrill of pvp is enough of a motivation, all else being equal.

Monco
Proud member of Eleytheria

First I agree most what You sayed jared96. Consentual PvP is only way to have PvP in dual content game. Mostly because it cause a lot less problems in general player base. Open PvP fits very good for games what are design for PvP from starts and when players join to games they know from starts that this is open PvP game.

jared96 wrote: NO SIDE CAN AFFORD TO WIN THIS ARGUMENT ! The english server is not financially viable long term as it stands now. There are simply not enough players. If either argument wins, the other loses and many on both sides have clearly stated they will NOT play this game if they can't play the game they want to play. If the server loses population, the likelihood is that the game will cease to be hosted. BOTH SIDES LOSE !!!!

I agree that what You say, but I also think that if Nevrax continue the direction how they have done stuff so far, does cause players in general to leave. So it's lose and lose situation in both ways. Of cause there is always ways try to get minimal lost.

Example, comming balance fix will cause many to leave. It's PvP change, but also affecting PvE players. It may even be good for both, but people will get angry about it anyway. People don't like changes. Also comming outpost will get many people disappointed, because it's not really what they did expect or wanted. Again we loose many players. Also because NevRax does so slowly new "content" many people will leave because they just get bored while waiting. Again we lose players.

Basicly I say, it does not even matter what Nevrax do, they will lose players anyway. Only way to please player base is create "content" what playes wanna and fast. But that's not allways good for long term player base growth.

People would leave game even when someting isn't even wrong. It's natural cause of peoples behavior, get bored someday and stop playing. People will accuse usually other players and what nevrax did do, when they friends leaves the game. Players who get angry also accuse everyone else but them self. Problem isn't usually in the game or it's players, but people them self.

So only hope is that the new "content" will bring more NEW players to this game. Old players may come back, but if they did leave in first place, they don't create solid players base.

So the real question is what does this game actually need to get new players.