Ryzom

oauitam wrote: There should be no tangible game benefit to characters from owning an outpost.

I disagree with this. I think Ryzom in general is severely lacking purpose. I don't want to see yet more game mechanics added with no real purpose. If there's no benefit to taking an outpost, people will quickly become bored of them and we'll be back to screaming for 'content'.

That being said, I don't like the idea of outposts being centered strictly around combat. I've said it many times before but "PvP" does not stand for "Player vs. Player combat". There's many forms of direct competition that can occur between players that does not involve combat. I'd like to see outposts that can only be taken by out-harvesting or out-crafting another group.

See post #2 in this thread for more detail on some ideas for different outpost types.

ajsuk wrote:Why would you fight for one if it doesn't do jack for you?

Fun!

The potential for problems only arises if there are other reasons.
(If you re-read the above post you'll see some answers to your question.)

I did read it.. but.. you can fight guild v guild now without outposts.. it'll just be a useless thing to own and pay money for.. big whoop lol.

I suppose to that if you own one, and defend it successfully against an attack, more people will challenge you, because they know you just spent a pile of cash defending it

Mechanics with Purpose

Additional discussions should pursue the purpose of outpost ownership, besides the obvious - that is, "guild interested in PvP therefore here we are at the outpost."

If you pay for something, you are expecting a return on your investment of some sort. Clearly define what that return is, and allow ownership to have an over-all effect on Atys.

Tactical Thinking

One of the things that I used to really enjoy about Everquest, my first MMO, was the wide-open combat system. There were so MANY things you could do with that combat system that dueling in the game became one of my past-times. However, I would NOT duel in an Arena, or area set aside for that purpose. Why?

Because it was boring. It was the same old Arena, and by its design, it allowed certain classes advantages over certain others.

To clarify, I would never fight anybody unless they were 6 levels above me. And I never lost - as long as I had the entire zone to work with. I was able to apply tactical thinking and out-whit my opponents in every case, and this is where the FUN game play was found! In an arena, there were no tactics. Just buttons in the right sequence, and this was boring as well as unbalancing.

Since those times, each new MMO that has arrived on the scenes has removed more and more of those tactical possibilities in an attempt to put a box around what a character can do, and therefore remove any potential exploits a player could have at his or her disposal.

I have always felt that this is an error in judgment. Exploiting technically does not exist, if you simply call it tactics and apply that type of thinking to the design.

Specifically, one previous poster said that "you should not allow mobs to be pulled to the fort." I disagree. In fact, there should be any number of possibilities in the area that get players (especially leader-types) THINKING of what they could exploit toward the end-result of achieving a victory. Make these random, or make them plentiful. Design of surrounding terrain as well as the fort itself should be aligned toward that type of thinking. Perhaps the guild can even develop the surrounding terrain towards that purpose in any number of ways, to give them a defensive advantage.

Force-multipliers - is what this is all about, and is what tactical thinking is by its nature. A player/leader or guild should have available to them any number of different methods of increasing their effective force POWER by utilizing exploits of the surrounding area. THIS is what tactics is all about, expanding your thinking to achieve a victory against not-necessarily-good odds.

I would suggest a concentration on this, in other words, not only allow exploitation of the surrounding area so a force can multiply their power, but figure out methods of implementing even MORE than what may have been overlooked.

This way, players with the right button presses won't always win the engagements by default.

Effect of Outpost Placement

...or, Strategies.

Aside from tactics, which is the exploitation of anything available to a force to magnify its effective power, there are also the strategic considerations to be taken into account.

Long story shorter, specific locations for outposts should include anything from easily defended zones, to very dangerous ones, with moderate in between. Each increase in difficulty of maintaining that outpost would also warrant a greater return on the investment, and also a greater effect on the world of Atys.

This highly simplifies the strategic concept, but also adds SOMETHING in the form of a strategy to be considered by the leaders of a guild.

Conclusion: I have often argued that exploitation in an MMO does not exist, but is simply the players seeking a vast improvement of their content through tactical thinking. Options = fun, and by allowing freedom to find and use methods, terrain and objects to improve your chances of survivability in an engagement, you are applying tactical thinking to the situation, and should be regarded as a good leader for soing so, not a cheater that should be banned from game play.

Even so, without a PURPOSE the entire concept falls apart. If nothing else, this needs to be addressed.

wepps wrote:Since those times, each new MMO that has arrived on the scenes has removed more and more of those tactical possibilities in an attempt to put a box around what a character can do, and therefore remove any potential exploits a player could have at his or her disposal.

Balance does tend to turn character concepts into a grey and uninspiring mush.

The best 'balance' I find in TTRPG mechanics is to make different builds and styles of character be able to be strong _in_their_own_may_.

In Ryzom terms, and simplistically by way of example.

Mage > Fighter so long as they stay at range.
Fighter > Mage if they get in close.

There's a difference between tactics and exploits.

Exploits are what we in the TTRPG world would call 'metagaming', or playing the system rather than the role, using knowledge and choices that your character doesn't have or know in order to be more effective.

This is a bad thing (TM) and another argument against PvP.

I was thinking about those squads/teams that will be fighting along/for the attacking/defending guilds. I think we saw the standard squads already in action in the Cutthroat event.

Some benifits that I think would be nice:

Ability to buy a TP to ones guild's outpost. Restricted to guild members or allied guild members too.

Ability to respawn at outpost.

Guilds can hire permanent outpost guards that protect only the people who belong to the owning guild (or allied guild members too). That way guild members (allies) can hunt or forage around the outpost and run to guards if they get into trouble.

Outposts have trainers, merchants and mission givers. A stable?

In general, it would be nice if an outpost was a place that guild members would want to hang-out at, for whatever reasons.

Monco
Member of Eleytheria

andy707 wrote: Monco
Member of Eleytheria

Good ideas there

The conflict area is unlimited, the two guilds are in PvP mode everywhere during both attack and defence periods.

So if I understant this correctly.

If I don't wanna be part of this outpost wars, but don't wanna quit my guild because it. I can just stay my own appartment during both attack and defence periods?