Ryzom

grimjim wrote:More entities certainly. Hopefully unlike outposts we'll actually get the expanded capabilities with reasonable rapidity.

My bet is on "Yes, the will release the content rapidly".

R2 is going to be used by the dev's for new content, and is one of the attractions for new players. They practically have no choice but to finish it as quickly as quality will allow.

At least that is my take on things.

---

As for the politics of faction, I find it interesting to see where people stand on various issues in the NOW, not 6 - 12 months ago. As a neutral player leading a currently neutral Guild, it helps to determine our path by discovering the paths and intentions (and honor) of the existing power structures for both sides.

We are definitely leaning to one side... but it's too early to discuss which one. By all means... continue discussing.

rothimar wrote: R2 is going to be used by the dev's for new content, and is one of the attractions for new players.

I've been hearing this argument for a while and, while it has some truth in it, I think it needs to be "taken with a grain of salt". For the sake of simplicity, assume the ring is a game feature, composed of two subsystems: the "core" subsystem, managing the live scenarios, interpreting the scripts, interacting with mainshards, spawning instances and entities, managing the acts, allowing players to take control of entities/NPCs, player access control mechanisms, etc. and then , the "editor" subsystem, which is basically a GUI based, integrated 3D editor, but a "subsytem" that is a "black box" that outputs a scenario filke in whatever "scenario description language" that has been chosen to be later "interpreted/loaded/run" by the core subsystem, with a easy interface but which, in general, tends to slow the user down once mastered.

Although players, and even CSRs can make use of it -- limited to thier scope -- I would tend to not expect developers, who master the inner details of the ring, to be using the "editor" as end users, it could be like writing a document by dragging the letters from a toolbar. Yet again I may be wrong.

I don't mean that ring development has nothing to do with and does not streamline content additions, specially the "core" subsystem, but to some extent and productivity-wise, in-house (thus maybe less adapted for public mass-adoption) can be far, far more efficient, not policed and without limitations.

In other words, should the devs be the only ones to create scenarios, the editor could be easy a bottleneck. But that's also what I think is the main selling point of the ring: opening an intuitive interface for third party content creators, not inhouse.

iphdrunk wrote:In other words, should the devs be the only ones to create scenarios, the editor could be easy a bottleneck. But that's also what I think is the main selling point of the ring: opening an intuitive interface for third party content creators, not inhouse.

I believe I read in one of the announcements about the ring, or some "official response" type post on the forums that R2 will be used in-house for rapid development of content. I am sure the version they would use, would be far more complex and dynamic than what we... as end users... would get.

But, I could be remembering things differently. It was a ways back when I read what it was, and I am wishing I could remember where I read it.

rothimar wrote:I believe I read in one of the announcements about the ring, or some "official response" type post on the forums that R2 will be used in-house for rapid development of content. I am sure the version they would use, would be far more complex and dynamic than what we... as end users... would get.

That's in part my point. Are there several versions of the "ring editor", not the "core"? Other than having to publically justify and hype the ring features, which is good (and that includes the "eat-yer-own-food" cases) I am not stating that the ring is useless for devs to add content (it's a bit subtler, but as usual I may have expressed badly): I still think that for someone who knows the inner workings and whose work needs not to be policed, could e.g. a text-based-offline equivalent or other less-ready-for-mass-use be faster?

Put it in other words, would the editor as is now make sense or justified if they had no intention to open it to players? Maybe the way content was added to the game needed to be rewritten from scratch, but would it need the editor as is? I'm not giving an answer myself, the fact that the editor is "as is" now it also allows external "contractors" to "do the job", which we could name in anycase "devs".

All in all, this (somehow pointless) comment is that justifying ring development as a means to allow developers to streamline and produce content is a bit arguable. Jsutifying ring development as a means to allow players to contribute makes more sense, and it has the sideeffect that it can be used by devs, should they want /consider to.

grimjim wrote: * The Karavan ethics/style appeal more to PvP oriented players and more competition/PvP oriented players.
* Karavan ethics/rp appeal more to the more competition/PvP oriented US playstyle. (Contributing to the timezone problem).

This is so terrifically untrue..yet you keep spewing it, time and time again.

The Kamist have always been the agressive ones. The idea of killing people in defense of your world view (in this case, the so called "protection of Atys") is quite clearly a Kami one.

The very basis of the entire Kami ethic is to kill people that break your arbitrary rules.

This, of course, has drawn the more beligerant and aggressive PVP players to the Kami faction like flies to a dung heap. In nearly every case, the anti-social actors have come from or joined with the Kami faction.

As for the Timezone issue...was the "we are outnumbered 5 to 1" lie finally rebuked to the point that no one could credibly use it anymore? The attackers set the time they want, the defenders get the same privilage. I don't see how that makes the conflict unfair.

because he says so, silly.

Now lets never forget it must always be true, because of that.

mrshad wrote:This is so terrifically untrue..yet you keep spewing it, time and time again.

The Kamist have always been the agressive ones.
....

Now here we have a real argument.

I say: Karavans are of course blue because ... kamists have always been the yellow ones.

Sorry didn't want to touch this thread anymore but it's way too funny.

mrshad wrote:This is so terrifically untrue..yet you keep spewing it, time and time again.

Not at all. It's very true and born out by... well, spend five minutes in game.

mrshad wrote:The Kamist have always been the agressive ones. The idea of killing people in defense of your world view (in this case, the so called "protection of Atys") is quite clearly a Kami one.

It's freedom from and freedom to.
Kami offer freedom from, Karavan offer freedom to.
Kami require the sacrifice of some personal freedoms in order to secure the safety and freedom of all.
Karavan advocate personal freedom without so much personal responsibility.
The religions are more akin to ideologies, socialism/capitalism, mutualism/individualism, ecology/industry.
And that's where the cultural bias comes into play.

mrshad wrote:The very basis of the entire Kami ethic is to kill people that break your arbitrary rules.

Which are supposed to be defensive actions to protect the planet and on a world where death means very little isn't that much of a problem.

mrshad wrote:This, of course, has drawn the more beligerant and aggressive PVP players to the Kami faction like flies to a dung heap. In nearly every case, the anti-social actors have come from or joined with the Kami faction.

Now THAT is absolute toss. There has been the odd problem child on the Kami side, I've seen them and reported their abuse a couple of times but they are outweighed by the smack talkers, gloaters, aggro draggers and other problem children on the Karavan side. It may be a simple factor of size but its my feeling from observations since Ep2 that it is down to the draw of the lore of the particular factions. The Karavan are definately set up to be the 'villains' and the contributes to the a**hat draw.

mrshad wrote:As for the Timezone issue...was the "we are outnumbered 5 to 1" lie finally rebuked to the point that no one could credibly use it anymore? The attackers set the time they want, the defenders get the same privilage. I don't see how that makes the conflict unfair.

Because in a Kami friendly timezone IF they pull in absolutely everything they can just about match the Karavan, just. Outside their timezone, they can't, at all. This has been consitently the case since Ep2 but then the sides were fairly even with dominance swinging back and forth with time. Now it only swings from dominance to parity.

ajsuk wrote:because he says so, silly.

Now lets never forget it must always be true, because of that.

You really must show me how to do that ostrich impression.

mrshad wrote:This, of course, has drawn the more beligerant and aggressive PVP players to the Kami faction like flies to a dung heap. In nearly every case, the anti-social actors have come from or joined with the Kami faction..

what utter balls...............I'm sorry but this tops your usual drivel by a mile

mrshad wrote:As for the Timezone issue...was the "we are outnumbered 5 to 1" lie finally rebuked to the point that no one could credibly use it anymore? The attackers set the time they want, the defenders get the same privilage. I don't see how that makes the conflict unfair.

we are no longer outnumbered 5to1 because a few of us worked hard to convince the others that outpost battles were worth attending and that the previous smack talk and griefing actions from the karavan side that put so many of them off could be ignored. A few of us worked hard to show them outpost battles could be fun.

you dont see how the timezone issue makes a conflict unfair because it works to your advantage.

on the whole I am mildy happier with how the community handles outposts as a whole and there has been next to no bad incidents in the last 3-4 battles.