Q&A Round IX - Answers published

[lawrence]

Nevrax has just published a new set of answers on the official website. I'm sure there's one or two useful and interesting bits of info in there for everyone.

Link: http://www.ryzom.com/?page=news&id=793

Feel free to discuss!

[alexrowe]

Still no news on Outpost when they going to add them on ATS: does any one know when they are going to actually add them?

[vinnyq]

partially dodge?

[sehracii]

partially dodge?

I wondered about that too. But I guess that's what it's called when a hit does partial damage? (separate from armor reduction, of course)

[mmatto]

Hehe, I want partial opening after partial dodge credit

I see that answers have pretty much improved from early rounds. Answer is not limited to what is obvious, but go into explaining some details.

[pr0ger]

There are advantages with both: guild alliances are simpler and gives more power to the guild leaders, while individual alliances give more freedom to each player, is more challenging for guild leaders (they have to make sure their troops follow them) and allows treason.

What do you think? If you were us, which would you implement first? Or would you try it a third way?

Maybe we need something like ... a "guild commandment type" feature set by a guild leader. Let's use examples.
Imagine there is 2 kind of guild management :
- Military (or authoritarian... alike)
- Associative (or democratic... alike)

Military will lock all the member to follow the leadership orders (forced guild alliance side in GvG)
Could prolly gives some bonus stats when teaming with guild only, some special guild mission, advanced guild fight skills, warlord npc defender...

Associative let members pretty free to choose side and alliances (free member alliance side in GvG)
Could gives some bonus however about economy : craft'n'dig skills, better margin when sold through cities npc, special shops for outpost...

big trouble is that it reduces guild freedom / leader freedom and fame issues, and too much guild commandment type will burden the gameplay.


To answer you, the freedom path, "flexibility" require the "individual alliance" feature.

I do believe GvG at outposts could happens like that : when "war" is openly set, any people in less than 80 meter from outpost border will have a messagebox poping asking their side (allied,foes,neutral, highlight on button which player's guild is sided).
To avoid abuse, "side set effectiveness" will be 20 mins, and it cannot be changed during the next 24 hours for this area (or war's end).
It allows commoner / guildless to join any GvG event... and the lovely betrayer and spies

[bobturke]

# For 2 players, each of them receive 100/(0.9*2) = 55 HP
# For 4 players, each of them receive 100/(0.8*4) = 31 HP
# For 8 players, each of them receive 100/(0.6*8) = 20 HP

I think part of the problem with this (besides being pretty useless) is that people assumed that it would do 100*0.9 = 90 HP. With the number effected only restricted by the bomb level you used. So instead of:

2 players X 100/(0.9*2) = 110 HP total
4 players X 100/(0.8*4) = 124 HP total
8 players X 100/(0.6*8) = 160 HP total

You would have:

2 players X 100*0.9 = 180 HP total
4 players X 100*0.8 = 320 HP total
8 players X 100*0.6 = 480 HP total

Which moves it more in line with the huge Sap cost of putting bomb into your spell.

Was the previously announced expansion (new race, new skills,...) just replaced with Ryzom Ring, or is R2 something new and separate? [Submitted by oneof1]

Unless I'm missing something, we haven't said this expansion would introduce a new race or new skills.

I believe this person was refering to the previously mentioned 6 monthly updates which were suggested to include new races/new lands etc.

[asaseth]

if the current bomb set up is to be kept, then at least reduce the cost of the brick. At a cost of 50, it is doubling the cost for any spell that I use it on, and as mentioned befor, causes HP and Sap to bleed away, as if I had slit my wrists AND my throat.