Ryzom

Adra, Twanaar & Sherca have published a first draft regarding several major pvp-changes.

From Nevrax:

We are pleased to introduce the first draft resulting from the PvP Strike team design work. We’re putting this up before the bulk of code work begins, because we want you to think about it and comment on it. We want your input here. Also, please bear in mind these are high-level thoughts; we’re trying to make sure that we all agree on the basic game play before we go into more detail.

Link to the PvP strike team's letter: http://www.ryzom.com/?page=news&id=926

It is nice to have communication and letters from Nevrax, but some thoughts and questions:


1. In aspects like : "Neutral guilds wouldn't be able to have pro-Kami or pro-Karavan members, only neutral members or members from a race faction (Fyros, Matis, Zoraï or Tryker)." and similar. Are you aware of the implications that this kind of restrictions can have on existing guilds? can you elaborate a bit more on this?

2. Something that shocked me "On the long term (meaning: this won't happen soon!), we would like to add other types of PvP, such as Guild vs Guild wars. It would allow guilds to solve their disputes when negotiations and diplomacy fails. " I thought this was a major asset of outposts, who supposedly are 'around the corner' (although myself I am starting to waonder about a Christmas outpost release). Comments on this? how can be outposts to be released soon (tm) and Guild vs Guild pvP a long term thing?

3. Can we have some candy regarding something that is NOT in the early stages of planning? Everything is so "under consideration" that

lawrence wrote:Adra, Twanaar & Sherca have published a first draft regarding several major pvp-changes.

The draft makes it should like faction allegiance will be a selectable option and not based on the fame you develop based upon your actions. I definitely agree that a neutral option should be available and that the fame system needs to be revamped/balanced. You can easily damage your fame to the point its not repairable. Plus you can get negative fame easier than you can positive fame (I've been doing a lot of missions lately that detract from my Kami fame without any Karavan reward...) But I'm not sure if allegiance should be something thats just a flip of a switch. You should have to work to win favor, prove yourself loyal... An initiation rite even.

Maybe there should be a limit on being neutral as well. If you purposely act as an aggressor towards a faction and your fame reaches -100, you can't honestly call yourself neutral.

Just some ideas... I like the neutrality option and the "Don't shoot me!" flag. Just thinking that we should be judged by our actions and not by a trivial button selection.
-Raku

dc77066 wrote: But I'm not sure if allegiance should be something thats just a flip of a switch. You should have to work to win favor, prove yourself loyal... An initiation rite even.

While I agree that it wouldn't be right to have a "button" that allows you to choose an allegiance that isn't supported by your fame, I would hope that it will allow you some lee-weigh, and not automatically assign you to the faction you have high fame with... I have very high fame with the 4 races (*cough* cholorogoos *cough*) but would much rather stay as a "neutral" player for the purposes of PvP.

Like Anissa, I'm concerned that this is just more evidence that Outposts are quite a long ways away from being released. I'd sure like to get some feedback from the devs on how exactly these planned changes do tie into the release of Outposts.

What I'd really like to see more than these long term plans is some feedback on what Nevrax plans to do in the short term (1 to 2 months) to try and keep players around so there will be people to participate in the conflict.

I don't see outpost any time soon they aren't even release for ATS testing, I'm afraid its going to turn out like the encyclopedia release.

The good things:

I'm glad they are labeling neutral to be non aligned with Karavan or Kami but still be aligned to a specific race. It's incredibly hard to be completely neutral but the loyalty to your race would be just enough objectivity to make sense and still take part in some PvP or dramatic roleplay.

PvP flag is another good thing. Hate to bring up another game but SW:G handled PvP and faction combat pretty well. If you went overt(declaring your faction publicly) you were attackable until you turned it off, which took 2 additional hours. A similar time limit might be a good idea if you implement the switch. Also the switch shouldn't be a button on the UI in my opinion, but a person you have to talk to or something in-game.

The Bad:

Guild membership restrictions based on faction. If anything the player should be able to choose if he wishes to forfeit any faction points he's accumulated to be able to join the guild and not simply be barred from the option. I'm also in agreement with other posters that choosing a faction should be something you work towards and not just a button.

Clarification is definitely needed about GvG fighting being a long ways away. If someone told me that Outposts were coming out in December my subscription would be over tomorrow. Please give us some solid timelines.

systemv wrote:If someone told me that Outposts were coming out in December my subscription would be over tomorrow. Please give us some solid timelines.

This is likely why we don't get good timelines Myself, I'm one of the suckers that'll keep hanging on in the hopes that it'll eventually turn into what we hope it will be.

As for limiting guild membership based on faction, I would really dislike a system that completely banned you from joining certain guilds if you had certain faction numbers. If it comes to that, please give the ability that Dagger suggested to forfeit faction points when joining a guild. Not unlike someone changing faiths radically in RL.

PVP this! PVP that! BAH!!!! How about just fixing the darn raid engine so we can have some fun now...

Well at least i found something funnie in this.

"II] Guild Vs Guild

On the long term (meaning: this won't happen soon!)"

Mening, outpost..this won't happen soon..

Lol if i told one of our customers "well we have build the server and it fast and stable, but the software we kind of working abit on so could you pay for it and we will see then its doon" my boss would sertenly rearange my arms with my butt.