General - Ryzom Community Forum Sun, 05 Jul 2020 08:01:52 +0000 ryApp::FeedBuilder 15 General - Ryzom Community Forum <![CDATA[Ryzom Forge Public Meetings agendas & reports]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2020 19:36:27 +0000 General Ryzom Forge meeting report – June 22th, 2020

1 - DeepL

Tamarea (RT) – 20:12 UTC
This is the last time we have to translate on this channel!
Indeed, I am pleased to announce that before the end of the week, DeepL will automatically translate the Ryzom Forge channel, but also the regions (including Silan) and the Universe!
The translation of the universe and RF channels will also work between the game and
The original version will be viewable:
• from the IG, a flag will indicate the original language and the untranslated sentence at the cursor's passage;
• on RC, there will be one channel per language, and you will join by default the one of your client's language. Of course you can open the other language channels if you wish; the message in the original language will be displayed via a link.
The next step will be to translate the faction/nation channels.
Then we plan to translate the league channels.

Q: What about guild channels? Some guilds host members of many mother tongues, so I think that would be useful for those who don't understand Spanish for example; or for those who speak spanish only (not everyboby is good at languages) but would want to join a guild among the biggests (which are not only english-speaking ones).
We're going to go in gradually to see if everything is going well. Then we'll see if we add other channels as needed. But you raised a good point : I'll get the request back to Devs.

Q: What about the private security issue of sending our datas to DeepL? Do you have any contract with them?
Yes, we have a contract with DeepL, which scrupulously adheres to the GPRD. Moreover, we only transmit the text, not the sender (and at the moment only on public channels).

Q: Considering the many potential translation errors, could you, please, add a functioning and user friendly way to deactivate automatic translation for RF and all channels translated by DeepL? The current command is not easy to find or use and would be perhaps be friendlier as a checkbox in the user interface… Same request for the joint dysplaying of the original and its translation.
The option to disable DeepL on a channel will be added on the second upcoming patch.

Q: Will only official Ryzom languages be translated or others as well, such as Italian?
Only the official languages of Ryzom at the moment, because the DeepL language detection is not yet ready and we have not yet implemented another way to choose the language to be translated. But this may evolve.

Q : How much does Winchgate pay DeepL per month for this feature?
 For more information, see .

2 - Storyline

Tamarea (RT) – 20:48 UTC
The continuation of the Storyline will begin before the end of the week, with the arrival of two new missions to the Nexus: one hunting and one drilling.
This scripted event will then be followed by… I won't tell you what, followed by... I won't tell you what either ;)

3 - Next patch

Tamarea (RT) – 20:52 UTC
The next patch will take place on June 25th, to implement the following.

• Fixed outpost history information
• Fixed ranger circle optic and missing translation
• Fixed lot of Translation issue
• Fixed : Rewriting Ranger Aspiration Mission
• Added option in Daily Mission : Player can replace any non-occupation mission by another random (limited to 4 uses)
• Fixed an issue in Daily Mission where sometimes a same occupation can appear twice.

DeepL in game
• Added translations to Universe, Region and Forge
• Removed all language channels (uni-en, uni-fr, uni-es, uni-de, uni-ru)
• Added flags to see the original text and lang
• Added (ticky task!) anti-spam system to prevent duplication of same text

DeepL in Ryzom Chat
• Removed #pub-uni
• Removed #pub-forge
• Added #pub-forge-XY
• Added emoji flags and links to see the original text and lang
• All #pub-uni-[fr, en, de, es, ru] are linked to ingame Universe
• All #pub-forge-[fr, en, de, es, ru] are linked to ingame Forge

This patchnote has just been written and is not yet corrected or translated, but I wanted to share it with you during the meeting.

Q: Aren't you worried that some players may no longer use the Universe Channel? Currently (and most importantly) EN/DEs use the general Uni channel, and FRs use the Uni channel FR. Wouldn't it be better to keep these two channels?
Since everything will be translated, keeping the uni FR in addition to the Universe would not be helpful. Besides, if we did that, why not keep the uni DE, ES, RU as well? The implementation of DeepL is not simple, and we wouldn't be able to handle special cases. There must be only one Universe channel for translations to be managed properly.

Q: This is not the point (the DE/EN/etc. Universe does not use DeepL, by definition). But, if other requests for keeping a specific static channel (a replacement dynamic channel would be less user-friendly) arise, would it cost much to satisfy them?
I don't have an answer tonight, so we'll have to talk about it later if you don't mind.

4 - Multiboxing

Tamarea (RT) – 21:38 UTC
The change originally announced, i.e. a limitation to 2 accounts connected simultaneously, was only intended to limit the number of multiboxers *using third-party software* to play. Indeed, as we had no reliable technical means to confuse them, we were unable to enforce the Code of Conduct and this led to tensions between players, mixed with a strong feeling of impunity. Limiting the number of simultaneous accounts to 2 seemed a simple but effective way to solve this problem. It is now clear that we had underestimated the other consequences of this solution.
I would like to make it clear that although Tykus was the spokesperson for this decision, as he and I take turns chairing RF meetings and it was his turn to do so, this is neither a request nor a decision by Support. If Tykus is indeed the head of the Support team, he is my assistant too and it is in this capacity that he communicated on this project.
This announcement, which was aimed exclusively at restricting breaches of the Code of Conduct by those using third-party software, and thus reducing the feeling of gameplay impunity, highlighted another fundamental problem related to multiboxing itself. I admit that the title of the topic ("Multiboxing") didn't help.
Following this announcement, many of you have indeed expressed your discomfort because of the authorization on Ryzom to connect 4 accounts simultaneously, mainly because of the feeling of gameplay injustice of those who don't use several alts, but also because of the impunity of multiboxers suspected of violating the Code of Conduct.
Just as many of you have expressed your indignation at the announcement of the limitation of multiboxing to 2 accounts connected simultaneously, mainly evoking the intolerable curtailment of freedom so dear to Ryzom.
A regrettable rift between the two camps ensued.
My role is not to decide and designate a winner, but to hear both sides and propose a solution that is both acceptable to all and meets our initial objective. As much as a meaningful decision is certainly necessary, it is also necessary that it should not further divide you.
The reason I have taken so long to come back to you is that it is far from simple. It means taking the time to read and understand everything, to look for solutions, but also to eliminate some of them after finding that they are not feasible. This is the case for those involving a gameplay limitation of the number of accounts connected simultaneously. However, without this physical means of control, it is useless, even counterproductive, to impose any limitation. Indeed, what would be the point of modifying the Code of Conduct if no control tool allows us to enforce it?
This is why the initial solution, to prohibit the use of more than two alts at the same time, was not viable in any case, even if it had not generated very strong reactions against it.
On the other hand, it's clear that we need to limit the gameplay impact of using multi-alts during the game's "sensitive" activities: outpost battles, hunting bosses, hunting marauder bosses, scripted events. To this end, the best possible solution to date is, in our opinion, the following:

• Limiting multiboxing to 2 accounts connected simultaneously during outpost battles, on bosses, marauder bosses and during scripted events (limitation on the gameplay level during the Storyline's scripted events).
• Tolerance of multiboxing up to 4 accounts connected simultaneously in other cases: setting up levels, roleplay...
In all cases, the use of third party software to control simultaneously connected characters is of course forbidden.
During outpost battles, bosses and marauder boss hunts, in case of abuse send to Support a screen showing more than 2 alts present simultaneously.

This transitional solution is not perfect and does not solve the problem of using third-party software, but seems to be a viable compromise between the demands of both sides: freedom is preserved when it does not cause a strong gameplay injustice.
We will be able to make this solution evolve when gameplay allows us to do so, remaining of course open to your ideas.
By the way, when I presented this solution to the Ryzom Team, it brought out some very interesting suggestions of gameplay limitations that we are currently studying. Thus, as the gameplay changes, the limitation of the use of alts on OP, bosses, marauder bosses and scripted events will be done on the gameplay level and not manually anymore.
What's your opinion on this compromise in order not to get bogged down in the current situation, knowing that we'll make things evolve, in consultation with you, as gameplay changes occur?

Q: I would like to ask for clarification about "bosses". Does this include nameds?
No, bosses only.

Q: When will this change be implemented?
From the day the Code of Conduct is amended, it must be enforced.

Q: Will there be some allowance given us to propose adjustments of the new rules?
(New display of the rules in question)

Comment 1 : I just wanted to give my feeling about the "freedom" mentioned in your text: for me, it is the freedom of roleplay and not the right to "do what I want" put forward on the forum by some people, who cry and shout about the abuse of power as soon as they are forbidden to do something.

Comment 2 : You just making your life harder, dear Ryzom Team. You don’t have the ressources to guarantee the good establishment of this solution. You could of have saved these efforts to add something to the game instead. Being bold about the decision and either limit alts to 2 or not is far more beneficial to the game than these semi solution intended to make everyone happy where in reality it makes things worse.

Q: This is going to be a little off topic, but what about, even though Ryzom is old now, advertising Ryzom? I haven't seen an ad for it since I decided to play it back in December 2004. Maybe we won't feel like we need alts if there is actually players to play with?
R :
We are starting an advertising campaign and plan to increase our visibility in the coming months.

Q: How is the alt limit on OPs going to be policed?
The control will be done after ticket with screen. As the use of 4 alts is a tolerance, in case of a breach on OP the general use of the offending player will be limited to 2 counts at the same time only. What remains a playable situation (transfer between GH and leveling still possible).

Q:Why not ban alts completely from OPs (what was the logic for 1 alt)?
If we limit to 0 alt, it supposes that in case of infringement we will have to limit to one character at the same time. The penalty being heavier, it is more difficult to apply.
So don't forget that we are talking about tolerance and not about the right to play 4 alts at the same time; and that Support will be able to apply a restriction to 2 accounts if it deems it necessary, in case of abuse or gameplay penalty of other players.

Q: Would there be a way to cap OPs or Player limite to events like you have for Pei / Dante? Because if it becomes indeed very hard for those who are now outnumbered in PvP, I don't want to do without multiboxing for EVP.
It's a pertinent idea, but one that requires reflection.

Q: Can't you adopt a rule (which I think would be a real compromise) imposing only one character per IP address when it comes to PvP? (Except for households that have provided proof that they have multiple players.)
Yes, the idea is a good one, but technically difficult to implement.

Comment 3 : * [Player] suddenly became aware of his age and is finally very tired * (Considering the choices made about multiboxing, I'm switching my two accounts to F2P - knowing that one has hardly ever been used. Consider them parasites and ban them whenever you want).

Q: So what if I were to have my stepdad log in 2 of my accounts and use them to heal me in wars and for NPC bosses from his laptop? Would that be ok? Also I would just like to point out that this decision is only catering to the loud voices of a few who dont like losing, and will punish about 6-12 players in total (half of whom dont show up to OP battles anyway) for no reason at all. Payers who have put years of work into developing characters. You are legitimizing an unfounded complaint against us that we create an injustice where there is none. Players who for the most part have supported the game, been part of the community and obeyed the rules are being punished for being prominent and being skilled and putting time into the game. This decison wont hurt the balance and wont get those complaining what they want, but it will save me money (I am not paying for 4 accounts just to dig and kill named) and I, with my friends and my faction, will still win. I mean for gods sake I can't use the 4 autolaunchers I have been working for years on... Oh well... But now I can much more easily use 2 launchers. You think this will stop Karavaneers from kicking the crap out of you? No. Nothing changes. But now we know for a certainty that no matter what we do nothing is safe for us in this game. Not our equipment or our levels or our accounts. Nothing we have can be kept by us if enough people complain about us. When will you again change the rules and take what we have worked hard for away from us next? 2 years? more? less? When is the next time these people stomp their feet and demand rule changes so they might win more?
The solution we are looking for is the one that will be fairest for all. I am at your disposal in DM on chat.ryzom if you wish to discuss it (from tomorrow).

Comment 4 : How is this considered a compromise? From what I can see from the 2 camps listed above, one set wanted the reduction of alts, while the other wanted to keep the alts and characters they've paid for and worked to level. Why would you, as a company, choose to limit the number of already dwindling subscriptions to the game?
This change to CoC occurs after people have already invested time and money into multiple characters without addressing the investment people have put into those characters.
A better solution to something like this would be to make sure the rest of the OPs are truly valuable. The current implimentation of several changes to the game have rendered 95% of OPs useless.
If this were the issue addressed, rather than number of accounts run simultaneously, maybe the game would be better positioned to retain more players?

Q: What will be timeline for this enforcement? If it is prior to the ability to cancel a subscription, will there be compensation/refundment of the game time?
I'm sorry, but I'm too tired to be able to read and think... I suggest that you write down your questions (including those of the participants who still had some here) and answer them another day.

Meeting closed at 23:22 UTC

<![CDATA[Ranger TP: Exploitation of Game Mechanics]]> Wed, 08 May 2019 00:32:35 +0000 General
As anyone who knows me would expect, I don't like the words "not allowed". Too my view, anyone who pays the same subscription price should be entitled to do anything they with **equal opportunity** across the board. With as little playing time as I can manage, guild and other IG responsibilities, I am surprised that anyone has the time to figure out and test "exploits".

While I am all for fifguring out, the mot efficient way to accomplish something, I don't like making things easier, There's no "winning ryzom". I like the idea of "cats" pre-merge, only because with 5 harvest trees and 39 craft trees ... you spend 87% of ya digging time for no XP. I saved my cats allocation for crafting. Post merge, I personally wish there was a way to "turn them off'. Or that you could pick one skill tree to apply them to ... and hen ya wanted to change ... a 30 day cool down.

There's prolly no person in the game that knows less about tagging than I do, but if someone really wanted to use an exploit in this situation, wouldn't it simply be easier stay untagged ?

The one thing great about "classes" in Ryzon is that no one in game has class ... :) ... well class restrictions. There are some minor ones such as TP locations (Kara Void / Kami SC) so I 100% support the notion that it be fixed at some point. However, I hope that problems like this which I would categorize as "growing pains" need to arise to the top of the heap and require all progress on everything else to cease.

When the boss lock thing was first brought to game, the 1st 2 bosses I was fighting against had incidents .... 1) after separating the boss from minions and struggling a bit with a small team, but slowly winning, had folks come in and start dragging minions on us.... 2) On the next one (same day, another small group .... some folks came along and huddled in our mage pod .... I reported both.

And tho I think the 2nd situation was addressed by a patch, I dunno how long it took ... I haven't run into the 1st one more than once or twice since.

In short, when making changes... certain situations simply may not be envisioned. If you would have told me rangers would be PvPing, I never woulda thot it would happen. I really don't see 'Ranger types' going this route ... tho I can see how folks that would use an exploit would "go ranger" in order to take advantage of it.

I reported the two instances I spoke of, but wasn't interested enough to follow progress. You did exactly what I would have done by reporting it. and I hope until it's fixed, now that it's accepted as an exploit, folks will be more reluctant to undertake it as a matter of personal pride, until it is addressed.]]>
<![CDATA[Ballance of Ranger gameplay]]> Thu, 23 Aug 2018 16:59:14 +0000 General
Otherwise, I find it a pain to TP to Zora, then run out of town to 'get to the spot,' then 'TP / use the path,' 2-3 times to get back to Wastelands near where I was when I died, BUT.... It is the path I chose! (pun intended) :D

So, I can accept the way things are now, and live without any changes although it be very difficult.]]>
<![CDATA[Ryzom Forge meeting report- 2017-11-20]]> Mon, 04 Dec 2017 18:08:44 +0000 General Management of Players ideas

I have a project fo better manage the "ideas fo the players": each player would have xx "vote points" to use by using them in his favourite players ideas. With the possibility to change his mind and so to take back points from an idea to give them to another one. When he'll have no free vote point left, he could not vote anymore. When an idea would be added ingame (and archived, tagged or anything else useful), the player would have back the points he gave to this idea.

Ex: 10 vote points for each player account. The player could share them between his favourite ideas (giving 10 points to one project, or 4 points to one, 1 to another one, etc. As he would want. Free system.
No free point left but a nice new idea: would have to choose. Renouncing to this new idea, or giving less points to another one. ^^
A project added ingame = he gets the given points back and can use them for other projects.

Of course, we should keep the current forum "Player Ideas" in archives and reopen a new one, for more clarity.


Lyne: It's a number of points per account or per char? How many points do the F2P accounts have?

Tamarea: This remains to decide. Still in thinking. What do you think ?

Moniq: My first idea was exploit by more characters/accounts so do you suggest any way how to limit it?

Eleanide : That's a good idea if the vote is actually bind to the account. It will allow to see proposals and their popularity.

Moniq: Generally, I like the idea but I think this is the feature for p2p. Depends on how valuable 1 point will be. If 10 is significant, none for f2p, if 1000 points is not much, f2p can have 1 point to "test" the feature. We can also limit it by played time? how exclusive it supposed to be? Give points for played time, for example 1 point per Atys season, starting after 1st 2 days/weeks in game and/or getting level 35 + leaving Silan…

Tamarea: Seems too much difficult for a forum feature.

Lyne: I don't like the idea of the played time (I'm a bit too tired to explain it, but I could another day if you want).

Moniq @lyne: just suggestions how to limit exploiting with multimple accounts.

Tamarea: Would be possible to limit to Premium accounts, but what would we do with the points given by a player coming back to F2P?

Lyne: Don't change anything if the player goes back to F2P (keep his points where they were given but prevent him to change his vote).

Moniq @tamarea: can use points only when p2p, in time when unsubscribed it will be disallowed.

Eleanide: Only for P2P, then? Is that possible?

Tamarea: I think so, even if confirmation is needed.

Eleanide: Return to F2P = No more point for voting.]]>
<![CDATA[forge updates live on server]]> Wed, 20 Sep 2017 02:33:39 +0000 General Naema <![CDATA[Ryzom Forge on Bitbucket]]> Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:15:42 +0000 General (see "Source" and "Commits" folders).
I've just updated the links in post 1.]]>
<![CDATA[Public release with debug?]]> Sun, 19 Feb 2017 17:06:20 +0000 General
The normal debug messages do get logged for a bit but yes those stop. It is just the lines that I pasted that repeat over and over. I only saw log.log once and didn't pay any attention to it as it doesn't get huge and it didn't dawn on me to look it over closely.

If it happens again and that file pops up I'll look that over too.

I have not figured out where/how to compile the current code as every one of my old links I used years ago is either lacking info or dead links. Otherwise I'd help troubleshoot this.

For some odd reason, any edits I do the the cfg files prompts a patch over write. Aside from wiping out the cfg file leaving only that one line suggested earlier. All other changes get reverted.]]>
<![CDATA[Bilan des 2 ans de collaboration Ryzom/Khaganat]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2016 02:17:00 +0000 General Naema <![CDATA[autoupdateable guildmotd]]> Sat, 05 Nov 2016 13:32:34 +0000 General Tyrralir <![CDATA[Collaborative Project: Ryzom Forge]]> Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:04:53 +0000 General
Holidays are quite over so Ryzom Forge meetings have restarted yesterday.]]>
<![CDATA[New region]]> Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:55:55 +0000 General
The same mechanic could be applied to Rangers as members of the "faction" responsible for the defense of Atys against the Kitin threat, they would benefit in a manner similar as do citizens of a race.]]>
<![CDATA[Kit du développeur]]> Tue, 31 May 2016 18:51:43 +0000 General
sur irc freenode : #ryzom ou #ryzomforge

en français mais en cours de redaction et a jour :
sur irc freenode : #khanat

mais sur mac , pour les outils il y a pas grand choses qui marche mais si tu t'y connais en c++ , tu peux les porter :))]]>
<![CDATA[Ryzom studio]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2015 07:07:26 +0000 General
J'ai windows 8.1 et suivi le tuto de ryzomcore.
(je pense installer debian bientot si sa peut aider)

Quand je compile, je n'ai pas le "with-studio" dans le cmake

Après je ne sais pas ou est mon erreur, je ne sais pas si j'ai mis dans les bon dossiers tous les copi/collé

Esque quelqu' un peut m'aider ici, irc ou sur atys ?]]>
<![CDATA[Ryzom Forge's meetings]]> Tue, 16 Jun 2015 02:44:21 +0000 General
just my 2 dappers on the idea :)

<![CDATA[Transférer les articles de Khaganat sur Ryzom Forge ?]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2015 13:57:49 +0000 General
On the other hand, I cann't transfer picture. Keep in mind, that images has to be in the "common" of the wiki, and that one need make the uploading from a local directory.]]>
<![CDATA[Interface reload command]]> Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:30:04 +0000 General
That's a little request to the dev's :)]]>
<![CDATA[can't get ryzom forge wiki access]]> Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:12:40 +0000 General Talkirc <![CDATA[Mélanger l'origine des mp pour des plans de tribu ?]]> Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:17:13 +0000 General Zendae <![CDATA[NewZone]]> Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:26:06 +0000 General
wir können Die ganzen Gedanken aus Virg´s Tread und die von wiedii zusammenlegen und daraus ein vollkommen neues Konzept begründen.
schließlich gibt es genügend Inhalte die dort zusammen getragen wurden ^^

wird es unsere Aufgabe sein, daraus ein vollkommen neues und eigenes Konzept zu erstellen . aus alle dem was zusammen getragen wurde.
jedoch immer im Auge sollten wir behalten das es ins Universum von Ryzom passen muss ;)

ich freu mich schon auf das Meeting für diese Forge-Gruppe ^^]]>
<![CDATA[New zone landscape modeling]]> Thu, 22 Jan 2015 07:02:32 +0000 General Gersen <![CDATA[Log Ryzomforge]]> Thu, 01 Jan 2015 15:29:43 +0000 General Laofa (atys)
Pour les op qui ont les droits suffisants, la commande à entrer est la suivante :
/msg chanserv set [#channel] entrymsg [message] 

En remplaçant [#channel] par le nom du canal et [message] par le message, par exemple :
/msg chanserv set #ryzomforge entrymsg Ilogyou log you !

Ce message là s'affichera à la connexion, sans ajouter des infos à un titre souvent surchargé. Le titre est plus adapté aux "infos du jour", vu qu'il est plus simple à modifier et visible tout le temps dans la plupart des clients.

Message ajouté, merci pour le conseil (et la commande) !]]>