#82 Added by Heernis 6 years ago
Ok, we are WAAAAAAyyyy off topic talking about the fame micro transactions.The original idea is still to impose game mechanics that prevent players with opposing fames from cooporating while PvP tagged... Which would probably reduce PvP even more...
---
Nicht klicken!
Ich schreibe generell auf Deutsch. Für Fremdsprachen gibt es ein Übersetzungswerkzeug. Die deutsche Sprache sollte hier nicht verschwinden.
I generally write in German. For foreign languages there is a translation tool. The German language should not disappear here.
J'écris généralement en allemand. Pour les langues étrangères, il existe un outil de traduction. La langue allemande ne devrait pas disparaître ici.
#83 Added by Placio 6 years ago
My idea on the matter is that you switch back to faction based PVP when you're labeled. So that means:1) Kamis attack Karavan and Marauders, but can't be attacked by Rangers, except in a Karavan or Marauder's team.2) Karavans attack Kamis and Marauders, but cannot attack Rangers, except on a team of Kamis or Marauders.3) Rangers attack Marauders only, but cannot be attacked by Karavan or Kamis, except in team with Marauders.4) Marauders attack Kamis, Karavan and Rangers, as well as all 3 can attack Marauders. (Addition: Marauders can attack each other)Since it depends on fame, all of them under fame 25 or above -25 cannot be involved in any fight.
#84 Added by Heernis 6 years ago
HeernisMy idea on the matter is that you switch back to faction based PVP when you're labeled. So that means:1) Kamis attack Karavan and Marauders, but can't be attacked by Rangers, except in a Karavan or Marauder's team.2) Karavans attack Kamis and Marauders, but cannot attack Rangers, except on a team of Kamis or Marauders.3) Rangers attack Marauders only, but cannot be attacked by Karavan or Kamis, except in team with Marauders.4) Marauders attack Kamis, Karavan and Rangers, as well as all 3 can attack Marauders. (Addition: Marauders can attack each other)Since it depends on fame, all of them under fame 25 or above -25 cannot be involved in any fight.Your goal may be to promote PvP, but your proposal was to restrict whom is able to attack/heal who.
Last edited by Heernis (6 years ago)
#85 Added by Placio 6 years ago
Last edited by Placio (6 years ago)
#86 Added by Heernis 6 years ago
I did provide the reason why I don't think its necessary, and I suggested an alternative that PvP point calculation could be changed to give less or no points if mortal enemies ally.Its just that this thread has continued so long and produced some subtopics that it might as well be in the general discussions forum and not the ideas :D
#87 Added by Jorgensen 6 years ago
#88 Added by Sinvaders 6 years ago
#89 Added by Moniq 6 years ago
Example: You don't want to kill more bandits or do tasks for the faction, but improve your fame with PVP. Why not do it this way? That would increase the PVP between the factions, wouldn't it?
Last edited by Moniq (6 years ago)
#90 Added by Revvy 6 years ago
I am afraid that this will also bring the following:- Random killing for fame with no real reason (besides random killing for PvP points as it happens today)- Killing own alts for cheap fame
#91 Added by Gidget 6 years ago
#92 Added by Heernis 6 years ago
HeernisExample: You don't want to kill more bandits or do tasks for the faction, but improve your fame with PVP. Why not do it this way? That would increase the PVP between the factions, wouldn't it?I am afraid that this will also bring the following:- Random killing for fame with no real reason (besides random killing for PvP points as it happens today)- Killing own alts for cheap fameIf you want to get fame involved, I would prefer just loosing a small amount of fame for attacking "wrong" target. No gain from PvP at all.
Edited 3 times | Last edited by Heernis (6 years ago)
#93 Added by Gidget 6 years ago
Losing fame by killing the wrong target is good. I guess it should be under study to test the real consequences and adjuste and balaance it ( mean gain and loose fame in PVP-Actions), that should be the first step.
#94 Added by Heernis 6 years ago
My two dappers;It has gotten boringly quiet and stupefyingly stagnant as of late. Things have to change. However, any changes to the game have to consider not only the lore but also the players. All of them. Not everyone has the same motivations or hot buttons though, so if we want Ryzom as a whole to do well, we must all keep that in mind instead of assuming that our little bubble is The Only Correct Way. That sort of thinking will result in factional PvP alright, but of an OOC type rather than in-game where it belongs. I also firmly believe the old idiom, "You can't go home again.", so I have reservations about trying to go back to a place that can never exist again. Now, here is a crazy idea, but also serious food for thought; as there have been a lot of folks crossing the traditional lines, why not rethink what "faction" really means and figure out a way to make "Alliance vs Alliance" work? Worlds evolve, so why shouldn't Atys? We can't go back, and holding the brakes isn't working, so why not go forward? Why can't we have a new paradigm? Sadly, I don't have any real specific thoughts on how to do that right now, but I figured I'd at least try to throw out an idea of how to reignite the spark that seems to have been lost in the hopes that it will, at worst, serve as a catalyst for someone else to put a little flesh on that framework.HeernisYou decide a side and fight for something higher... ranger for balance...And that is part of why I am the way I am ;)
You decide a side and fight for something higher... ranger for balance...
#95 Added by Gidget 6 years ago
#96 Added by Heernis 6 years ago
powered by ryzom-api