search | Login Forums | New posts | Last 24h

IDEAS FOR RYZOM
uiWebPrevious12uiWebNext

#1 Added by Kimmerin 7 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Regarding attacks on q50 and q100 outposts. They are way too easy to capture, as a single high-level character is capable of killing enough NPC to trigger second phase. According to Ryzom Code of Conduct, attackers must have "a number of players reasonably sufficient to pass the threshold". In case of q50 and q100 outposts, this number is 1 (one) player. This opens up a cheap, effective, and what is more important, legal possibility for harassment.

Some clown hit Declare button, come to OP for a minute, get killed or run away and don't come back. And a group of people have to babysit the OP for two hours, wasting time and doing absolutely nothing. CoC says, there is nothing wrong about it. I say, this is bullshit.

Case in point: attack on Finder's Farm (q100 Matis OP) yesterday by Wulfspack guild. Two attackers came in at the beginning, got killed, tp'ed out of region, never came back. Not to mention they didn't belong to attacking guild. Then finally some member of this guild appeared at the OP few rounds before the end, didn't even take an attempt at NPC, ran away, never came back. End of story. All this time there were 10 of us guarding the OP for two hours. In other words, some person had cheap fun at the expense of ten players. The person in question walked away scot-free and ten people lost two hours of their time in the middle of working day. And we couldn't even ticket it, because technically everything was in line with CoC.

This is the flaw that has to be fixed. I propose to change the CoC regarding all low-level outposts, q50 to q150. Attackers must either match the number of defenders presented at the OP (i. e. 5 vs 5), or bring at least one full team. If attacking side wasn't able to meet one of these requirements, the attack should be considered "fake" and reported to CSR team.

---

"People let the same problem make them miserable for years when they could just say "So what". That's one of my favorite things to say. "So what". - Andy Warhol.

#2 Added by Azazor 7 years ago [fr] 

{translate}
Si vous voulez pas passer 2 heures à attendre, vous pouvez aussi laisser l'OP se faire capturer. C'est pas une grosse perte non plus. Mais si vous voulez à tout prix avoir des OP 50 ou 100, alors faut assumer.

Last edited by Tiximei (7 years ago) | Reason: Fixed the language button

---

fyros pure sève
akash i orak, talen i rechten!
élucubrations
biographie

#3 Added by Naema 7 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Why don't we make all the OP's q250?

(Or, alternatively, let small op mats add up to a bigger quality for crafting, such as letting 5 q50 mats=1q250?)

Oh, and as for the post, charge the heck out of the attacker, make them all 16 million to declare! I understand it isn't as expensive to declare on a small OP, is that true?

#4 Added by Bitttymacod 7 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Azazoar --

In RP terms one does not give up one's holdings without a fight. Even in game terms there is a certain status in owning an OP (Not to mention the fact that even a q50 post occasionally generates q150 mats).

The point that Kimmerin brings up is one of harassment using the game mechanisms and using the letter of the CoC rather than the spirit of the CoC to avoid being slapped down by the PTB.

The problem I see with the proposed solutions is that they represent the possibility of harassment in the opposite direction. Guild A declares on Psykopla Knoll (q50). They bring 3 people since Guild B (who currently owns it) only has 3 active members. Since Guild A is Kami, the Kara Alliance (or whatever) brings 30, beats Guild A's team into a pulp and then reports Guild A for harassment.

I've proposed variants of Naema's solution for making all OPs valuable, but that's not the point of this thread.

---


Remembering Tyneetryk
Phaedreas Tears - 15 years old and first(*) of true neutral guilds in Atys.
(*) This statement is contested, but we are certainly the longest lasting.
<clowns | me & you | jokers>

#5 Added by Afriel 7 years ago Multilingual 

{translate}
Hehehehe. Haniel and me were there at the start of the war. We killed NPC guards but not all and got killed, we still have time to return and kill the remaining NPC guards but there was no respawn point nearby, our dappers are limited so I decided to end the attack since it was only me and Haniel no point on wasting limited dappers for ops that produces mats that we don't even use.

This situation is similar to previous attacks on kami outposts where 1-2 (clowns as you call it) will show on the attackers side and more than 10 on the defending side. Of course respawn point are nearby for these outpost being harassed as you call it. Sadly it was not mention on this thread up until now.

You see, this is one of the many possibilities in op war. Azazor is correct if you want to hold on to these op then defend it no matter with no complain. I like also the suggestion of Naema since it will give importance on these ops and there is a big possibility that a war on these ops will have great number of attendance.

---

#6 Added by Bluaarbthi 7 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Owning an OP doesn't only have merits, as an owner you should take the flaws with it imo. If that includes waiting for two hours, well... that includes waiting for two hours... The harvested materials are worth something, guilds who do not own an OP still know the value of these mats and probably would find it not an issue to wait for a couple of hours.
Owning an OP comes with responsibility....

#7 Added by Kimmerin 7 years ago [en] 

{translate}
it isn't as expensive to declare on a small OP, is that true?

1 million for q50, 2 millions for q100. 
They bring 3 people since Guild B (who currently owns it) only has 3 active members. Since Guild A is Kami, the Kara Alliance (or whatever) brings 30

I meant the number of defenders, including not only members of defending guild, but everyone who has joined them. If this number is 8 or less, attackers would have to match it. If the number is 9+, attackers would have to bring one full team and that would be enough to call it a "real" attack. Nobody attacks a guild of three expecting only three characters showing up for defense, unless a GvG match has been arranged, it's always a faction thing. And if you want to troll a faction, here is nice and legal way to do it.
This situation is similar to previous attacks on kami outposts where 1-2 (clowns as you call it) will show on the attackers side and more than 10 on the defending side. Of course respawn point are nearby for these outpost being harassed as you call it. Sadly it was not mention on this thread up until now.

I wasn't playing when these attacks happened, all I heard is some rumors. I'm not going to defend these people or justify their actions. Their behaviour was unacceptable from my point of view.
Owning an OP doesn't only have merits, as an owner you should take the flaws with it imo

It's all true, but you see, there is some disbalance as of now. Owners of q200's and q250's are well protected from fake attacks. They have high declaration fees, they have strong NPC guards, and if someone declare on them for trolling purpose and shows up at the OP only for a minute or two, they can report that person to CSR. On the other hand, owners of low-level OP's have no protection at all. Not only the attacks on them are cheap and NPC's don't worth their dappers, they can't even report a troll, because technically everything is alright. And as Bittty and Afriel pointed out, it might be just a couple of persons behind the attack, but it's entire faction that gets on the receiving end because of some interguild quarrels.

I want Code of Conduct taking into account attacks on low-level outposts, as it clearly has been written with only q200-250's in mind.

Edited 5 times | Last edited by Kimmerin (7 years ago)

---

"People let the same problem make them miserable for years when they could just say "So what". That's one of my favorite things to say. "So what". - Andy Warhol.

#8 Added by Sinvaders 7 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Bitttymacod

The problem I see with the proposed solutions is that they represent the possibility of harassment in the opposite direction. Guild A declares on Psykopla Knoll (q50). They bring 3 people since Guild B (who currently owns it) only has 3 active members. Since Guild A is Kami, the Kara Alliance (or whatever) brings 30, beats Guild A's team into a pulp and then reports Guild A for harassment.

Why a guild with only 3 active members hold an OP ?
If you are not ready to fight/wait to keep your OP just give it to someone else in your faction.

#9 Added by Mjollren 7 years ago [en] 

{translate}
I fully agree with Kimmerin.

How about shorter wars for lower level OPs? Would that fix it? Personally, I helped in zero wars for months, and a big part of the reason is because I have a life outside Ryzom. Which, I suspect, is true for a big part of the player base.

There is zero sense to dedicating four hours of your life to attacking / defending / helping in a war for a level 50 outpost.

Instead, I propose starting at q250 and removing 4 rounds from the max threshold. Therefore:

- Max threshold 20 for a q200 OP
- Max 16 for q150
- Max 12 for q100
- Max 8 for q50

This way a war will last only 40 minutes for a q50. That is plenty of time to kill 3 rounds of guards, and if you can't do it in that timeframe, you have no business attacking. Same for retaking the OP if it goes to phase 2.

If you feel this is too short, try removing 3 rounds for each level. That would bring q50 OPs to max threshold 12, which is still acceptable imho (60 minutes / phase).

And, hopefully, since this is a numbers tweak, it may not even take a lot of server-side coding (*fingers crossed*).

---

#10 Added by Bitttymacod 7 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Sinvaders
Bitttymacod

The problem I see with the proposed solutions is that they represent the possibility of harassment in the opposite direction. Guild A declares on Psykopla Knoll (q50). They bring 3 people since Guild B (who currently owns it) only has 3 active members. Since Guild A is Kami, the Kara Alliance (or whatever) brings 30, beats Guild A's team into a pulp and then reports Guild A for harassment.

Why a guild with only 3 active members hold an OP ?
If you are not ready to fight/wait to keep your OP just give it to someone else in your faction.

OP's are for GUILDS -- not factions.

I held an OP for a long time with a guild that had one active member (me). It was an armilo producting OP in the days when you could make an armilo tool from any grade. I made sure that *everyone* had all the armilo they could eat. It was NOT a factioned OP. I held it because both sides trusted me to be fair.

My point is that even now, a q50 OP is something that a 3 (active) person guild might hold. Who are you to say that they are not worthy? Who are you to say that it must be one faction or another?

The point of the discussion is that they are ready to fight. No one would be complaining if the other side had showed up in numbers and put up a fight (even if the defenders lost). The point is that it is possible to harass holders of a q50 or q100 OP because the criterion for "not harassment" is ridiculously low.

---


Remembering Tyneetryk
Phaedreas Tears - 15 years old and first(*) of true neutral guilds in Atys.
(*) This statement is contested, but we are certainly the longest lasting.
<clowns | me & you | jokers>

#11 Added by Ingfarah 7 years ago [en] 

{translate}
@Sinvaders: si tu regardes autour de toi, tu verras un nombre assez incroyable de guildes avec trois membres actifs, voire moins!





@Everybody: Yep, I can think of a few battles I say qualifies as harassment in the last few months; New Year's eve, recently 2 toons attacking Hightower's farm, and now this one. That is exactly one for each faction on the game.

If one would like to attack with 2-3 toons, that should be a GvG attack. If not and said person is just hoping the defence will grow thinner because "it's so worthless". That IS harassment. When you declare war, you shouldn't expect to win "only if they don't notice", or "only if they're busy elsewhere", or "only if they don't deem it worth it". If you do, then it's harassment. Maybe what the code of conduct says should be considered as examples and the code of conduct should say so. Harassment can't be reduced to one or two possible situations. Harassment can take many forms. I believe the code of conduct should not be altered to include more specific cases, but to avoid excluding the other possibilities. I'm also thinking there of that dude who threatened to attack Lamda's OP every week because she offended him in I don't remember which way.

The point is, harassment, by definition, can take so many forms it can't be reduced to whatever enters the code of conduct of not. I believe some attacks may be mistakes, miscalculations, attempts, etc. The real problem is getting a history of those repeated mistakes, either as the offender or the offended, because repeating the same "mistake" over and over again points at ill intent and not at honest mistakes.

#12 Added by Gidget 7 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Ingfarah
When you declare war, you shouldn't expect to win "only if they don't notice", or "only if they're busy elsewhere", or "only if they don't deem it worth it".

That one right there makes it a bit difficult for us Americans. Sure, 1800-2000 UTC may be good any day of the week for European players, it also means that any American who has a normal job is pretty much barred from the battle; many of us are not up for going into work on less than 3 hours sleep, and we don't have the sort of social safety net that allows us to jsut take a day off work if we plan to keep living indoors or eating.

Likewise, while something around 0800-1000 UTC on a weekend may seem like a nice way to start your Saturday, us Americans are generally not up for waking up at 0200 local time. And I'm sure that Europeans aren't exactly happy when the "courtesy" is reciprocated by scheduling a battle for 2000 PDT (0200 UTC) either. And yet, more than a few OP battles I've seen (especially recently) have used the "They're all asleep/at work" as part fo their strategy for winning.

Even without the "2-3 toons wasting an entire faction's time" declarations, something needs to be done about how OP declarations are done.... unless we want to revert to each continent having their own server again, which I don't particularly like the thought of.

---

Do not assume that you speak for all just because you are the loudest voice; there are many who disagree that simply have no desire to waste words on you.

#13 Added by Daomei 7 years ago Multilingual 

{translate}
While I agree to Gidget that players in the Americas, and also in Asia/Pacific, are disadvantaged, this is an old problem, and does not only exist for sparsely populated time zones. People with more flexible time schedules such as students, jobless, pensionists etc. were always able to carry out attacks at unusual times such as Monday/Tuesday night/early morning. Even if it wasn't a mock attack, it posed problems to those living on worktime schedules, and caused complaints and rants.

Concerning q50 (and to some extent q100) OPs, a small attacking team (in the extreme a single player) can be fairly effective. I participated in a q50 OP conflict where a team of 4 managed to win several rounds against over 40 defenders just by good timing and management of auras and well coordinated use of launchers.

It is the fate of OP holders that they have to guard their OP as long as they want to hold it. Even if they do not need the mats, they still have the advantage of GH access. If they do not deem that worthy, they may abandon or transfer the OP. Even with high frequency clicking (which I fail to see at the moment), 2-3hrs per week of OP guarding during wartime are not an exaggerated cost.

The weakness of NPC guards and the relatively low cost of declaration of war allows smaller attacking teams to start such a PvP event. This opportunity is legitimate and should be preserved.

In the case mentioned, I know two active players of the guild in question, and do not believe that they intended harrassment. Yet it is not a good move to declare OP war and stay absent afterwards. But if a fight proves fruitless, the attacker is entitled to abstain from further attacks.

---

Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral

#14 Added by Kimmerin 7 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Daomei
It is the fate of OP holders that they have to guard their OP as long as they want to hold it.

The owners of q200 and q250 OP's don't have to deal with this problem. It's kinda unfair.
Daomei
The weakness of NPC guards and the relatively low cost of declaration of war allows smaller attacking teams to start such a PvP event. This opportunity is legitimate and should be preserved.
 
So far this opportunity is only used for harassment. The last time we actually fought over a q100 OP was about two years ago. All other attacks were no-shows. PvP guilds prefer to compete over valuable targets, they ignore everything below q200. If a guild want a low-level OP, they should bring a team and actually try to capture it. If players want to create PvP content, they have to bring a team again. This is the essence of the change I propose: teams are OK, individuals should be excluded.

Daomei
In the case mentioned, I know two active players of the guild in question, and do not believe that they intended harrassment.
That same guild attacked Matis 50 OP about six months ago and used the very same scenario I described in my first post. Curiously enough, both Matis q50 and q100 OP's are owned by Remigra's guild. It looks to me they have something against Remigra and her guild and make use of legal opportunity to annoy people.

Edited 2 times | Last edited by Kimmerin (7 years ago)

---

"People let the same problem make them miserable for years when they could just say "So what". That's one of my favorite things to say. "So what". - Andy Warhol.

#15 Added by Nudge 7 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Isn't "harassment of the enemy" part of warfare?
uiWebPrevious12uiWebNext
  
Last visit Friday, 26 April 17:26:02 UTC
P_:

powered by ryzom-api