English French German Spanish Russian
Respawn Point At GoC: Make it a reality: - IDEAS FOR RYZOM - Ryzom Community ForumHomeGuest

IDEAS FOR RYZOM


uiWebPrevious1uiWebNext

#1 [en] 

Dear all,

it used to be the case that there was, a terrible according to me, but good according to some, excuse that GoC shouldn't have a respawn portal because "it did not connect to anything".

First argument: With the opening of the passage to Silan this argument simply falls back on its track and collapses.A respawn Portal should be added at the GoC area; exactly where the Passage to Silan starts. Reason? Symmetry. (Even Almati has a respawn point if u die for crying out loud). So; score 1 in favor of the portal. (And this reason is borrowed form the phil of science literature).

Second argument: The portal in starting villages also do not connect to anything; but no-one seems to really care. Of course they do not; because they are there out of convention; to make the passage and transition of anyone wanting to enter the capitals easier. But they are there because of convention. So convention is there. For convention therefore; a respawn point should be added to GoC; again at the passage to Silan entry point. So: Score 2 in favor of the portal; by employing convention. (Reason follows from above)

Third argument: Okay; I admit; this is the weakest of the three; and it should be. Fairness and Balance. It makes literally ZERO sense; balance and fairness wise; for all q250 areas to have a respawn point and our beloved GoC not having one. It's unbalanced, it's unfair; it's a travesty!

So, to recapitulate: From 1) Symmetry, from 2) Convention, from 3) Fairness and Balance: For the love of Ma-Duk: Add a respawn portal to GoC where the Passage to Silan was introduced.

Yours,

Star

---

#2 [en] 

I think that's just cuz they learn recently how to make a portal , but.. not sure about it. Would need a Dev or CSR reply.

#3 [en] 

I should be the atypical forum poster ... "It doesn't affect me so who cares ?" !  It is true that I spend less time in forest than any other region.  I never even noticed that it didnt have one ... but then again, Nexus has 3.  I also just noticed that the spawn location on IG Map for Loria is wrong ... it's not in Loria Ponds.Im also not pleased to see the Nexus proposal for Sups unless its made a all access (Desert / Jungle / Forst / Lakes Spec area)

---

#4 [en] 

I am bit confused what you mean by "portal". Respawn point?

First argument:
- You can use TP to respawn there.
- Tunnel from GoC to Silan is not portal.
- Rangers have usually nothing to do with ressurection, it is business for high powers.

Second argument:
- Silan is newbie area, it is expected there is more respawn points so players learn that they need to discover those.
- There are no portals on Silan. Tunnel from GoC to Silan is not portal.
- Rangers have usually nothing to do with ressurection, it is business for high powers.

Third argument:
- Respawn points are on portals leading to other ecosystem. GoC has no such portal. Tunnel from GoC to Silan is not portal.
- Rangers have usually nothing to do with ressurection, it is business for high powers.
- Many other regions have no respawn point. Deal with it.

#5 [en] 

Respawn Point: And it is not the same. So have the higher powers implement the respawn point there; they are higher powers after all; and the rangers ofc fall beneath them. Also I didn't read the memo were it was stated that we have to thank the rangers for opening the passage to silan; where is that stated?

And by the same token; why do we have a respawn point in Almati; at the ranger camp? Because it has "an entrance"? It doesn't connect to anything either. And there are rangers there too...Or there the rangers have a magical power of resurrection but not elsewhere? Oo

Or is it there because of convention? Ofc it is; it would be frustrating digging your occupation stuffs and having to port back there again. And it makes sense; game play first.

b) I wasn't talking about silan; I was talking about Yrk/Pyr/Zora/FH. The respawn points there are put simply for convention. Convention again; and gameplay first.

c) Which q250 area has no respawn point? Again: Game play importance first.

And also this argument bears no merit; just because other areas don't have respawn points; that doesn't mean they shouldn't have. By all tokens and criteria: WoM and EI should have respawn points if we abide by the "connecting criterion". (Examples at the top of my head) Yet they do not? So where is the consistency in that? Or to mention...Why does Dyron have a respawn point at the Kami tp? How/why?

And it's this crappy "deal with it mentality" just to argue for the sake of arguing in favor of a dogmatism that doesn't allow for changes to occur is the point of all the posts.

If by highlighting the inconsistencies and by employing solid argumentation and counter-examples is not welcomed here; or is only met by "The rangers x" then I do not even want to argue anymore.

Who are the Rangers to dictate game play fundamentals; who are kamis; maros; and karas for that matter?

Game mechanics first; the lore can always be justified with whatever u want it to.

Especially given the inconsistencies I just pointed out in my examples.

So I ask again: Give GoC a respawn point; unless the Dev Team or those responsible provide with an argument that makes sense why it shouldnt have one. As I highlighted the connecting argument doesn't work as it was highlighted with my WoM and EI example, neither does the "Rangers have no powers of Res. argument which I guess is somewhat Lore related...In almati; the rangers there, clearly must have resurrection powers or something. Or just admit that it was there because of convention. I understand why you wouldn't wanna go down that road; but let's face the facts here.

It seems to me the placements or some of them; are completely arbitrary. If so; then; make arbitrary placements for the rest. Symmetry and consistency should dictate game play fundamentals; or to put it another way: game play mechanics and fundamentals make or break games; lore comes second.

Also to the "deal with it police": This place is meant to have ideas added to better the game, and also I assume, to highlight it's flaws. To make it better for everyone. I fail to see how something that I have very reasonable arguments to argue for/against, should merit such a response, especially since I got to the trouble to actually present my case with arguments that make sense and incorporate various elements while at the same time highlighting inconsistencies.

Edited 11 times | Last edited by Northstar (2 weeks ago)

---

#6 [en] 

Northstar
...they are higher powers after all; and the rangers ofc fall beneath them.
Not sure I understand. Rangers are no high powers.

Northstar
Also I didn't read the memo were it was stated that we have to thank the rangers for opening the passage to silan; where is that stated?
Totally dont understand what this have to do with respawn point in GoC.

Northstar
And by the same token; why do we have a respawn point in Almati; at the ranger camp? Because it has "an entrance"? It doesn't connect to anything either. And there are rangers there too...Or there the rangers have a magical powers of resurrection but not elsewhere? Oo
Because there is a portal that leads to other ecosystem (prime roots). Same as with all other portals. The reason why Rangers have camp right at the entry... try to guess.

Northstar
b) I wasn't talking about silan; I was talking about Yrk/Pyr/Zora/FH. The respawn points there are put simply for convention. Convention again.
So newbies have at least 1 respawn point when they arrive to ML?

Northstar
c) Which q250 area has no respawn point? Again: Game play importance first.
I didn't say anything about zone levels. I am saying, that there are respawn points on portals leading to other ecosystems. Region without such portal has no respawn points. With some exceptions like major cities.

Northstar
And also this argument bears no merit; just because other areas don't have respawn points; that doesn't mean they shouldn't have. By all tokens and criteria: WoM and EI should have respawn points if we abide by the "connecting criterion". (Examples at the top of my head) Yet they do not? So where is the consistency in that?
Consistency is that there are respawn points on portals leading to other ecosystems. And just because other areas do have respawn points that doesn't mean they GoC should have it.

Northstar
And it's this crappy "deal with it mentality" just to argue for the sake of arguing in favor of a dogmatism that doesn't allow for changes to occur is the point of all the posts.
Call it however you want. True is I think the game should be more hardcore, focus more on roleplay and most of ideas around sounds only like "i am lazy" to me. No offense, but it really looks like most of you only look for advantages for no reason.

Northstar
If by highlighting the inconsistencies and by employing solid argumentation and counter-examples is not welcomed here; or is only met by "The rangers x" then I do not even want to argue anymore.
Pardon?

Northstar
Who are the Rangers to dictate game play fundamentals; who are kamis; maros; and karas for that matter?
What?

Northstar
Game mechanics first; the lore can always be justified with whatever u want it to.
Lore first. Game mechanics can always be justified with whatever u want it to.

Northstar
Especially given the inconsistencies I just pointed out in my examples.
No you bring inconsitences. The consistency is respawn point on portal leading to other ecosystem provided by High powers. You want rangers to provide such work on tunnel. Nothing like that on other place on Atys. THe exception is, from what I understand, is Oflovak's road where high powers do not provide any help and rangers have to care about ressurection themselves.

Northstar
So I ask again: Give GoC a respawn point; unless the Dev Team or those responsible provide with an argument that makes sense why it shouldnt have one. (And the connecting argument doesn;t work as It was highlighted with my WoM and EI example). It seems to me the placements or some of them; are completely arbitrary. If so; then; make arbitrary placements there as well.
And I say not until there is reason to. And, by me, you didn't bring any yet.

#7 [en] 

"Consistency is that there are respawn points on portals leading to other ecosystems. And just because other areas do have respawn points that doesn't mean they GoC should have it."

This proves that there is no consistency. Also the Dyron example.

Well then; if you want Lore to come first and our game to rot abiding by an arbitrary Lore that you people chop up and try to make it fit to your interests while prohibiting actual change; I have nothing else to say. (The bible has said enough about the Lore and how many interest groups here have chopped the game lore to make it fit their "idealized" scenarios)

Finally; just because you don't see any reason not to; that doesn't actually mean that there is no reason. The reasons are there plain as day. Some areas have Respawn Points that shouldn't have by any criterion u can imagine, and some others do not. That's a fact. Your personal belief in the matter doesn't have anything to do with the facticity of the situation.

As such I am asking, and super reasonably, to make everything harmonious, or provide an argument, why that's not the case, aside from excuses. And since respawn points are Game-Play related; mechanics related; stick to that.

And since you dared to bring this point to me: "most of ideas around sounds only like "i am lazy" to me. No offense, but it really looks like most of you only look for advantages for no reason."

We are not lazy; on the contrary; me and everyone who started and promoted actual disussions on various issues that bug us; are the contrary of lazy. Game play wise we have dugged the most sups; so much so we have lost the will to hunt them; the best gear; so much so that we promoted ideas to actual use it instead of letting it rot;participated and finished the top of the top-end content. We just want change to occur so we are not bored. And we want justifications and transparency

So respectfully, do me a favor and reserve your "lazy" and "advantages for no reason" discussion someplace else. Let those who actually have not been lazy have the last word on game play issues; and put your lazy talk on the lore thread.

K thanks

Edited 2 times | Last edited by Northstar (2 weeks ago)

---

#8 [en] 

Northstar
...This proves that there is no consistency. Also the Dyron example.
Nothing against removing such respawn point :) There is more of those I would remove, not just Dyron or Thesos.

Northstar
Well then; if you want Lore to come first and our game to rot abiding by an arbitrary Lore that you people chop up and try to make it fit to your interests while prohibiting actual change; I have nothing else to say. (The bible has said enough about the Lore and how many interest groups here have chopped the game lore to make it fit their "idealized" scenarios)
Eh... what? I said I want changes to follow and fit the lore. And more, that changes should come from the lore. But by you I will be evil dragon eating Atys soon. Or what. ???

Northstar
Finally; just because you don't see any reason not to; that doesn't actually mean that there is no reason.
But by me you didn't bring any serious one to make such change.

Northstar
The reasons are there plain as day. Some areas have Respawn Points that shouldn't have by any criterion u can imagine, and some others do not. That's a fact. Your personal belief in the matter doesn't have anything to do with the facticity of the situation.
And who do you talk for here? Or is all also just your personal belief as well? By me you didn't gave me any reasons to turn me into support your proposal. Only such that bring more inconsitencies you criticize (rangers doing ressurection on tunnel) and those that are not valid (other zones have it, there are other inconsistencies, I would like it).

Northstar
As such I am asking, and super reasonably, to make everything harmonious, or provide an argument, why that's not the case, aside from excuses. And since respawn points are Game-Play related; mechanics related; stick to that.
??? did we change topic or what? I told you why your arguments are wrong:
- Rangers are not HP and do not (usually) provide ressurection
- Tunnel to Silan is not portal (so it will bring even more inconsiztences)

And I am also telling you other reasons from my personal view, like that I don't think there really exist any good reason why we need more respawn points. I represent myself here (and not anyone else as you try to speculate). No wonder all this is my personal opinion then...
Northstar
And since you dared to bring this point to me: "most of ideas around sounds only like "i am lazy" to me. No offense, but it really looks like most of you only look for advantages for no reason."

We are not lazy; on the contrary; me and everyone who started and promoted actual disussions on various issues that bug us; are the contrary of lazy. Game play wise we have dugged the most sups; so much so we have lost the will to hunt them; the best gear; so much so that we promoted ideas to actual use it instead of letting it rot;participated and finished the top of the top-end content. We just want change to occur so we are not bored. And we want justifications and transparency

So respectfully, do me a favor and reserve your "lazy" and "advantages for no reason" discussion someplace else. Let those who actually have not been lazy have the last word on game play issues; and put your lazy talk on the lore thread.

K thanks
Tell me, you master, how many materials do i have to dig and how many experiences do I have to gain before I can dare to disagree with you? Yeah, that was personal. But you obviously take it personally from the beginning so... I can't help myself not to poke you :)

While I seem to be lazy for you, I have nothing else to say. But that will not change my mind in that you didn't bring any serious reasons to add another respawn point to ranger camp in GoC. And I don't see anything wrong on saying that I think some features seem to be only "advantages for nothing". Ok, you are not lazy. Whats the problem respawn on teleport or run back from other respawn point?

You only repeat everything again and again and susspect me to being a terrorist willing doom of Atys or what.

#9 [en] 

Northstar
If by highlighting the inconsistencies and by employing solid argumentation and counter-examples is not welcomed here; or is only met by "The rangers x" then I do not even want to argue anymore.

Inconsistencies you say. Well then let's just take every respawn point one by one. I numbered them and there's exactly 3 cases in which there is a respawn point.




1) Portals to other ecosystems got a respawn point too.
2) Higher Powers put respawn points at the cities in "their" land for their followers, and also for neutrals in capital cities (Desert and Jungle -> Kami respawns at Kami teleports in cities, Forest and Lakes -> Kara respawns at Kara teleports in cities)
3) Higher Powers put respawn points in the capitals of the other lands too, for their followers.

Respawn points missing on the map are the one in Almati and the one Kitin's Lair, both situated at a portal to the other ecosystem (so case 1)


If you want the respawn point at GoC for convenience, fine. I don't really care, it doesn't hurt me to have a respawn point there. But i just don't like "false" arguments.


PS: If we get a respawn point at GoC, we should get one on Silan side of Tunnel too, for "convention".

Edited 2 times | Last edited by Siela (2 weeks ago)

---



#10 [en] 

Siela
Northstar
If by highlighting the inconsistencies and by employing solid argumentation and counter-examples is not welcomed here; or is only met by "The rangers x" then I do not even want to argue anymore.

Inconsistencies you say. Well then let's just take every respawn point one by one. I numbered them and there's exactly 3 cases in which there is a respawn point.




1) Portals to other ecosystems got a respawn point too.
2) Higher Powers put respawn points at the cities in "their" land for their followers, and also for neutrals in capital cities (Desert and Jungle -> Kami respawns at Kami teleports in cities, Forest and Lakes -> Kara respawns at Kara teleports in cities)
3) Higher Powers put respawn points in the capitals of the other lands too, for their followers..
Respawn points missing on the map are the one in Almati and the one Kitin's Lair, both situated at a portal to the other ecosystem (so case 1)


If you want the respawn point at GoC for convenience, fine. I don't really care, it doesn't hurt me to have a respawn point there. But i just don't like "false" arguments.


PS: If we get a respawn point at GoC, we should get one on Silan side of Tunnel too, for "convention".

Point a) has been exhausted; from what was stated I agree. (But even this falls flat; see below)
Points b) and c) are what is contested here. They are placed there because of convention. What I am contesting is that the placement itself is arbitrary; Why do the Higher Powers (in b case) place the respawn portals at the respected capitals and not on HoP or MG, on GoC or UB, at OO or both? We can search and make arguments but the truth of the matter is that there is no truth to be found; even according to the lore (which actually states nothing about Respawn Positioning) the placement itself seems to be made out of the need for convention.

Also: Passage to other ecosystems? What about Hidden Source? What about the great outback? Bona fide examples of respawn which according to lore itself are desert region.

And the kicker? The great outback is tricky in more than one respect; both lore wise and gameplay wise; especially considering that at The Great Outback you can only use Desert Specilaization to dig the mis mat...So according to what criterion does it have a portal? Since the passage to other ecos in this case falls super flat; since by the game itself; both in the lore and in the actual mechanics it's treated like desert. Does it have it because it has a "tunnel"? And if so why doesn't WoM or EI have one? So before you claim "false" arguments; (which cannot be false btw since there is no measurement of truth here), check your facts.

Can I have my "lazy" Respawn Points now?

So yes as exhibited; inconsistencies still abound.

And also...Not to mention...That the respawn points themselves that are in place by x or y higher power but are used by neutrals and/or marauders is itself a product of convenience. I can direct you to a discussion on the issue at the year 2007 where many argued because they didn't want change; like some people do now; that It made no sense Role-Play Wise to add a third faction because of this reason...Look at them now..4 Factions after..And the same respawn points.So yes; arguments still abound.

ps. the discussion can be found here: http://forums.ryzom.fr/showthread.php?t=30940&page=2

And despite everything that is stated in that discussion; you don't see me, or anyone complain about it..It was good for the game and so it happened; even thought it had 0 lore justfication.

Edited 10 times | Last edited by Northstar (2 weeks ago)

---

#11 [en] 

Wow... lotta words but little to the point of the matter.No great mystery here ....   Why does every 250 region have a spawn point except one ?  And if there is not a specific reason for having it that way, what is it ?  So far, not seen that put forward.  "Daddy, why didn't I have a birthday cake for my birthday, my brother and sister did ?"  "Well ya brother and sister's birthdays are in winter and the candles keep the house warm, yours is in the summer and the candles will heat up the house to much."1.  TP... not the same, respawns are free.2.  Ranger tunnel / portal is not a respawn therefore off topic.  It was, to my reading, used to indicate a potential sit ... just as well cuda said "near the big thingy"3.  Respawns are available to all... so factions and ranger tunnels  have no relevance to the conversation.  here wa have in insytance of one person "violently in agreeement" with another.4.  There are respawns in 250 regions are at portals, so what ?  I would assume that the location could be there **if folks wanted to adhere to consistency** but consistency doesn't have to be a hobgoblin ... up near Eastgrove works, Highgrove too.  My take the suggestion is in no way focused on the location, just that people who like to hang in GoC are at a disdvantage.5.  But that's a big part of Ryzom for many, why does every proposal have to be shot down because it doesn't maintain an advantage one has or eliminates a disadvanatge someone else has.  I don't hang in forest, my least fav region in game ... but I sure love having my respawn points, in Scorched Corridor, Void and Loria.  For the folks who like hanging in GoC, they pay the same subscription rate as me so if they feel shortchanged, adding one is fine with me.  What reason could I have for denying a feature(one I enjoy and take advantatge of almost daily) to other player(s) ?  When i started playing, "deathports" were the only way to travel ... why should those who want to deathport to GoC be the only ones denied ?   Nostalgia moment ... "Please kill me, I want to go to Dyron"5.  Mostly disappointed with the  snarky "it wasn't my idea" or ""it doesn't benefit me so I'm against it" comments.    I have no interest in this issue whatsoever, but I don't feel that every change in game has to be about me; if it is of value to a significant portion of the population and it helps keep them here (subs down 13% this quarter, people), I'm for it.   Who is harmed in any way, shape or form ?  And if ya not harmed, WTH put all that time and effort into arguing against it ?   This "deal with it" mindset is historically uncharacteristic of the Ryzom community ... something Ryzom always used to be noted for."Daddy, all the kids at the bus stop have raincoats, can I have one to ? ... my clothes are still wet from this morning" ... "Ahhhh.. deal with it !"

---

#12 [en] 

Moniq
Oflovak's road where high powers do not provide any help and rangers have to care about ressurection themselves.
There is vortex there to Loria tho, I used it myself =P

Fyrosfreddy
(subs down 13% this quarter, people)
Where does this info come from? Could be just related to summertime (I hope).

Northstar
especially considering that at The Great Outback you can only use Desert Specilaization to dig the mis mat...So according to what criterion does it have a portal?
Oh, this is really good point tho. In HS this happens too, desert dig mats, but forest named mats. Hmm, nowhere else would I put the vortexes in there tho, but gotta have some to get ...from desert to ...bigger desert.

---

#ROAR

#13 [en] 

Jahuu
There is vortex there to Loria tho, I used it myself =P
Even if there was a regular portal, still High Powers do not provide ressurection in that area. That's what I was told by rangers and that's why rangers have rescue teams on Oflovak's road..

#14 [en] 

Moniq
still High Powers do not provide ressurection in that area
Oh, true.

---

#ROAR

uiWebPrevious1uiWebNext
 
Last visit Fri Aug 17 12:59:40 2018 UTC
P_:

powered by ryzom-api