English French German Spanish Russian
Attacking Cities of atys - IDEAS FOR RYZOM - Ryzom Community ForumHomeGuest



#1 [en] 

My Idea for Ryzom is the ability to attack cities. it would be similar to how OP fight will work but it will allow players to recive PvP points.

1-To attack a city it will cost dappers and you can only keep a city for a set amount of time (4-5 weeks). During the time a guild holds the City it can be attack by any other guild. At the end of the Hold time the city will go back to The lands (Lakes, Forest, Desert and Jungle) Ownership.

1.5- Or Rounds needed to win the city Will be Reduced over time. The City will stay in the guilds position until Rounds are met.

2- Guilds that own a City it will be allowed GH access and a TP costing 15-20,000 Dappers/ 15-20 charges. Depending on your faction.

3-It will also provide small scale/ medium scale/ Large scale PvP.

4- If a guild wins the City they have the Option to make the City an Aggressive Zone (PvP) or Leave it neutral so all players can come and go as they please. Killing Attackers or anyone inside of the zone will give you PvP points and Defending your city will provide Guild points.

5- Owners of the City will be able to place gaurds around the city to help defend from attackers. Gaurd can be Q50-Q200 Each costing more dappers as the Quility goes up. this will help if the defenders are out numbered but it wont let the gaurds be over powered and the cities hard to take.

I think this will give players/ faction an alternative to PvP insted of OP wars. this can also give Factions/ guilds Advantages/ Disadvantages For OP wars. You can also apply this to the Games Roleplay allowing marauders to raid Cities and Hero's to take them back. this can open up the world of Atys With new ways to fight and Roleplay.

#2 [en] 

And what about all of the people that don't want to play PvP, don't want to belong to a guild, don't want to belong to a faction, etc.?

I've seen forced PvP get abused in too many games.


Yaandor | Cult of Dgambi | He who walks alone
Atys is a stern and determined teacher; willing to repeat the same lesson as often as necessary.

#3 [en] 

divide the marauder camp into 4 parts and take the parts far away geographically. Make them fight for their camps every day all day. In case of loss, the camp is demolished and the losers are sent to dig dust to rebuild the camp. Packers can be made invulnerable.

#4 [en] 

The scenario you describe can be role-played just fine without any change in the game mechanics. You can have your group fights already, you can role-play the city ruling.

Enforcing that in the way described is something very different and I see that very critical to allow cities be subject to player-rule:

That would make cities just another outpost in terms of gameplay and force PvP onto everyone - not cool.

Additionally, it would not add to the game in terms of existing PvP gameplay: the fights would simply be exactly the same - with the only difference being the name of the fight. Worst of all: player-owned and access-controlled cities would deprive many players of basic game content for the sake of few wanna-be kings and queens. If your argument is roleplay, the whole PvP over the city is not needed.

It's easy to go to war when only the others can loose. Let's approach it the other way around: those who want to fight have to put some of their assets on jeopardy and offer the other players some incentive to attack them. Allow interested players to build-up their outpost. It will give them additional storage, flats and trade opportunities. But they will have to be able to defend it:
The additional storages and flats can be built for lots of mats and dappers. Subsequently they can be used by the owners for additional storage and point-of-sale.

Other players can now opt to either do the now-known OP fight for take-over as we see it now. Player-owned buildings would get a fixed chance to become destroyed when the OP changes ownership.
A new option of OP raid is introduced. It has not such high requirement as an OP take-over. But when successful, it gives the attacker the chance to loot some of the stuff stored in the buildings of that OP - but the OP ownership doesn't change.

Edited 3 times | Last edited by Elke (4 weeks ago)


#5 [fr] 

Du point de vue purement RP, je pense que ça ne tient pas.

On parle de cités. Des trucs de plusieurs milliers d'homins, ou au moins plusieurs centaines. Rien que pour Pyr, j'ai compté plus de 100 gardes en patrouille (mais en vrai, il y en a bien plus, les autres gardes sont dans leur caserne on va dire).

Donc ce n'est pas réaliste de penser qu'une guilde, ou même un ensemble de guildes, puissent détenir une cité, ni même penser se balader dans les rues sans problème. C'est comme les marauds qui squattent les plages à côté de Fairheaven. C'est un non sens du point de vue RP. Ou ceux qui pendant un temps se planquaient dans l'académie impériale pour faire désaggro les gardes, comme si on pouvait rentrer impunément dans l'académie. Une cité aurait tôt fait d'envoyer une trentaine de gardes pour les déloger manu militari. Si elle ne le fait pas, c'est uniquement à cause d'une faille dans le gameplay.

Alors certes c'est tentant de vouloir attaquer des villes. Mais ce n'est pas réaliste. Il y a les OP pour jouer à guilde contre guilde. Prendre un avant poste de la part d'une guilde, alliée d'autre guilde, là ça a du sens RP. Rendons les OP plus RP, avec des dramas politiques, des guilde nations qui cherchent des alliances ou trahissent, des marauds qui se tapent entre eux ou pactisent avec des guilde nations, au lieu du classique kami versus kara dont je pense qu'on a fait le tour.


fyros pure sève
akash i orak, talen i rechten!

#6 [fr] 

des marauds qui se tapent entre eux

Ça fait des années que l'on ce fait nos petites gueguerres intra-maraudeurs, je te rassure. On a même un clan qui a été allier de la karavan et qui a récemment mis cette alliance en vrac, résultat les maraudeurs récupèrent des positions sur les différents territoires. Et le clan aillant briser l'alliance kara est même repartit en conservant l'OP acquit avec la dite-alliance.
Dans le genre coup de pied dans la fourmillière, on est pas mal je pense en ce moment.

#7 [en] 

It wouldnt be forced PvP. if you were to leave main cities can not be attacked. this could also bring strategy when wanting to take OPs For example:

A desert Guild wants to declair on a lakes guild. You can attack a City and now have an advange and a easier way to trek mounts with less chance on Aggro killing all your packers and mounts.

I dont see 1 guild/ faction owning all the citys or making them all PvP zones. this can also open up for guilds to fight without Always having to Declair on OPs to get a Fight. Alot of people will say we have the Arena's for PvP but who other than mara's want to do without any rewards? it can also open up Guilds for new rewards like Being able to buy stuff for PvP/ allowing guild to buy Marauder Crystal or plans with guild points.

#8 [en] 

Ha? Wouldn't that force us to PVP?

What about Rangers ? We don't fight for PvP - do we have a say in this?

And what about the young homins, who are usually in capitals? they would be killed in 1 sec...

I'm not forcing you not to PvP... so please don't force me to be killed because I don't want to PvP...D

#9 [en] 

If you dont want to PvP dont Attack a city and you would be fine. simple as that and if someone wants it a pvp zone dont go there.... For those of us who dont want to Dig all day and would like some type of action without Spending Millions in dappers and Hours on OPs. Just like the OP wars you stay out of it sooo.. do the same with the citys...

People who wants to fight can, those who dont, dont.. But until i either see more tagged players or someways to Fight.. im gonna suggest new ways of pvp.

#10 [en] 

It's not really a new way to fight.

It's a new way to harrass players and take from those who don't want to fight.


#11 [en] 

But I *live* in a city (and not a capital city). This would force me into PvP every time I need to go to my appartment or guild.

I'm not paying a subscription fee to be forced into PvP.


Yaandor | Cult of Dgambi | He who walks alone
Atys is a stern and determined teacher; willing to repeat the same lesson as often as necessary.

#12 [en] 

First of all, Azazor has hit the nail in the head with his remark that proposed gameplay changes must be sensible from a RP point of view. Entire cities cannot be "conquered" by one guild, no matter how much you try to rewrite that sentence:

- Mechanically, it makes no sense, the number of guards is supposed to always outnumber the number of guild members (a real city would not have "just" the 10 guards on duty that you see in Dyron for example).

- Even if we accept that a non-capital city could be conquered, the in-universe reaction from the local ruler would be to nuke whoever dared make an open attack on an entire city. So if a Tryker guild attacked Dyron, in-universe Lykos would immediately ask the Tryker governor to disavow the offending guild (revoke their citizenship status). If the governor refused, Lykos would then say this guild attack is sanctioned by the Tryker ruler, therefore sparking a full-blown WAR between nations.

- Even the marauders would not be safe, exactly due to this: attack any city, and the in-universe retribution should be a march on the marauder camp. Marauders are "tolerated" (RP) only insofar as the individuals are elusive and they don't get captured/tortured.

However, the idea itself is interesting, if changed a bit. I will continue in my next post; if you think I should instead make another thread, please let me know.

Last edited by Laoviel (3 weeks ago)


My home is always sweet Yrkanis..

#13 [en] 

Ok, so, instead of attacking the city itself, I would create a city warehouse/ silo, where the capital's supplies are stored (in-universe explanation). This warehouse would be located near the city, but not within guard range.

Every X real-life days (every week?), an NPC group starts a trek from the warehouse to the city, this trek takes maybe 20-30 minutes in real time.

When the NPC trek starts, nearby players can tag up for attack or defense, just like in an outpost fight. Those tagged for attack can begin to try kill the NPCs en-route, while those tagged for defense can kill the attackers. (again, just like with outposts). The idea is:

- Each dead guard drops some loot -- up to the devs to decide what rewards might be there. Money? Harvestable materials? Perhaps some OP mats even, I'm sure the nations have some stocks of their own ;)

- The number of killed guards is tracked by the game. Proportionally to the number of guards downed, some city services are slowed down in turn.

- For example, lack of materials could cause city altars to "malfunction", and might make kami/kara teleportation to that city to take longer than the usual 15 seconds.

- Or maybe the bar has no supplies, and the barman NPC would not spawn for a few days (this could heavily affect trykers..)

- Maybe the corporal/sergeant in the capital would stop giving missions, because it's "too dangerous" to go out there, etc.

- Defenders should also earn a reward if a certain threshold is NOT reached. Nation points? Dappers? Up to the devs.

- As a PvE route, I would make missions that allow players to donate weapons/armors to the guards, in between treks. This would earn the players some reward (nation points?), and in turn would make the guards more numerous at trek time.

What is hard here is to strike a good balance:

a) Rewards must incentivize both attackers and defenders to participate. "Pvp for pvp's sake" is not enough, both sides need a tangible reward.

b) The punishment on city services must not be too harsh. Players that use the city but don't want to pvp (either because they are too weak, or simply because they are PvE-inclined) should not suffer too much collateral damage. I would make the effects on city services wear out faster than the timeframe between two guard treks.

If you made it this far, thank you for reading.


My home is always sweet Yrkanis..

#14 [en] 

What is hard here is to strike a good balance:

a) Rewards must incentivize both attackers and defenders to participate. "Pvp for pvp's sake" is not enough, both sides need a tangible reward.


It's still a gamble that some players fight for the (in)convenience of everyone.

You seem to assume that PvP is in everyone's interest or has to be - which it is not nor should be. You are trying to force your play style on everyone.

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


#15 [de] 

Sehr schlechte Idee... aber wenn man andersherum denkt:
  • Bessere Belohnungen für das Töten von Marodeuren im Lager (Spieler und NSCs).
  • Marodeure (Spieler) dürfen geplündert werden.
  • Regelmäßige Angriffe auf das Lager der Marodeure durch NSCs und Kitins.
  • Nach einem Angriff müsste das Lager wieder aufgebaut werden, damit man den Stall und ähnliches wieder benutzen kann. Das heißt: Graben, Buddeln, die Hacke schwingen...

Da die meisten Marodeure eher PVPler sind und sowieso eher hardcore unterwegs sind für die Verhältnisse auf Atys, wäre das gar nicht mal so schlimm. Man muss ja nicht alles für jeden möglich machen. Diese tollen Features dürfen dann nur diese ganz besondere Fraktion namens "Marodeure" genießen. Damit würden die Marodeure erstmal zufriedengestellt werden und vergreifen sich nicht an den Städten.


Nicht klicken!

In Vino Veritas

Last visit Sat Jun 6 08:52:02 2020 UTC

powered by ryzom-api