IDEAS FOR RYZOM


uiWebPrevious1uiWebNext

#1 [en] 

In PvP areas, one group is hostile to another group. It is not possible to change this currently, so friends traveling in large groups through PvP areas might otherwise be cut off from one another or unintentionally damage or kill each other. This breaks the sandbox concept.


Can we have an option for group leaders to declare another group as "friendly"? By necessity, this also means the ability to declare another (friendly) group as "hostile". The default for groups in PvP areas should remain "hostile", just as it is right now.

This does not change group membership mechanics; to speak to members of other groups, you still need to create your own channel or speak in Around. If you are ejected from either group, you immediately become Red to both groups.

To avoid issues and potential griefing (even though it would be legitimate PvP action), the declaration must be mutual. It is also a much simpler design to make it mutual. It might work something like this:

- Leader of Group A chooses random person from Group B and offers friendly status.

- Leader of Group B receives the notification and a dialog box to Accept or Reject the offer.

- If Leader of Group B accepts, both sides become green to each other, may heal each other, and may not attack each other.

- If Leader of Group B rejects the offer, the Leader of Group A receives a notification, and nothing changes.


It should be possible to be friendly with multiple groups.

An optional status window can show the names of the leaders of the groups with whom you are friendly.


"Friendly" and "Hostile" in the context of this suggestion relates specifically to PvP abilities and relations. It does not mean someone is added to your friends list that you like anyone else, or that you don't like anyone else.

#2 [en] 

Well i know there have been problems in the past during events in pr where ppl all of a sudden killed each other non intentonally, but that's good for some laughs so i don't hate that.

but what you say here is that for instance some kami and kara groups should all of a sudden be able to become friends in pr and i don't like that at all.

I also see some faults in this like for instance Team A and Team B become friends a member from Team B is in Guild C, another person not teamed is also in Guild C, what happens if somebody from Team A kills that person?? Or does that person also become green for all? And what if these are diggers and not teamed person from Guild C wants to kill somebody from Team A would that mean that teamed person has to drop his team first because the team leader from Team B decided to join the alliance?

---

#3 [en] 

You can already have Kami and Kara mixed if they're in the same group. This isn't about faction or citizenship. There's already a very complex method for determining who can and can't PvP based on faction, civ, and whatnot.

If, currently, you and I were in a team in PR, and Bina comes along, what happens? Is she Green to you and Red to me? Or is she Green to you, and Green to me also because you and I are in the same team? If I kill Bina, do I become Red to you, even though you and I are same team?

The way it works now is the way it should continue to work. The only difference is that you've just turned 8 Red dots into 8 Green dots. That's it. It doesn't matter to you what those 8 new Green dots do.

An immediate benefit is for treks. Multiple times Ini's treks have spanned more than one group, and in PR, it's just annoying. When I hit Kami 60, the guildies that trekd me to get my PR tickets spanned multiple groups. Mining parties (back in the day) were also more than one group.

Last edited by Erizon(arispotle) (9 years ago)

#4 [en] 

Another, very relevant, application of this type of system relates to the current series of in-game events happening. Marauder convoys are exiting the Prime Roots for destinations unknown on the surface. Players inclined to side with the Marauders are unable to do so; they must sit by and watch their side of the story remain unsupported, while Players siding with the Civilizations group up to fight the convoys.

If this PvP group "friends" idea were implemented, then this event could have become a real PvP event: you flag to participate, or remain neutral to simply observe. Marauder groups could have set each other to green, and Civilization groups could have set each other to green, and then the two groups fight it out. Configure the NPCs not to attack anyone with all civ fames below -25.

(Disclaimer: I am currently a Hominist, though only because I'm too lazy to go cuss the Matis again)

#5 [en] 

+1

---

Noble Jayce
Reaper Leader

#6 [en] 

One problem. Both Kami and Karavan have participated in stopping the convoys. Tagging for PvP would hamper their efforts to work cohesively to stop them. Efforts in ToT were hampered by the GvG PvP zone.Having that carry on into BB would have probably led to the convoy succeeding as there was little time in Void between the leaving of PR and the convoy success reaching Lost Valley 600 meters from the portal.

---

#7 [en] 

Kilgoretrout
Efforts in ToT were hampered by the GvG PvP zone.

I wasn't there, so I'm not sure what the problems were. Was it because of the multiple groups, that the only green (white) dots were those in your own group, everyone else was red, and you couldn't heal others outside your group or tab-target to quickly pick a proper opponent (instead picking up fellow anti-Marauders)?

If you declared every other group helping you to be friendly (in the manner described), then there wouldn't have existed that particular problem. The only red dots would have been the Marauder-supporter groups. That is the goal of this suggestion, anyway.

#8 [en] 

umm yeah, Kil. If I understand the concept correctly this is intended to assist in that type of goal. It effectively allows teams to ally with each other. We can already do this to an extent simply by not shooting friendlies. :p However it's sometimes difficult to know who you're targeting if there's lots of commotion or you're using bombs/AoE. It would also allow us to heal friendly teams.

---

Noble Jayce
Reaper Leader

#9 [en] 

Sorry I misunderstood. I read it as tagging in the current system which would hamper us working cohesively. The problem in ToT was inability to heal down teams.

---

#10 [en] 

This is easily worked around now by being proactive, which is what I do on treks, by making sure that a guildie is in each team (or that there is at least one cross over in every team) as one can heal guildmates of the other teams.

---

Peace, Luv & Cookies,
Inifuss

#11 [en] 

+1

#12 [en] 

+1
uiWebPrevious1uiWebNext
 
Last visit Mon Oct 26 13:00:51 2020 UTC
P_:

powered by ryzom-api