Suchen | Login Foren | Neue Einträge | letzten 24 Stunden

IDEEN FÜR RYZOM
uiWebPrevious123uiWebNext

#27 Eingetragen von Daomei vor 1 Jahrzehnt [de] 

{translate}
Gkr (atys)
Lets make this clear once and for all... people dont use forum to trade OP mats, they use IG /tell - this is not a big world where we need to use forums.. we all know each other... and things dont change so often in this game to need a forum to reach people that have OP mats...
Let me make this even more easier: Dont use forum trade for any kind of statistics.

Well, this simply means: There is no abundance of OP mat. I lived in a world where there was, extreme abundance for some classes, though not for all. The world, by population, was even smaller than ours today, people knew one another even better, spoke the same language, and the vast majority logged in the same timezone.

So, normally, there should not have been trade of OP mats over forums, especially as it was really easy, then, to get OP mats by asking, and there was an additional channel (a special event guild) distributing OP mat to guildless players and guilds without OP and faction/alliance.

Indeed, there was trade over forums, to some extent. Moreover, it was easy to obtain the more abundant classes of OP mat that way, while widely unlikely to get those in short offer.

The question is: Why placing a WTB in forums? I read people asking for OP mat in universe channel. Beneath that they were much mocked and derided by some, they only reached readers of unverse at that time. A forum post may be found for a longer period, in any timezone, and is easily translated in different languages. Even Goo translate suffices most times if needed at all.

And a trade offer is communication among peers, without personal, roleplay, or allegiance matters interfering too much. Trade is a link even between enemies, for mutual advantage. And it is not that the trade forums do not work at all, though they are not working well, lamentably. The reasons for are manifold, and exceed the scope of this discussion.

Zuletzt geändert von Daomei (vor 1 Jahrzehnt)

---

Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral

#28 Eingetragen von Gkr vor 1 Jahrzehnt [en] 

{translate}
Daomei (atys)
Hi Gkr,
Gkr (atys)
If I understand correctly you;re saying if we reduce the production of OP mats, we kill the OP wars all together because nobody will invest in owning them?

No, I did not, and I fail to see that this would follow. In my opinion, reduction of OP mat production would most probably not increase or decrease the frequency of OP wars as it did not in the past. The fusion has radically reduced OP mat availability without leading to lots of OP wars.

The starting point of my comment was Mjollren's proposal to reduce OP mat production. He seemed to conclude that lack of interest in OP wars stems from abundance of OP mat. So his, not my idea was to reduce OP mat production to incite more OP wars.

I did not comment on OP wars, rather on the alleged abundance of OP mats, similar as Bittty did. If there were too many OP mats, some would spill over into the markets. They do not. Instead, few are given to friends, here and then, sometimes irrespective of faction allegiance, mostly inside factions.

My point was that, if OP mats were abundant, trading (RL) hours of ingame activity like digging grind mat or occupation certs/produce would be a valid currency for trade. Playtime is possibly the most valuable resource for many players: e.g. all who do not love digging or cert grabbing grind and have limited time to play the game, maybe PvP or similar.

Therefore, I conclude that there is no abundance of OP mat. There is rather shortage, not only by higher numbers of players, but also by the devaluation of rubbarn and armilo OPs after merge.

Hope it is clearer now. Greetings.

Yes, it did.

Well.. what Mjollern is trying to do here.. is find a way.. to make kamis stop creating this huge alliance between each other.. making the OP wars... dull...

---

#29 Eingetragen von Gkr vor 1 Jahrzehnt [en] 

{translate}
Daomei (atys)
Gkr (atys)
Lets make this clear once and for all... people dont use forum to trade OP mats, they use IG /tell - this is not a big world where we need to use forums.. we all know each other... and things dont change so often in this game to need a forum to reach people that have OP mats...
Let me make this even more easier: Dont use forum trade for any kind of statistics.

Well, this simply means: There is no abundance of OP mat. I lived in a world where there was, extreme abundance for some classes, though not for all. The world, by population, was even smaller than ours today, people knew one another even better, spoke the same language, and the vast majority logged in the same timezone.

So, normally, there should not have been trade of OP mats over forums, especially as it was really easy, then, to get OP mats by asking, and there was an additional channel (a special event guild) distributing OP mat to guildless players and guilds without OP and faction/alliance.

Indeed, there was trade over forums, to some extent. Moreover, it was easy to obtain the more abundant classes of OP mat that way, while widely unlikely to get those in short offer.

The question is: Why placing a WTB in forums? I read people asking for OP mat in universe channel. Beneath that they were much mocked and derided by some, they only reached readers of unverse at that time. A forum post may be found for a longer period, in any timezone, and is easily translated in different languages. Even Goo translate suffices most times if needed at all.

And a trade offer is communication among peers, without personal, roleplay, or allegiance matters interfering too much. Trade is a link even between enemies, for mutual advantage. And it is not that the trade forums do not work at all, though they are not working well, lamentably. The reasons for are manifold, and exceed the scope of this discussion.

I have no problems using the forum... for tradings.. I have friends that used it... all I'm saying.. I already know people that know people that have stuff I need... but if you dont... I guess you could either use uni channel/ask a friend or use forum...

---

#30 Eingetragen von Bitttymacod vor 1 Jahrzehnt [en] 

{translate}
Gkr (atys)

Hey there... I totally respect you as a player and all that... but... all this coming from you, as a neutral player not engaging in any PvP... welll it's kinda dry...

You have almost no real experience when it comes to OP and PvP (that's my understanding, sorry if I'm assuming wrongly) and I'm only attacking your statements because I have seen this pattern before, ie:

people with no PvP/OP war interest telling what is good and what is bad... but you dont know how it feels when you are 30 vs 80 - once you do PvP, once you get involved I'm sure your perspective will change because you will realize some things the way they are right now, make a lot of other futile.

So if I were you I would keep my statements a bit more general than saying "this is horrible idea" - Why? we are trying to find a way here to make the OP wars more interesting as in, divide the armies - and by that I mean, each fraction have equal opportunity.

So please join the conversation but be realistic about what you can put on the table and what not...

Gkr --

From (IRL) 2009 to 2012 I (Bittty) was first a member and then GL of a small Tryker/Karavan guild on Arispotle and participated in numerous OP battles.  Almost every time I was on the losing side.  I fought to defend Tryker and Karavan holdings and I fought against the Marauders when they were first being introduced.  I have participated in PvP. I didn't like it much then but the few times the teams I was on prevailed there was a momentary rush. However, my position on who to defend and attack was clear. I supported my nation, my religion, my friends.

About halfway through that period the guild split. The leaders changed from Karavan to Kami and I was left holding the original guild as GL and managing the Psykopla Knoll OP. I spent a deal of time offering the goods from it to anyone who needed them (The cats were pretty worthless, but newbies could use them, and the q50 armilo was actually worth something back then.).

There really was a glut of OP mats and cats in Arispotle at that time, but I was the only person in my time slot who offered them up to homins who could use them.  (I was informed that there was one other guild (in a different time slot) who regularly offered cats, but that was it.) 

That aside, I did trade for other cats from time to time and I did have friends who paid me for my services in OP battles with q250 cats and the occasional bit of greslin or other OP mats (the big weapons OP mats, of course, I never saw even at that time).

There was a Kami alliance on Arispotle, too. What finally broke it on Arispotle was not economics, but personality. If the leaders of the current Kami alliance work well together and use both real rewards and roleplay equitably, nothing will break it.

To bring this up to the present day, I regard myself as a midlevel RP person. When the Second Great Swarming occurred, I decided that Bittty would be disenchanted by what he saw during the Exodus and during the years of waiting and would work to avoid PvP and to become friends with all Nations and cults. (The actual introduction of the Ranger pseudo-faction was just gravy.)
Gkr
Bitttymacod (atys)
Mjollren -- I am not interested in acting to "create the right climate for the powerplayers" (whatever that might mean).  I just want to keep the possibility open that a social person like my GL might score a piece of armilo or two from time to time. Drastically reducing the number of OP mats means that will never happen.

--B

Bah, so in the end you dont mind about the way is implemented right now because "it works for you (tm)". that is very, very selfish.............. but then again... I wont judge you... fight for your interest.. and I appreciate that you made it clear that is just a personal reason why you dont agree with Mjollren's idea.

But, Gkr, the current implementation doesn't "work for me", and I am most certainly not being "very, very selfish." I get nothing except what my social GL can obtain and share (which is very little). My statement above says exactly what it says. I don't understand what Mjollren meant by "powerplayers", but if he just meant "active PvP players", then I don't want to make PvP any more important in the game than it is now, and I certainly don't want to create an elite class of "powerplayers" who work to crush their foes in that theatre of operations.

My position is not just one of personal interest. There are a lot of players out there who are not "well connected" and who have even less chance than I do. Of course I work for my own self interest, but I also think I am looking out for others. The whole thesis of this proposed change is that people will do that very thing. I think that thesis is flawed, and have tried to point out why it is flawed because it is based on the assumption that there is a surplus of OP mats when that doesn't exist.

What I am saying is that there is not a glut of OP mats and that if the OP battles need sprucing up, reducing the number of mats even further is NOT going to help the game as a whole. What might be interesting is to enforce the guild vs. guild aspect with a guild change block to either side of the battle. That might, and I do say might, encourage mobility and faction breaking. (I have seen this in another game and it seems to work, but in that game the membership rolls of all guilds are open knowledge so you have a chance to see the enemy building himself up.)

I have accepted the thesis that the status quo is unsatisfactory in terms of both availability of OP mats and in terms of the chance for PvP players who are not of the "currently winning faction" to have a chance at a fun, evenly matched, battle. What I am criticising is the proposed method to solve the problem.

--Bittty
---
P.S. Thank you, Gkr, for generally maintaining a respectful tone. I hope that you understand my tone to be the same; strong disagreement, but no personal malice.

Zuletzt geändert von Bitttymacod (vor 1 Jahrzehnt)

---


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>

#31 Eingetragen von Mjollren vor 1 Jahrzehnt [en] 

{translate}
Powerplayer is a specific term in the mmorpg genre, best explained by its opposition to the roleplayer definition.

A roleplayer will define a role for his character and create a persona that best fits the story of that character; their decisions are made in order to fulfill an image rather than to be efficient. A powerplayer will seek to make the choices that are best in order to "win" a game via its mechanics, disregarding lore if needed; a mercenary of sorts. A powerplayer seeks power first, and will ally with whoever else can help in that regard.

--

Regarding the "plenitude" debate: I am not comparing the current situation to the past, because I haven't seen the past. But I do know the present, and whether or not you regard it as scarcity, it's apparently still good enough to keep together some 10+ guilds across 3 languages.

Hence the proposal to make sharing impossible unless you disregard your own guild and give others stuff first. Either way it's going to create frustration with players, encouraging them to be more individualistic and more pragmatic in their approach.

Zuletzt geändert von Mjollren (vor 1 Jahrzehnt)

---

#32 Eingetragen von Daomei vor 1 Jahrzehnt [en] 

{translate}
Mj, I see your point. Yet please take in account that you are looking at one of at least 4, if not 5 "factions":

- 1. The Kami alliance holding the majority of OPs
- 2. The Karavan alliance holding much fewer OPs - you know about them from hearsay
- 3. The marauders holding practically no OPs - same as above
- 4. Neutrals holding no OPs either though sometimes allying to the one or the other side
- 5. Neutrals not participating in PvP

So how do you define abundance of OP mat? which of the above groups enjoys?

Scarcity of mats will, imho, result in

1. getting less
2. getting few
3., 4., 5. getting nothing

Given the existing balance of powers, where should that make a difference?

---

Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral

#33 Eingetragen von Mjollren vor 1 Jahrzehnt [en] 

{translate}
"1. getting less" is an overstatement, would be "every member of 1. gets little to nothing". At which point simply changing faction and defeating your old allies is the more efficient way to get OP mats (less people to share with).

Yes, on the short run the less populous faction is disadvantaged. On the long run however, it starts growing in members; right now, on the long run it's bleeding players (they either quit or go kami).

---

#34 Eingetragen von Daomei vor 1 Jahrzehnt [de] 

{translate}
In other words, the result would be that only those of the strongest alliance would get everything, the rest nothing.

My bet ist that the result would be that those in the strongest alliance would stick closer to it, getting at least a chance to grab one of the scarce mats or at least some benefit from like a rubbarn weapon or a boosted armor if not the mat proper. The rest would not get anything, and no chance to get it via trade or even friendship.

Typical lose-lose situation immobilizing OP situation even more.

Zuletzt geändert von Daomei (vor 1 Jahrzehnt)

---

Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral

#35 Eingetragen von Mjollren vor 1 Jahrzehnt [en] 

{translate}
It's self-limiting: the more an alliance grows, the longer you have to wait for your share. Consider a simulation with 8 available rubbarns per month and 72 masters spread 32-24-16 over 3 factions. You can replace master with guild if you wish.

If Ginti is held by the largest faction, that's a waiting list of 4 months (32/8) to get a new piece assuming owners give to everyone without holding anything. Instead, should the players redistribute 24-24-24, the wait time goes down to 3 months. Should everyone decide to join one faction, you're looking at a waiting list of 9 months, at which point the materials are not worth the waiting time.

Moreover, if a faction is able to win despite a numeric disadvantage (certain players brag they can), then they might actually satisfy their members in a very reasonable time. Any player looking for a faction has to think very hard before joining a group that's already large: (s)he'll get very little in return for the effort.

Of course your bet that people are rather risk-averse is a valid one, but I think given the right reward, they will actually do something to get it sooner than later. My bet is human nature .. greedy and wanting to have shiny stuff ASAP.

Oh and I'm obviously not counting neutrals who don't PvP. If bosses are locked in PvP regions (LoU), OP mats can be locked too. A neutral who wants to help a side is always welcome to negotiate compensation in return.

---

#36 Eingetragen von Bitttymacod vor 1 Jahrzehnt [en] 

{translate}
Mjollren, let us consider your simulation.

You omit one small(?) factor. If your plan works to encourage OP battles and hence switchovers, then no one will hold an OP for four months, three months or perhaps even two months! As a result, in your evenly matched scenario (assuming totally scheduled distribution by the holding guilds as you do) the distribution time is not going to be reduced, but increased since those masters will not get any mats while their faction/alliance/etc. does not hold the OP.

If they stick to the large alliance as they are currently set (by your example) the alliance will almost certainly continue to hold the OP, so they will get their rubbarn in 4 months (a time period which already feels "too long; don't bother").

If they split up and the evened out groups share the OP on a inter-battle time of 2 weeks and a switchover every other battle (i.e. every month) (and assuming that each of the three groups holds it an average of 1/3 of the time), they will get their rubbarn in 9 months (plus or minus a bunch due to random factors). (I could do a full-fledged simulation with a random number generator, but that value should be the right order of magnitude; it is certainly going to be longer than if they stayed put.) Further, the more OP battles there are, the worse the situation becomes due to the startup delay in drill generation of mats.

If the idea is to have OP mats as a reward for holding the OP, cutting down on the supply doesn't work.

And I think that you still have not shown that there is a surplus of OP mats.

---


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>

#37 Eingetragen von Suboxide vor 1 Jahrzehnt [en] 

{translate}
Burn the Ops, burn em all!

---

#38 Eingetragen von Joabu vor 1 Jahrzehnt [en] 

{translate}
Suboxide (atys)
Burn the Ops, burn em all!

+

---

wir sind nicht dazu da, neue Wege grosser Entdecker zu beschreiten,
sondern wir machen unsere Wege selbst, um sie zu gehen

#39 Eingetragen von Afriel vor 1 Jahrzehnt [en] 

{translate}
Sorry to hijack the thread:

I just have a weird idea on how to increase op wars. What I observed from the current setup is that a reward is lacking.

Supposed we change the mechanics and add something like:
1st phase
- every round an attacker wins, will get 1 mat the OP produce
- the max mats the attacker can get is the current threshold of the OP

2nd phase
- attacker can not get anymore mats as max mats was obtained on the 1st phase

Again, I'm sorry if I hijack the thread, but I think this will make more sense, it is more realistic since the attacker won a round then there is a possibility that the attacker looted something. Hehehehe. I think this will increase OP wars.

Zuletzt geändert von Afriel (vor 1 Jahrzehnt)

---

#40 Eingetragen von Daomei vor 1 Jahrzehnt [en] 

{translate}
While I think that 1 mat per round is too much (far above the production potential, and inviting abuse by handovers), the idea might be not so bad.

But I leave that to the experts to comment.

---

Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral

#41 Eingetragen von Bitttymacod vor 1 Jahrzehnt [en] 

{translate}
With admiration for Adriel, I have taken his idea, and developed it further, posted to a separate thread to allow this thread to continue un-hijacked.
--B

---


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>
uiWebPrevious123uiWebNext
  
Last visit Donnerstag 14 November 05:37:45 UTC
P_:G_:PLAYER

powered by ryzom-api