DISCUSSIONS AROUND ONGOING PROJECTS


Do you agree with the four proposals detailed in this first post? / Approuvez-vous les quatre propositions présentées dans ce premier post ?
I agree with proposal 1. / J'approuve la proposition 1. 21 (1)
9.2%
I disagree with proposal 1. / Je désapprouve la proposition 1. 29 (4)
12.7%
I agree with proposal 2. / J'approuve la proposition 2. 50 (5)
21.8%
I disagree with proposal 2. / Je désapprouve la proposition 2. 8 (1)
3.5%
I agree with proposal 3. / J'approuve la proposition 3. 49 (6)
21.4%
I disagree with proposal 3. / Je désapprouve la proposition 3. 8
3.5%
I agree with proposal 4. / J'approuve la proposition 4. 53 (5)
23.1%
I disagree with proposal 4. / Je désapprouve la proposition 4. 7
3.1%
Andere 4
1.7%
Sich enthalten 4
Die Umfrage ist beendet
uiWebPrevious1234uiWebNext

#34 Melden | Zitieren[en] 

Yes yes, whatever :)

First, you are preaching a converted (this game good, and it is also a waste in my opinion).

Guys don't feel insulted or anything right, but you need to see what Ryzom is for real, and the reality of the game business and clients expectation in 2019 (modern era).
Where even retro game need to be intouch and is matter to surf on.

That all, it is not against you personally.

Glad you are hooked to this game and its really nice but it lack interest for thousands reasons and it is proved.
If you are retired or under linux, it could be a cheap solution to ease your mind in a (not so)mmo(not so)rpg :P

Until the day we have 500(+) players on the server, it is the reality, and ill be glad this day to backup this comment ;)

---

#35 Melden | Zitieren[en] 

The whole current outpost system is a nest egg for pensioners.

Imagine...
* Throw out the entire current outpost implementation.
* Remove all TPs and respawn points from PR.
* Make PR full open GvG, required, not optional.
* Have all outposts in PR available on a first-come first-served basis, simply by whoever constructs buildings there.
* Whoever pays the dappers to construct the outpost building gets the building.
* Building starts at low HP, half full.
* Once the building is regenned to full HP (constructed), it can be upgraded, again using more dappers.
* Anyone can attack to destroy outpost buildings at any time.
* A free-for-all placement of guard buildings and towers by anyone, anywhere, in PR, for a fair amount of dappers, with inventory space for launcher ammo (or for digging).
* All upgraded buildings can spawn a specific amount of decent guard NPCs at a specific rate, NPC type and strength depending on the building type and construction level.
* Buildings can be repeatedly upgraded to higher levels, for higher amounts of dappers, as soon as each construction phase finishes.
* Regular waves of Kitins who may massively take over an entire PR zone.

5 mal geändert | Zuletzt geändert von Kaetemi (vor 6 Jahren)

---

Kaetemi

#36 Melden | Zitieren[en] 

Kaetemi
* Building starts at low HP, half full.
* Once the building is regenned to full HP (constructed), it can be upgraded, again using more dappers.

I had a similar idea that I explained to some people. Everyone was interested by the idea :)
There is a lot to do with outpost to give them real values.

#37 Melden | Zitieren[en] 

Kaetemi
* Throw out the entire current outpost implementation.
* Remove all TPs and respawn points from PR.
* Make PR full open GvG, required, not optional.
* Have all outposts in PR available on a first-come first-served basis, simply by whoever constructs buildings there.
* Whoever pays the dappers to construct the outpost building gets the building.
...
To add to your idea Kaetemi:

Allow players to teleport on the possessed outpost to give building (and the whole system) a great value.

Zuletzt geändert von Revvy (vor 6 Jahren)

---

#38 Melden | Zitieren[en] 

Sinvaders
I had a similar idea that I explained to some people. Everyone was interested by the idea :)

I'm curious to hear it.

Revvy
To add to your idea Kaetemi:

Allow players to teleport on the possessed outpost to give building (and the whole system) a great value.

That may need to be restricted to only serve players who don't have DP - to avoid the 'infinite lives' battle.

---

Kaetemi

#39 Melden | Zitieren[en] 

Kaetemi
That may need to be restricted to only serve players who don't have DP - to avoid the 'infinite lives' battle.

What do you think about this ?

A respawn limitation counter, in each outpost zone (like 20 respawns let's say - adjustable by design)

If the PvE env or the opponents get you more than 20 times before you reach your goal;
You are losing the possibility to respawn on this outpost zone (tactically you may respawn on another outpost zone).

So the outpost can be taken over.
And it will push people to be rewarded in the survival, favor the escape route to counter attack somewhere else.
Instead of spawning, heal and comeback infinitely.

3 mal geändert | Zuletzt geändert von Revvy (vor 6 Jahren)

---

#40 Melden | Zitieren[en] 

Revvy
If the PvE env or the opponents get you more than 20 times before you reach your goal;
You are losing the possibility to respawn on this outpost zone (tactically you may respawn on another outpost zone).

So the outpost can be taken over.
And it will push people to be rewarded in the survival, favor the escape route to counter attack somewhere else.
Instead of spawning, heal and comeback infinitely.

Hmm. I think the outpost owners would already be at a tactical advantage from simply having the outpost, and the accompanying NPCs.. The attackers still have to spend time to destroy the outpost building -- for a well upgraded outpost this may already take longer than traveling an army back to the outpost. Also throw in healer NPCs (spawn yourself a healer squad instead of respawning), and you've got yourself a pretty nice fortress. Giving the defenders a 'multiple rounds' advantage seems a bit too much 'easy mode' and may tip the balance too much.

Let's say you have a pretty good guild with a nice outpost, and some allies. You've got another guild attacking your outpost with their allies[*]. Your guild can quickly port into the outpost the first round to do the initial defense, together with NPCs -- at this point you have a guild with their allies attacking vs. a guild with NPCs, which can be relatively fair. Your allies are traveling in. Perhaps you fail to defend your outpost, and you all die. Maybe you have your allies tactically wait for your team to join up, or you have them advance. Either way, let's say the opposing guild destroys the outpost building. At this point they can build and have a weak non-functional outpost building -- and now they become the defenders. However, as long as the buildings are not constructed and not upgraded, they cannot get the NPCs yet. You are at this point still completely capable of regaining your outpost, by attacking it, and neither guilds have an advantage now.

Though, if one of your allies happens to have an outpost nearby, it can serve as a regrouping base... Perhaps they could even dispatch their NPC guards.

[*] An alliance system between guilds. Works like making facebook friends. In GvG anyone should be able to heal anyone directly, and allies can still be attacked directly (betrayal!), but AoE healing spells should only affect guild members and allies, offensive AoE should only affect non-allies.

At some point the whole process becomes a battle of resources. Either guilds fight each other to attempt gaining whatever they can gain from outposts, but they end up draining each other's resources.. and in the end the Kitins win... or... There should not be any artificial boundaries or disadvantages to launching an attack, to ensure that a stalemate doesn't develop. :)

2 mal geändert | Zuletzt geändert von Kaetemi (vor 6 Jahren)

---

Kaetemi

#41 Melden | Zitieren[fr] 

@kaetemi: I'll look for the small pdf i have written and will put it here.

#42 Melden | Zitieren[en] 

love those ideas kaetemi, but if you make all of pr pvp, surface sup's are a must to keep the game fair for rangers and other pve only players; if not they would never have fair access to sup dug mats when all of pr was forced pvp with op's and whatnot everywhere. surface op's could be kept but limited to 150 max Q mats (making it very friendly to f2p's and low level players), and keeping PR a high level zone and giving it appeal for the multi-masters because all op mats 200 - 250 are only produced at the PR op's) in this we've covered the low level limited f2p and noob community that could be, and the well established long standing multi-master played since beta 15 years ago player alike.but i'm just a ghost speaking my thoughts ;)

---

Remickla (atys)
Other games - they give you a cookie whether you succeed or not, in fact you don't even have to participate. Ryzom takes your cookie, eats it in front of you, and slaps you 2 or 3 times for bringing a cookie in the first place.
What Cookies is about ---- Contact Cookies ---- Cookies at Events ---- For Cookies Diggers and Crafters
Useful Links:
cookies approved referance data, guides, and more. --- ryztools web version --- talkIRC forum post table of contents

#43 Melden | Zitieren[en] 

Even if I agree with you both, this obviously something that change the game soooo much it won't be accepted not even reviewed :)
Since the cry and bullstorm after it would be too much to handle for them.

Let it sink into a nice chit-chat between game design dreamer :)

---

#44 Melden | Zitieren[en] 

Aw I missed this poll :(

---




Bisugott(Atys)


#45 Melden | Zitieren[en] 

Talkirc
love those ideas kaetemi, but if you make all of pr pvp, surface sup's are a must to keep the game fair for rangers and other pve only players; if not they would never have fair access to sup dug mats when all of pr was forced pvp with op's and whatnot everywhere.)

The idea comes along with high level PvE-content areas.

No need to nerf an idea because something else is missing. :)

---

Kaetemi

#46 Melden | Zitieren[en] 

Related to proposal 3, removing q50&100 ops, are there too many ops overall? Currently 28, that would go down to 20 with proposal 3. But couldn't we reduce it more, down to 16, if we have just one Jr Op (50-150) and one Sr Op (150-250) per each material? The Ops could produce the same amount of material to increase scarcity, or production could be boosted to increase the benefit of controlling the Op.

Zuletzt geändert von Placio (vor 5 Jahren)

#47 Melden | Zitieren[fr] 

Why not set up one set of OPs for the factions to fight over and another for the PvE folks to fight with the Kitin over.

---

#48 Melden | ZitierenMehrsprachig 

Mehrsprachig | [English] | Français

OP refactoring presentation - 2020-08-31

See https://cloud.ryzom.com/s/pCP3JJgBrrMCgip

3 mal geändert | Zuletzt geändert von Tamarea (vor 3 Jahren)

---

Tamarea
Ryzom Team Manager
(FR / EN / ES)

tamarea@ryzom.com
uiWebPrevious1234uiWebNext
 
Last visit Samstag 23 November 03:38:46 UTC
P_:G_:PLAYER

powered by ryzom-api