Ryzom Forge meeting report – June 22th, 2020
1 - DeepL
Tamarea (RT) – 20:12 UTC
This is the last time we have to translate on this channel!
Indeed, I am pleased to announce that before the end of the week, DeepL will automatically translate the Ryzom Forge channel, but also the regions (including Silan) and the Universe!
The translation of the universe and RF channels will also work between the game and chat.ryzom.com.
The original version will be viewable:
• from the IG, a flag will indicate the original language and the untranslated sentence at the cursor's passage;
• on RC, there will be one channel per language, and you will join by default the one of your client's language. Of course you can open the other language channels if you wish; the message in the original language will be displayed via a link.
The next step will be to translate the faction/nation channels.
Then we plan to translate the league channels.
Q: What about guild channels? Some guilds host members of many mother tongues, so I think that would be useful for those who don't understand Spanish for example; or for those who speak spanish only (not everyboby is good at languages) but would want to join a guild among the biggests (which are not only english-speaking ones).
A: We're going to go in gradually to see if everything is going well. Then we'll see if we add other channels as needed. But you raised a good point : I'll get the request back to Devs.
Q: What about the private security issue of sending our datas to DeepL? Do you have any contract with them?
A: Yes, we have a contract with DeepL, which scrupulously adheres to the GPRD. Moreover, we only transmit the text, not the sender (and at the moment only on public channels).
Q: Considering the many potential translation errors, could you, please, add a functioning and user friendly way to deactivate automatic translation for RF and all channels translated by DeepL? The current command is not easy to find or use and would be perhaps be friendlier as a checkbox in the user interface… Same request for the joint dysplaying of the original and its translation.
A: The option to disable DeepL on a channel will be added on the second upcoming patch.
Q: Will only official Ryzom languages be translated or others as well, such as Italian?
A: Only the official languages of Ryzom at the moment, because the DeepL language detection is not yet ready and we have not yet implemented another way to choose the language to be translated. But this may evolve.
Q : How much does Winchgate pay DeepL per month for this feature?
A: For more information, see https://www.deepl.com/pro#developer .
2 - Storyline
Tamarea (RT) – 20:48 UTC
The continuation of the Storyline will begin before the end of the week, with the arrival of two new missions to the Nexus: one hunting and one drilling.
This scripted event will then be followed by… I won't tell you what, followed by... I won't tell you what either ;)
3 - Next patch
Tamarea (RT) – 20:52 UTC
The next patch will take place on June 25th, to implement the following.
Fixings
• Fixed outpost history information
• Fixed ranger circle optic and missing translation
• Fixed lot of Translation issue
• Fixed : Rewriting Ranger Aspiration Mission
• Added option in Daily Mission : Player can replace any non-occupation mission by another random (limited to 4 uses)
• Fixed an issue in Daily Mission where sometimes a same occupation can appear twice.
DeepL in game
• Added translations to Universe, Region and Forge
• Removed all language channels (uni-en, uni-fr, uni-es, uni-de, uni-ru)
• Added flags to see the original text and lang
• Added (ticky task!) anti-spam system to prevent duplication of same text
DeepL in Ryzom Chat
• Removed #pub-uni
• Removed #pub-forge
• Added #pub-forge-XY
• Added emoji flags and links to see the original text and lang
• All #pub-uni-[fr, en, de, es, ru] are linked to ingame Universe
• All #pub-forge-[fr, en, de, es, ru] are linked to ingame Forge
This patchnote has just been written and is not yet corrected or translated, but I wanted to share it with you during the meeting.
Q: Aren't you worried that some players may no longer use the Universe Channel? Currently (and most importantly) EN/DEs use the general Uni channel, and FRs use the Uni channel FR. Wouldn't it be better to keep these two channels?
A: Since everything will be translated, keeping the uni FR in addition to the Universe would not be helpful. Besides, if we did that, why not keep the uni DE, ES, RU as well? The implementation of DeepL is not simple, and we wouldn't be able to handle special cases. There must be only one Universe channel for translations to be managed properly.
Q: This is not the point (the DE/EN/etc. Universe does not use DeepL, by definition). But, if other requests for keeping a specific static channel (a replacement dynamic channel would be less user-friendly) arise, would it cost much to satisfy them?
A: I don't have an answer tonight, so we'll have to talk about it later if you don't mind.
4 - Multiboxing
Tamarea (RT) – 21:38 UTC
The change originally announced, i.e. a limitation to 2 accounts connected simultaneously, was only intended to limit the number of multiboxers *using third-party software* to play. Indeed, as we had no reliable technical means to confuse them, we were unable to enforce the Code of Conduct and this led to tensions between players, mixed with a strong feeling of impunity. Limiting the number of simultaneous accounts to 2 seemed a simple but effective way to solve this problem. It is now clear that we had underestimated the other consequences of this solution.
I would like to make it clear that although Tykus was the spokesperson for this decision, as he and I take turns chairing RF meetings and it was his turn to do so, this is neither a request nor a decision by Support. If Tykus is indeed the head of the Support team, he is my assistant too and it is in this capacity that he communicated on this project.
This announcement, which was aimed exclusively at restricting breaches of the Code of Conduct by those using third-party software, and thus reducing the feeling of gameplay impunity, highlighted another fundamental problem related to multiboxing itself. I admit that the title of the topic ("Multiboxing") didn't help.
Following this announcement, many of you have indeed expressed your discomfort because of the authorization on Ryzom to connect 4 accounts simultaneously, mainly because of the feeling of gameplay injustice of those who don't use several alts, but also because of the impunity of multiboxers suspected of violating the Code of Conduct.
Just as many of you have expressed your indignation at the announcement of the limitation of multiboxing to 2 accounts connected simultaneously, mainly evoking the intolerable curtailment of freedom so dear to Ryzom.
A regrettable rift between the two camps ensued.
My role is not to decide and designate a winner, but to hear both sides and propose a solution that is both acceptable to all and meets our initial objective. As much as a meaningful decision is certainly necessary, it is also necessary that it should not further divide you.
The reason I have taken so long to come back to you is that it is far from simple. It means taking the time to read and understand everything, to look for solutions, but also to eliminate some of them after finding that they are not feasible. This is the case for those involving a gameplay limitation of the number of accounts connected simultaneously. However, without this physical means of control, it is useless, even counterproductive, to impose any limitation. Indeed, what would be the point of modifying the Code of Conduct if no control tool allows us to enforce it?
This is why the initial solution, to prohibit the use of more than two alts at the same time, was not viable in any case, even if it had not generated very strong reactions against it.
On the other hand, it's clear that we need to limit the gameplay impact of using multi-alts during the game's "sensitive" activities: outpost battles, hunting bosses, hunting marauder bosses, scripted events. To this end, the best possible solution to date is, in our opinion, the following:
• Limiting multiboxing to 2 accounts connected simultaneously during outpost battles, on bosses, marauder bosses and during scripted events (limitation on the gameplay level during the Storyline's scripted events).
• Tolerance of multiboxing up to 4 accounts connected simultaneously in other cases: setting up levels, roleplay...
In all cases, the use of third party software to control simultaneously connected characters is of course forbidden.
During outpost battles, bosses and marauder boss hunts, in case of abuse send to Support a screen showing more than 2 alts present simultaneously.
This transitional solution is not perfect and does not solve the problem of using third-party software, but seems to be a viable compromise between the demands of both sides: freedom is preserved when it does not cause a strong gameplay injustice.
We will be able to make this solution evolve when gameplay allows us to do so, remaining of course open to your ideas.
By the way, when I presented this solution to the Ryzom Team, it brought out some very interesting suggestions of gameplay limitations that we are currently studying. Thus, as the gameplay changes, the limitation of the use of alts on OP, bosses, marauder bosses and scripted events will be done on the gameplay level and not manually anymore.
What's your opinion on this compromise in order not to get bogged down in the current situation, knowing that we'll make things evolve, in consultation with you, as gameplay changes occur?
Q: I would like to ask for clarification about "bosses". Does this include nameds?
A: No, bosses only.
Q: When will this change be implemented?
A: From the day the Code of Conduct is amended, it must be enforced.
Q: Will there be some allowance given us to propose adjustments of the new rules?
A: (New display of the rules in question)
Comment 1 : I just wanted to give my feeling about the "freedom" mentioned in your text: for me, it is the freedom of roleplay and not the right to "do what I want" put forward on the forum by some people, who cry and shout about the abuse of power as soon as they are forbidden to do something.
Comment 2 : You just making your life harder, dear Ryzom Team. You don’t have the ressources to guarantee the good establishment of this solution. You could of have saved these efforts to add something to the game instead. Being bold about the decision and either limit alts to 2 or not is far more beneficial to the game than these semi solution intended to make everyone happy where in reality it makes things worse.
Q: This is going to be a little off topic, but what about, even though Ryzom is old now, advertising Ryzom? I haven't seen an ad for it since I decided to play it back in December 2004. Maybe we won't feel like we need alts if there is actually players to play with?
R : We are starting an advertising campaign and plan to increase our visibility in the coming months.
Q: How is the alt limit on OPs going to be policed?
A: The control will be done after ticket with screen. As the use of 4 alts is a tolerance, in case of a breach on OP the general use of the offending player will be limited to 2 counts at the same time only. What remains a playable situation (transfer between GH and leveling still possible).
Q:Why not ban alts completely from OPs (what was the logic for 1 alt)?
A: If we limit to 0 alt, it supposes that in case of infringement we will have to limit to one character at the same time. The penalty being heavier, it is more difficult to apply.
So don't forget that we are talking about tolerance and not about the right to play 4 alts at the same time; and that Support will be able to apply a restriction to 2 accounts if it deems it necessary, in case of abuse or gameplay penalty of other players.
Q: Would there be a way to cap OPs or Player limite to events like you have for Pei / Dante? Because if it becomes indeed very hard for those who are now outnumbered in PvP, I don't want to do without multiboxing for EVP.
A: It's a pertinent idea, but one that requires reflection.
Q: Can't you adopt a rule (which I think would be a real compromise) imposing only one character per IP address when it comes to PvP? (Except for households that have provided proof that they have multiple players.)
A: Yes, the idea is a good one, but technically difficult to implement.
Comment 3 : * [Player] suddenly became aware of his age and is finally very tired * (Considering the choices made about multiboxing, I'm switching my two accounts to F2P - knowing that one has hardly ever been used. Consider them parasites and ban them whenever you want).
Q: So what if I were to have my stepdad log in 2 of my accounts and use them to heal me in wars and for NPC bosses from his laptop? Would that be ok? Also I would just like to point out that this decision is only catering to the loud voices of a few who dont like losing, and will punish about 6-12 players in total (half of whom dont show up to OP battles anyway) for no reason at all. Payers who have put years of work into developing characters. You are legitimizing an unfounded complaint against us that we create an injustice where there is none. Players who for the most part have supported the game, been part of the community and obeyed the rules are being punished for being prominent and being skilled and putting time into the game. This decison wont hurt the balance and wont get those complaining what they want, but it will save me money (I am not paying for 4 accounts just to dig and kill named) and I, with my friends and my faction, will still win. I mean for gods sake I can't use the 4 autolaunchers I have been working for years on... Oh well... But now I can much more easily use 2 launchers. You think this will stop Karavaneers from kicking the crap out of you? No. Nothing changes. But now we know for a certainty that no matter what we do nothing is safe for us in this game. Not our equipment or our levels or our accounts. Nothing we have can be kept by us if enough people complain about us. When will you again change the rules and take what we have worked hard for away from us next? 2 years? more? less? When is the next time these people stomp their feet and demand rule changes so they might win more?
A: The solution we are looking for is the one that will be fairest for all. I am at your disposal in DM on chat.ryzom if you wish to discuss it (from tomorrow).
Comment 4 : How is this considered a compromise? From what I can see from the 2 camps listed above, one set wanted the reduction of alts, while the other wanted to keep the alts and characters they've paid for and worked to level. Why would you, as a company, choose to limit the number of already dwindling subscriptions to the game?
This change to CoC occurs after people have already invested time and money into multiple characters without addressing the investment people have put into those characters.
A better solution to something like this would be to make sure the rest of the OPs are truly valuable. The current implimentation of several changes to the game have rendered 95% of OPs useless.
If this were the issue addressed, rather than number of accounts run simultaneously, maybe the game would be better positioned to retain more players?
Q: What will be timeline for this enforcement? If it is prior to the ability to cancel a subscription, will there be compensation/refundment of the game time?
A: I'm sorry, but I'm too tired to be able to read and think... I suggest that you write down your questions (including those of the participants who still had some here) and answer them another day.
Meeting closed at 23:22 UTC
---
