Note: It is advisable to read the documents listed in the agenda above before the meeting.
We will answer your questions during the meeting.

Ryzom Forge meeting report – August 31th, 2020

1 - HD texture update

Q : Is it possible to test these HD textures on our computer?
A: Yes it is possible, but for the moment our work must remain in the team, as it is not finalized and the tests to verify its holding in the game are still to be carried out. You could download the PNG files and put them in your User folder, but they are not compressed, so the performance impact (if you see any) will not represent the final version. In addition, some have been modified locally but have not yet been uploaded to the server. Finally, they need to be converted to DDS format to be used by the game.

Q : Would the PBR textures available under Creative Commons on Texture Haven website(https://texturehaven.com/) be interesting for your work?
A: Yes and no: these textures do not fit with Ryzom's artistic direction but some of them could be useful as partial superimpositions in some cases.

2 - New billing service

Q: Will all Worldpay subscriptions need to switch to Xsolla? And if so, within what timeframe?
A: Yes, within a month. Starting in October it will no longer be possible to pay your subscription via Worldpay (that's why the Worldpay option is missing from the interface of the new billing site) but current subscriptions paid via Worldpay will remain active.

b]Q: But don't we have to change the system in three days?
A:[/b] It actually depends on the end of your subscription, but you can change right away, the remaining days will be carried over.

b]Q: Does the price of subscriptions remain the same?
A:[/b] Yes.

b]Q: Nice layout... but would it be possible to have the date of creation of our account displayed again?
A:[/b] Yes, we'll add it on the next update.

3 - Multiboxing

Q: When will the amended Code of Conduct be published (implemented)?
R : During September and you will be notified before then.

4 - Bosses refactoring

Q : Will there be new Bosses?
R : Yes, but they will be new variations of Kings by region rather. If a given species exists in a region, that region is likely to host a Boss specimen of that species.

Q : Will the list of Bosses in the wiki (https://en.wiki.ryzom.com/wiki/Bosses_of_Atys) be updated?
R : Yes, most likely, by the volunteer players who contribute to the wiki.

Q : What about Bosses currently popping on one one spot only, such as Bodokin, Cratchakin, etc.?
R : The particular program that manages them today will not be changed: they will continue to appear, at the same location.

Q : Will there be a frippo Boss?
R : Logically, a frippo King 120 should exist, yes.

Q : Will there be new Bosses on Silan?
R : No, Yubokin will remain the only King of Silan.

Q : Can a Boss pop simultaneously in several regions and/or several ecosystems?
R : There is little chance of this happening. Since a Boss is placed at the "bottom of the stack" when popping, it should not return anytime soon.

Q : Could two Bosses of the same name (i.e. of the same species and ecosystem) but of different levels – for example Izaketh 120 of Oflavak's Oasis and Izaketh 170 of the Dunes of Exile – pop simultaneously in their respective region of the Desert?
R : Again, it is unlikely to happen: a Boss' placement at the bottom of the stack is independent of his level and host region.

Q : Will two Bosses of different ecosystems but of the same species and level (Raguketh 220 and Ragukin 220 for example) be able to pop simultaneously in their respective ecosystem?
R : Yes, with good chances this time.

Q : What about rare kitins? Will Kidikoo disappear? Will Kizarakoo appear?
R : If we let the system work, yes. But Kizarakoo, for example, is still under discussion within the team (shouldn't such a kitin be reserved for an event ?)

Q : If a Boss of a given level (e.g. Izaketh 170) pops (and gets killed) will the next King of the same name to pop be of another level (e.g. Izaketh 120) or not?
R : Yes, the next tests should verify that the system will rotate the levels of the same King at its successive pops.

Q: What about Cratchakyo, which has been on hold for some time?
A: This one was a scripted King, yes... It will stay on hold for some more time.

5 - Ouposts refactoring

Q : "Change owners regularly"... Does this mean that we will be forced to abandon our "home" even if those who covet it are defeated in each of their attacks? With no chance for us to defend it ?
R : Yes this can happen; in this case the outpost will be taken by NPCs. But it will have begun to produce other materials anyway.

Q : In the case of GvG OP battles, is there anything scheduled to prevent the temporary recruitment in the conflicting guilds of members of their allied guilds?
R : Two solutions to address this issue are currently being studied to evaluate their respective side effects:
1 • Authorize temporary recruitment by capping the number of combatants
2 • Make the right to fight subject to a minimum seniority in the guild.
In any case a GvG battle (an option which, incidentally, will not be available immediately) must not be identical to an FvF battle.

Q : How will the type of OP battle to be fought be decided?
R : By clicking on the OP when launching the attack. But the number of GvG attacks per guild will be capped.

Q : Won't the new system only favor the big guilds by allowing them to attack in GvG the small ones that have become incapable of benefiting from the help of their allies?
R : It is true that one of the objectives of the refactoring is to prevent single-member guilds from holding OPs. But, as far as small guilds are concerned, the extent of the damage will also depend on the capping of the number of GvG battles and they will still have the opportunity to conquer OPs through GvE, knowing that OPs thus conquered will not be able to change owner again during the following two weeks.

Q : "GvE: Guild vs NPCs to win the OPs taken by NPCs"… What kind of NPCs will these be?
R : Homins for sure, but the possibility of also having kitins was evoked (and submitted to the developers for consideration).

Q : An OP may be held for its faction by a small guild that has received it as a reward for its help and then takes over the work of extracting and redistributing its materials. If the OP is taken through "easy" GvG by a large adverse guild, the faction will be the one that suffers. Shouldn't the faction, therefore, be allowed to help defend it?
R : If solution 1 above is chosen, the faction will be able to help. If not, it may indeed be necessary to review the organization of the factions.

Q : As all OPs will produce materials from Q150 to Q250, an OP in Fount, for example, will be able to produce exactly the same materials as one in Flaming Forest?
R : Each OP, regardless of its level, will indeed be able to produce materials of all three qualities, but the materials production rate of OP of a given level will be higher than that of OP of lower level.

Q : How will materials and owners rotations be done? At fixed or random intervals? All together or staggered over time?
R : All together (server reboot), at an interval of two and a half to three months IRL, but the exact date will be random. Many mechanisms remain to be specified, however, regarding rotations: they will be detailed to you in a future meeting.

Meeting closed at 22:05 UTC

...

Are these the original 2x scale textures from the PSD of Nevrax artists? Or did you really lose them, and doing an AI upscale?

EDIT: Seems like AI upscale. Looks nice.

Keep in mind, for the 128x128 and 256x256 ground textures, these are actually 127x127 and 254x254 textures. For the small textures, the outer edge is repeated. For the large textures, the middle and outer lines must be repeated. The landscape tiling mechanism expects this for seamless interpolation.

I presume that was to mean that each "alltogether rotation" will need a server reboot.

And is that by IP, or do you check that by PC? My spouse also plays, and for a short while everyone thought that Pixel was another one of my alts.

Would suggest that some OPs (one per perhaps ones near PR access points be reserved for Homin vs NPcs / Kitins under the "stewardship" of the Rangers.   Would be nice to see Rangers who, for the most part won't participate in Homin vs Homin activity,  be able to enjoy such activities too.  To keep the turnover aspect in play .... once the OP is lost, it would have to be retaken by another Guild.

Unless they getting a discounted subsciption price each month, should be a way for them to have comparable access to all content.

Ryzom Forge meeting ( October 12 th 2020)

Date: monday,october 12 th, 19:30 UTC (21:30 CEST)

Meeting places:

• Atys, on the public channel RF

or

• Ryzom Chat, channel #pub-forge-xx (exhttps://chat.ryzom.com/channel/pub-forge-en

Duration: 1.5 hour

Participants: all Ryzom players wishing to join.

Nature: informative, questions & answers and feedback meeting.Topic: Added, in test and ready to be tested projects.

Ryzom Forge meeting (November 16th)

Date: monday, November 16th, 20:30 UTC (21:30 CET)
Meeting places:

• Atys, on the public channel Forge (open the WebIG (Ctrl+W) and click on the “RF” button next to the language flags)

or

• chat.ryzom, channel #pub-forge (https://chat.ryzom.com/channel/pub-forge)

 

Duration: 1.5 hour
Participants: all Ryzom players wishing to join.
Nature: informative, questions & answers and feedback meeting.
Topic: Added, in test and ready to be tested projects.

Minutes of the November 16 2020 Ryzom Forge Meeting

There was only one topic: The changes to the Code of Conduct regarding multiboxing.

Tykus announced the changes, gave links to some translations of the current code of conduct.

It was asked whether Supernode events should be included in the 2-multibox limit. There seemed to be some consensus.

Some players asked for a stricter ban - it seemed like botting was no longer the issue to them, but simply playing more than one character at a time.

Tamarea explained that the current 2-character limit for outpost wars/NPC hunts was a compromise between the players who wanted 4 and the players who wanted 1.

Some off-topic discussion was held about boss camping

There were no resolutions.




Magez has formatted and posted the full content of the meeting below

Can you please split the report into English and French version? This is terrible to read.

Also, I am missing report form the previous meeting.

Moniq, there are many hundreds of lines. I already had to write a program to scrape this much from my chat logs. I'll see what i can do for tidying up that stuff, but i can't promise anything.

Pour information utile il existe une application qui permet d'extraire et de trier les canaux que l'on veut a partir du fichier chatlog

ChatLog decoder

/appzone 1831
(FR) Analyse votre chatlog et vous permet de ne garder que les informations que vous souhaitez. -- (En) Analyzes your chatlog and helps you getting only the informations you want. -- Credit : Kervala / Natara

Ryzom Forge meeting report - November 16th, 2020

sinvaders : his a real translation or is it DeepL?

tykus : It’s translated by a Russian translator from English :)
It’s a real translation :)

Nightviper : will the RT do to enforce the rules? is everything dependent on me recording a video of any behaviour?

tykus : No, sometimes a screen is enough, but the important thing is that players should try as much as possible to sort things out between themselves, support only comes into play if there is no means of dialogue
Support cannot ( and must not ) intervene at all times, it harms the fluidity of the game :)

Nightviper: not about conflicts between players, I’m talking about botting and MultiBoxing

tykus : Viper, we’re talking about multi boxing right after :)




Xiom : What ‘s the point of making a code of conduct with clear rules if the support is not there to decide?

tykus : support will be in the middle, yes, if the players can’t get along, that’s all :)

tykus : For example, a player passes you by followed by a procession of mobs and you die… No need to shout after a CSR, try to contact the player, see if he’s dead too, if he can rez you etc…
if the player answers you wrong, laughs at you, then the support intervenes :)


Sinvaders : if we agree (between players) on something that violates the Code of Conduct, we stay in the game? because it’s resolved between players.

tykus : exactly :)
Good sense always prevails :)

Kyrean : many players must be present for the rule to be accepted; all or just a few ?

tykus : if the players involved get along, the spectator players don’t have to intervene, it creates unnecessary tension :) And that’s not the point :)


Kyrean: if only one player involved doesn’t start with the others?


tykus : If a player is not convinced, he can always make a ticket, the support will then evaluate its admissibility :)

Kyrean says: The rules is flexible at will. It’s blurry

tykus :It’s a rule of common sense… Moreover any abuse of the support can be punished :)

Krill : I have the impression that the rules are there if the players don’t get along.

tykus : that’s it Krill :)


Xtarsia :you phone the police every time you see someone going slightly too fast? no. someone doing 100mph through a school zone? sure.

tykus : Exactly Xtarsia :)
on a game there is less risk for human life anyway :)

Xiom : We’re not going to lie to each other, the bottom line is auto-clicking with the alts … why tolerate alt again? no alt no cheating.

tykus : We can’t compare the highway code to the ryzom driving code anyway…
the risks are clearly not the same :)

Depyraken : one player bother the others, it will always happen (and… fortunately… in fact)… but should we establish too restrictive laws that will bother everyone because of one person?

tykus : We’re also amended the exploit part, adding the security holes… We have also specified that a player who reports an exploit or a security breach, cannot be punished, if he stop using since discovered.

Syron : Players should try to solve problems on their own… without resorting to support.

tykus : I’m talking about the Syron player conflict, right?


Syron : In the case of two players are ok, to steal from each other just to spice up their game a little bit… what happens?

tykus: the people around can send a ticket and we will evaluate if the inconvenience is real or not :P

Syron : but, clearly, there’s so much GM missing that we’re forced to solve the problems between us (and we’re not going to lie to each other, it never works)…

tykus : No Syron, that’s not the point, we get a lot of complaints that could be settled by the players themselves, that’s why I’m pointing it out…
Nightviper : will the RT do to enforce the rules? is everything dependent on me recording a video of any behaviour?

Tykus: We’re equipped ourselves with tools to enforce this rule, and as time goes by, gameplay modifications will make it less interesting to use simultaneous accounts on large phases of the game.

Syron : The tools you’re talking about are tools that allow you to ‘’see’’ which multibox or are they just tools that allow you to limit the number of players in an instance for example? This would not solve the problem of multiboxing detection

tykus :Just to see, to limit the means that have been around for a long time, it’s just the lack of evidence that’s blocking…
Knowing that it is impossible to limit the number of connections to the server efficiently, we have opted for this alternative :)

sinvaders : already been seen that videos don’t help prove someone’s multiboxing.
In some cases, it wasn’t the videos that were missing.

Tykus: that’s why we have tools to check, same for the bot, the videos, in most cases, do not prove 100% the bot, so we chose to ask the suspected player, to now you how he does it :)
No MMO has an effective system against bots…
Syron : indeed, hence the question of how Ryzom intends to fight against bots :p

tykus : none can syron it, they all broke their teeth on it… So we have chosen to ask for transparency from the players :)

Syron : If this decision has been put into place it is because it seems obvious that playing x players at the same time gives a significant advantage to the ‘’competitive’’ gameplay (king/marau etc…).
What is the interest or the logic to keep the authorization to 2 accounts anyway?

tamarea: This solution (limitation to two counts on OPs, marauding kings and kings and tolerance to four counts elsewhere) was chosen because it is the best possible compromise between the different ways of playing


Xiom : one in his corner ok, 2 for an event such as king, op or event it doesn’t make more sense, we clearly favor the rich and clever of the bot.

tamarea : Our new tools will allow us to see who is misusing multiboxing, we will just need a ticket with video to initiate our verification.
The other hand, we are starting to work on gameplay modifications to reduce the interest of multiboxing, especially with the Boss refactoring project.
Players who like to play multiboxing are allowed to do so outside of OP, kings and boss maraus, as long as it is obvious to an observer that they are not bots. Movements must not be they don’t seem to be in sync. When in doubt, we will investigate and will be able to remove the tolerance to four simultaneous counts.
main objective is to make multiboxing ineffective on kings, especially for camping.
Scripted missions, especially those of the Storyline, will also make multiboxing either impossible or ineffective.



Xiom: Tamarea, what will the modified gameplay measures look like?
Tamarea: Xiom you can see the latest report on Boss refactoring here: https://app.ryzom.com/app_forum/index.php?page=post/view/202186

Syron : still doesn’t answer the question ‘’Why continue to give a 2 count advantage over king/op/marau…
tamarea : Syron : we allow two accounts on POs etc. primarily for financial reasons.

Tamarea : We’ re thinking about adding supernodes to the multiboxing limitation. What’s your opinion on the subject?

Jorgensen : i agree it should be in the list
Nizyros :+1we have no other choice at our disposal
Sinvaders : Should be on the list.

tykus : was the last topic of the meeting, since it’s getting late, we’re going to close the meeting :)