Ryzom Forge meeting report – June 13, 2022

1 - Feedbacks about Outposts Refactoring

Ulukyn (RT) – 19:38 UTC

Considering the way the first cycle is going, we have already decided to reduce the length of the bidding period from two weeks to one week as of the next rotation of materials.
But we are still curious to know the thoughts and suggestions that this first experience has inspired to you, the practitioners. The floor is yours, then!

Q: It is a pity to have to bet without knowing what exactly you are betting for (bidding period) or, later (period following the recapture of OPs in GVE), to have to attack in GvG or FvF an OP without knowing what it produces. In both cases, these are too risky bets. To find oneself owner of an OP producing only Q200 material after the effort made for the hardest conquest is very disappointing. Couldn't we make public the production of relevant OPs once the bidding period closed?
A: A bet is, by definition, more or less risky. As far as level 250 or 200 OPs are concerned, you are indeed faced with a dilemma: abstain in order not to risk the disappointment you point out (and stick to bidding on level 50 outposts, for example) or take it in order not to miss the chance (which is not negligible, despite all) of obtaining Q250 materials.

Q: As it is logical that the "richest" OPs are the best defended, would it not be preferable that the difficulty of a GvE battle be based on the quality of the production of the OP it concerns rather than on its level (that of the region where it is located)?
A: No, because small guilds must also have their chance, so they can bet on an outpost knowing they can conquer it with a small troop. Bets are made on the quality of the materials produced (bidding on a 250OP exposes to a bad surprise, on a 50OP to a good one) but the difficulty of conquest cannot be risky, except to let play only the big guilds with big needs.

Q: Shouldn't there be a maximum number of GvE attacks allowed for guilds to take back from NPCs the OPs the bids have assigned to them, so that the OPs don't remain blocked (forbidden to GvG or FvF attacks) for too long? Couldn't we agree, for example, that a guild, after two failed GvE attacks, let another guild attack in GvE before, if necessary, being able to attack a third time in GvE?
A: Yes, this is a proposal we will think about. In fact, another proposal to make GvE less difficult has been made and is under consideration: that attackers should not lose a "Max Level" when they lose a round (so conquering an OP at threshold 7, for example, would require winning only 8 rounds). In fact, we'll probably review GvE attacks to reduce the mentioned blocking time, whether it's due to NPCs being too resistant or too many failed attacks.

Q: Many regret the previous system, where guilds had more freedom, were less subject to rules and deadlines. Because the present system is slow: for example, the GvE recapture of the whole of OPs concerned in the present cycle was completed only recently and no FvF battle has yet taken place... Couldn't the system be simplified to speed up the operations?
A: We've had similar feedback, yes. The operations of the current cycle have indeed required more time than expected (probably because this is the very first cycle: once the rules are stabilized and assimilated by the players, let's say within three cycles, the regime will be more sustained). Moreover, it is not impossible that we extend its duration in order to complete our observations and make the necessary adjustments for the second cycle.

Q: During GvE battles, we get bored between two squad pops (low level OPs or first rounds of high level OPs). Would it be possible to add a button to the OP window, accessible only to the guild leader and allowing him to request the sending of the next squad? It would shorten the dead times…
A: We agree with the observation and will discuss the proposal.

Q: It would make more sense if the amount of Q250 materials produced by 250OPs was greater than the amount of Q200 and Q250 material produced by 150OPs. Better yet, since low quality materials is not very useful, shouldn't every OP produce only Q250 materials in a quantity proportional to its level?
A: There is a concern that if this last proposal were adopted, the 50OPs would lose much of their appeal, since they could then only produce one unit of Q250 materials per week. But we will give it serious consideration, yes.

Q: Does a guild that abandons an OP during the bidding period get back any points to bid? And, if so, doesn't this give the guild too big an advantage (the one, after having noticed that one of its OPs produces materials of no interest, of receiving more bidding points thanks to information known only to it)?
A: Yes. And no: this advantage makes the system more calculable and forces guilds to have as many OPs as possible at the end of a cycle. This contributes to the goal set for the refactoring: making OP battles flourish again.

Q: Couldn't we, to make the bidding period more interesting, credit all the guilds, whatever the number of OPs they own at its opening, with the same number of points to bid but set a maximum to the number of OPs owned by the same guild at the end of the recapture period (GvE)?
A (given the all-out debate between participants initiated by the question): It is reminded that everyone can join the OP Refactoring working group in which all these questions and proposals will be examined and discussed.

2 - Feedbacks about Boss Refactoring

Ulukyn (RT) – 20:21 UTC

And let's move on: any questions, feedback, proposals about Boss Refactoring?

Q: Would it be possible to award a title ("King of Bones" for example) to the players who would have found 1000 bones of killed Bosses or/and to the first one who would have found 1000 living Bosses and to grant an achievement to those who would have killed all the Bosses? And the same as for guilds?
A: Proposals noted: we will think about them!

Q: Today only the leader and his senior officers are informed via the guild app of the results of a search for Bosses. Couldn't we allow all guild members to access this information?
A: Yes, because the restriction was not deliberate (it has no reason for being). And other bugs (in the scaling of Bosses, in the display of their minions' characteristics, etc.) will be fixed too.

Q: Couldn't we display on the bones of a fallen Boss the names of the players who killed him?
A: No: it would not be easy to implement. Moreover the players involved would probably not agree to such a display.

Q: Could the bones of a fallen Boss appear not in the place of his death, but in the place of his birth?
A: No, because that would be implausible (what wild animal perishes in the exact place of its birth?) and would remove all interest in the search for Bosses.

3 - Introduction of Rywards

Ulukyn (RT) – 20:50 UTC

In the next few days we will implement the new Rywards window intended to replace the display of the objects constituting the furniture of the apartments. It has been tested and only remains to write and distribute the announcement presenting it.
As soon as it is implemented, new objects will be available and new possibilities will be offered to apartment owners. Namely: purchase of furniture previously reserved for players of other nations and conversion of their duplicates and other unwanted items into tickets that can be exchanged for new ones.
Your further ideas for furniture enrichment will be welcome!

Q: Possibility to send your duplicates to friends? To host a fourth zig in your apartment?
A: It is noted and we will consider it.

Q: Will the bug that prohibits retrieving or moving furniture placed in the Marauder Camp apartments be fixed?
A: Yes, we have it treated.

Q (off topic): Will the new stats for the faction shield and robe, as well as their crafting plans, be available on this occasion?
A (given the passionate debate between participants launched by the question): Let's move on.

4 - Silan Refactoring

Ulukyn (RT) – 21:12 UTC

The new beginners' isle is now in test on Gingo (so its implementation should not wait too long) and includes :
• some pages enriching the creation of the character by allowing to indicate briefly its tastes and its background;
• a new tutorial area (already in place but empty for the time being);
• a dynamic tutorial organized in lessons explaining the basic gameplay;
• ... and still the sleeping lady (but she doesn't snore anymore... phew).
Other tutorials will be added later (and I'd be happy to have help for their design :D ).
So you'll soon be able to create an "alt" to test all this.

Q: Will the lessons of the new tutorial remain available for reference, or will they disappear after the new player has read them?
A: Yes: they will remain available at any time in the Academic Knowledge section of the Encyclopedia (accessible in-game via the Shift+E combination).

Q: Will the tutorial be completed to accompany new players in their discovery of the continent?
A: Yes, that's what we have planned.

5 - Quality of Life on Atys

Ariald (RT) – 21:20 UTC

I have been inactive for a while, but I am happy to announce that I have resumed work on the next "Quality of Life" patch.
This patch will be implemented in mid-July (estimate) and will include three major changes:
• Adding of pockets
• Refactoring of the Equipment window
• Refactoring of equipable items groups (part 1)
Since we have already talked about them extensively in previous meetings, I'll skip over the pockets.
As far as the Equipment window is concerned, the whole user interface has been revisited and its content (enriched with pockets, therefore) is now adaptable according to its size.
The management of groups of equipable objects is a bit problematic today. The user interface is bad: everything is controlled through / commands and the SysInfo window. The problem will be solved by two patches:
• the first one (mid-July, thus) will allow the player to create, display and delete groups of items via the game UI (but the / commands will remain operational, so optional use);
• the second one will go deeper and allow the player to modify the content of the groups directly in the Equipment window enriched for this purpose with checkboxes.
As usual, this QoL patch contains many bug fixes and small features that I won't detail one by one. But be aware that applying it will allow you to open (finally!) the exit dialog box by simply pressing the Escape key!
To finish, if you want to follow the progress of the patch in a more detailed way, here is the link to the GitLab milestone that reports on it.

6 - Call for volunteers

Tamarea (RT) – 21:40 UTC

Lately, we've been putting two big projects into play: the OP and the Boss refactorings. Coming soon will be our third big project, Silan Refactoring. Behind each of these three projects, but also behind each new feature, each improvement of the game, each event played, each technical help brought to a player, there is not the work of one person, but the work of a whole team of devoted and passionate volunteers who give of their knowledge and their time, according to their possibilities, to allow Ryzom to evolve as it does today.
And for that, I thank them.
If you too have some time that you would like to devote to help them behind the scenes to make the game move forward, you can contact me on chat.ryzom or by email at tamarea@ryzom.com, and we will see together which team would suit you best and which you could join: Development, Communication & Marketing, Event, Game-Design, Computer Graphics, Level-design, Lore, Support, Testing, Translation & Proofreading. The choice is vast!
If you prefer to help out by joining a group working specifically on a project, that's also possible. For example, at the moment, OP Refactoring and Silan Refactoring projects.
Feel free to contact me for more information!

The meeting is closed at 21:45 UTC.

Allgemein