IDEAS FOR RYZOM

I'm sorry but I don't understand the meaning of these posts.

The issue is to find a way to have a nice battle around OP for both of sides.

The fact to have launchers is great and all. Though for me, it´s just waste of time. I don't want to explain a Non-adequate subject.

Many of Maras were 250 launchers but they can't keep with kamis number.
This issue is to open a way for fun battle. I don't think kamis are very happy to don't have challenge with us. They book a evening for and we withdraw when we see impossibility.

I believe some tactics like lure the enemy then kill him could work but to lure some enemies, you need to loose some. If we loose 6 people, and kill 30. It will be 19(with 4-5 healers) so 15 people to crush 50 ^^
Dragging aggros Will keep them busy for 1 round at most. We can't kill 80 people anyway.

The fact that karas+kamis+neutrals isn't bothering me in idea, it's just meaningless. If you want be allies and don't fight eachothers, why doesn't create only 1 faction? It seems it is the easiest solution to win against people without being disliked by relatives in others guilds. Seems like that. And because we play bad guy, we don't create issue between guilds/faction.

I never see since merge a GvG. The impression is some fears to be hated or misunderstood because of that While it´s just a fun time.

We don't give a fuck for your ally (us marauders) , but that kill the game without for some being happy to this peaceful settlement. Well, we could for both of factions to just delete them xD

Another thing for Virg : don't generalise Toak with the faction Maras. It is sad to see this accusation for us. While we are talking about dozens of people or more for yours.

We are here to find a solution for both sides to go through fun battles. One side is tired to be crushed (us Maras) and other is bored.

We(CSN , I believe evrybody know) are currently talking about this on french server. And for once time, they aren't fighting ( omg I'm surprised myself) but are agree with this situation and try to make interesting suggestions and talking to résolve this.

You should for the unique time take example on them (^^) because they are the worst usually :p

The point is that there are tactics that can even the scores. Its up to you guys to think of them and use them- I am only pointing out some tactics to prove such things actually exist.

I read through all, and can say that the proposal made by Yricl sounds sensible. It would give the outnumbered factions and alliances a chance to win an OP and get some OP mat, at least for limited time, and increase the variety of OP mats and owners. That would be favorable for all players, be they involved in PvP and OP fights or not.

Whether or not the higher skill or the higher number decides, could then be tested in the field. It is therefore not useful to speculate before having evidence.

Generally, I tend to agree to those who think that in outpost battles, the higher number gives significant advantages. There are, for example, excellent healers, even guilds of, who are not PvP elite, but can provide a constant stream of healing to their PvP experts. They do not need to try doubling bomb heal spamming by enchants but keep them to handle emergencies such as a fallen alliance member. Such a line of fencing is ways more stable and robust than one of a handful healers working at highest exertion to emulate a double number, and that for two hours in an outpost battle. Similar with attackers of any kind, by the way.

However, proving the pudding is eating it. I would welcome the proposal to be implemented, and be it experimentally for evaluation. The recent situation seems to be frustrating for everybody.

No it wouldn't. Where is your evidence for this? Don't presume to speak for all players. Limiting OP numbers would turn OPs into elitest events and prevent many people from being introduced to PvP in a fun and friendly environment.
The evidence Daomei has been presented many times by smaller numbers beating bigger numbers, some examples have been mentioned in this thread.
Of course more numbers give an advantage but the fact is smaller numbers can prevail with the right tactics. I disagree with you that they shouldn't try new things- they should new things like doubling bomb heal or any other tactic they haven't tried because their current tactics aren't working. Marauders have won in the past with smaller numbers. Now other factions have better tactics they need to up their game in reply.

Virg: You must admit that an argument "numbers do not matter" would be more credible when uttered by one of the factions with the lower numbers.

My argument stems from observations in military history as well as observation of OP battles here. Smaller numbers may be made up by tactics and training level for a while, sure. But at some point, the adverse side will have learnt and adopted the more effective tactics, or developped methods to counter them. The game of sword and shield, what strategy is all about, since millennia.

And from that point on, numeric and resource superiority will count and be decisive. No matter whether it is a superior production and recruiting base in RL wars or 20, 30 or more healers of all levels thrown into the battle for support, here. Numbers matter.

As to the proposed solution: It will reduce the battle to the elite fighters only once, afterwards, the numerically superior side is free to carry her full weight and value to the battlefield. If really tactics matter, the tactically better side will prevail even without mass support.

But such a scheme would even out chances. No defeated attacker could claim to have been outnumbered. Attacks would be encouraged and the number of OP battles increase.

And I would be ranting again everytime when they are clashing with NPC boss rounds :)

Well the marauders used to love telling me that I missed the battle where they won we far fewer numbers. "Numbers do not matter"- did I say that? are you putting words in my mouth? I say they are an advantage just like decent tactics.

Yes the other side have learnt better tactics, now it is time for the sides who aren't winning to produce some counter-tactics.

If you don't cap the number every time then whats the point?

My apologies if I misunderstood. The point of the proposal is to bring more movement into the OP battle scene. An attacker would have the chance to limit numbers once. In case of success, the attacker would become the defender next time, and the now attacking side may choose any number of participants, probably a much higher or even unlimited one.

One might see then whether better tactics or numbers are the key to success.

Hm I am not sure either. However looking with a first phase cap and second phase no cap I still don't see the point. Firstly players are limited from the first phase and if the OP doesn't go to second phase then many players will have no involvement at all. Secondy people believe the OP situation currently is due to numbers and nothing to do with tactics, so having a second phase "no cap" would not change the OP ownership.

As I understood, the cap should be valid for the whole conflict. In case the attacking side wins, it is up to the former owner, or another attacker, to choose different numbers for the next battle.