English

Thanks Arfur and Siela.
Concerning the Forest Kingdom, is there a mechanic to overthrow that by the players (Unless the New King is a player already)?

Just curious.

No the Civ leaders are run by Event teams - a player would never become king, but it may be possible for a revolution to overturn the Monarchy in favour of a rebuplic for instance.

It would be a major upheaval but in principle it could be done. It probably won't happen because the 4 civs have 4 different forms of government; Matis have the Monarchy, Fyros have the Republic, Tryker have Democracy and Zorai have a Theocracy

The Fyros have an empire, the organization and form of the lower government is at the discretion of the Emperor.
The Matis kingdom is also a theocracy.
The Federation currently isn't very democratic...

Thanks Arfur for that clarification and thanks Placio for your response.

Evilar:

Each faction has the ability to choose their head/leader and other officials if they wanted to have a clear organizational hierarchy. So the answer of your question is yes, you can become the leader of your faction.

For me another important position also is the appointed leader of a certain faction during op war (i call em war commander hehehehe). This leader can be appointed depending on the faction rules or shall i say mutual understanding, example:
- the owner of the op will be the one who will choose a leader for every op war
- the faction will select a war commander for all op wars

Another equally important position is meeting organizer. I consider this position as equally important as of war commander because it is not easy. You will know what I am talking about once you will attend a faction meeting.

Players in Ryzom has no ability to change the physical attributes of the world (Atys) instead each player has the ability to change how NPCs of Atys interact with him. example:

- can become a player hated by all civilization (Marauders)
- can become a player loved by all civilization (Atys Citizen)
- can become a player hated or loved by certain Tribes

Changes can be permanent if you stayed being Marauder but still you have an option to become Atys Citizen if you are bored of being a Maruader.

Thanks Haniel for that explanation.

Is there a glossary for the abbreviations because terms like,
OP, Civ, etc. don't mean what thought they mean in Ryzom?

I went to the wiki but that didn't have anything.

Also, concerning events, is there anyone live streaming or YouTubing them?

I am still trying to get my head around dynamic storytelling that Bitty explained earlier and that is pushed forward by events, so it would be good to see one live along with commentary to explain the reason and outcome of the event.

Thanks all.

you might want to look in here for abbreviations: http://app.ryzom.com/app_forum/index.php?page=post/view/82965

Awesome Siela, just what I was looking for, thanks.

Now perhaps you know of any live events that were recorded with commentary would make my day! :-D

Another question, is the manual accurate and update?

For instance, it talks about "the tribes" supposed folks that homins that refuse to be in the major cities. Are those "The Neutrals" I read about in other posts?

Just want to be sure that with the manual that it is useful and accurate information.

Thanks in advance.

@Haniel:

I find it interesting that all of the examples you provided of dynamic interactions within the game all revolve around guild and faction politics. And I completely agree with you. It's all about the players.

An MMO can't create completely dynamic gameplay elements, because it has to factor in the hundreds or housands of other players who will be around. So usually you cannot kill merchants, quest givers, permanently modify mob spawns and grinding spots, and the status quo has to stay more or less the same (sure matis may have changed kings, but it's still a karavan based monarchy). Single player games like TES CAN do that because you don't have to worry about affecting another player's experience with your actions.

MMO's shouldn't try to mimic single player gameplay elements, because at best it will only be an incomplete approximation. What they should IMHO is change their mentality and let go of the NPC aspect of the game. Focus it all on the players. Give them the lore, the tools, and let them handle the rest. Instead of merchants and quest giver NPCs, you'll need to buy from other players and adventure with your guild. Instead of mobs and grinding spots, you gain experience by interacting with other players. Instead of permanent NPC cities that never change, all the cities are player built.

I don't know, just embracing the multi player aspect of MMO's and stopping trying to be so solo friendly. =P

"An MMO can't create completely dynamic gameplay elements, because it has to factor in the hundreds or housands of other players who will be around...."

I personally believe that MMO's SHOULD try to recreate a single-player RPG experience which are the height immersion in gaming. The dynamic nature of those games are what people are looking to encounter when they team up with their friends in a MMORPG. So I agree with Haniel.

Why is GTA 5 online so HUGELY popular? because of that fact. Current technology is the limiting factor for a fully dynamic world with the NPC's at the heart of it because it takes a level upkeep and the A.I. integrated in most MMO's don't allow for that level. Storybricks was supposedly capable of that but Everquest Next got shutdown (Screw daybreak games!)

Peace.

Well, I guess it's a matter of personal preference. For me, I'd rather MMO's create the ultimate multi-player RPG experience than try to recreate a single player immersion.

I mean, let's take as an example TES and Fallout, which are considered to have the most dynamic open worlds of any single player RPG. What elements make TES worlds so dynamic?

1) You can attack anyone, anytime. Doesn't matter if it's a merchant or a quest giver. Chances are, if it's alive, you can kill it. And they won't be coming back after the fact. Doing this in an MMO is tricky at best, if not downright impossible. How can you kill the blacksmith of the Zorai city if hundreds of other players need to buy their armor from him? How can you kill the welcomer quest giver if all the new players arriving need to take their missions from him? If an MMO allowed you to kill all NPCs anytime you wanted, they'd need to make damn sure those NPCs aren't really needed for the progression of other players. Which means they'd already be redundant anyway.

2) If you clear an area or dungeon of mobs, that's it. You're done. The mobs won't be respawning there anytime in the near future, sometimes never again. Same with bosses. Again, how can you do that in an MMO? Other players need to grind on those mobs, and kill those bosses for loot. The closest you could do in an MMO is if you clear an area of mobs, then maye that spawn of mobs shifts slightly to some other area. Which is fine I suppose, and dynamic enough, but only really useful if you have a purpose for that cleared area, such as player housing.

3) You can complete quests in multiple different ways and the results of your choices have a permanent impact on the world. Did you choose the spare the evil guy or kill him? If you killed him, the village is free, if you didn't he remains the tyrant there. Or whatever. Can't properly do that in an MMO because thousands of other players wil be going through the same quest and choosing different outcomes. ESO attempted to address that with their instanced megaserver technology, basically all the players who choose "outcome X" will go to "instance X" when they're in that village area. Clever tech, but it creates so many other problems (such as not being able to see or interact with your friends and guildies in that area if they chose different outcomes) that it's a bandaid solution at best.

I mean, I could keep giving more examples but I'll stop here. I hope I could get the idea across. GTA online only has 16 players per world for example. Logistics and game objectives are very different from a traditional MMO.

That's why I think the focus on NPCs and PVE in MMO's can only go so far in creating truly free dynamic worlds. I'd rather see the focus shift to player interactions and player-built infra-structure. Give players the world and the tools to build and destroy on it and let them do the rest. Again, just my personal preference.

And yea Everquest Next was one of those games that never saw the light of the day I was talking about =P
I read about the emergent AI system they had, sure. But my point is why spend so much money and resources on an extremely complicated system for AI NPCs that is capable of simulating real choices and needs when you already have thousands of players on that server with their own real choices and needs? Spend that money and resources on player building tools instead and put the focus where it should be: the players.

I consider it strange to call a single player game "dynamic". In fact, those are programs which are, though complex, ultimately deterministic turing machines. And it is not by chance that since 2003 there have been 9 or so GTA editions but only a single Ryzom, Eve etc.

Interactions between real persons, even in game setting, are not deterministic (at least this is widely disputed). So all those interactions are making the dynamic of the game. They are shaping the lore, the storyline, and influence the development of game content.

Btw. I have problems to take people serious who claim to have been "blasted" by Bittty. This sounds like being smashed by a cushion. Those people at least never had a discussion with me.

The dynamic in the game is in the storyline. Granted that was badly but inevitably hurt by the fusion, but the river of time solution at least allowed to bring together what had developped differently and has been forced to the unique outcome of the second swarming.

Hopefully, the work on Ryzom Forge will speed up game content development. It will be shaped by the actions and interactions of the players. Under that respect, this game is more dynamic than most.

Daomei,

I don't care if you have a problem with me concerning what occurred between me and bitty or not. I told him about his response and that didn't appreciate.