search | Login Forums | New posts | Last 24h

English
uiWebPrevious1234567uiWebNext

#59 Added by Fyrosfreddy 9 years ago [en] 

{translate}
[quote=Tumbleweed]

So instead of asking for equal access for all, you better ask for equal challenges. Or real game economy with all items being up for trading, which can be a sort of equalizer, but not in Ryzom, considering that dappers are worthless and any serious change on that front likely to be met with fires and pitchforks by the community.

Don't understand .... Equal challenges aka "equivalent time and effort" is EXACTLY what was stated.

---

#60 Added by Rikutatis 9 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Tumbleweed
Or real game economy with all items being up for trading, which can be a sort of equalizer, but not in Ryzom, considering that dappers are worthless and any serious change on that front likely to be met with fires and pitchforks by the community.

This. They tried to make the economy work again during the merge, greatly increased the price of picks and tools, diminished the profit from selling junk craft and mats, etc. It did help a little. Dappers are worth more now. Specially for guilds that need dappers to declare OPs. Used to be before, spending 60 mil on a fancy tattoo was no big deal =P

But dappers can only be used for certain things, like TPs or OP wars. Outside of that they have no value. Because there's no dapper based economy of players buying and selling goods and services. I think a large part of that is due to the player base. Supply and demand. The player base is very small, so there is more availability of mats, bosses, supremes, etc, than players to use them. Guilds and friends give everything for free, from grinding gear all the way up to boosted OP weapons. That kind of kills any chance for a dapper based economy. If something like that existed, you could for example do Dante boss hunts with your guild, then sell a full Dante set for some 30 mil to a solo player who hates npc boss fights, and with those 30 mil you buy a boosted vedice axe from a pvp player who needs the dappers to go and buy a bunch of supreme materials because he hates digging. You get the gist.

Last edited by Rikutatis (9 years ago)

---

"We are Kami. We are here to be you. We are many as you are of many minds. We are one as you are one in Ma-Duk."

#61 Added by Rikutatis 9 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Fyrosfreddy
As defined, located next to kitin mounds, entrances to PR or near civilized areas, these OPs would be the 1st line of defense against invasions. Just like OP declares, a Kitin Observer would list the "declaration" by observing kitin activity nearby so as the OP owners could have time to prepare an appropriate defense which would include signing on defenders from potentially all factions who would in turn earn points / rewards for doing to ... tho obviously not at the rate that Rangers would .... much like someone who is 50-50-50-50 in racial fame doesn't get the same rate of reward as someone with 100 fame.

I could certainly get on board with this idea. In fact it sounds very fun! I think at this point the major problem with it is that it'd require the development of new OP mats that don't currently exist. And it seems like development manpower atm is severely limited and already invested in other tasks, which means we probably won't be seeing that anytime in the foreseeable future.

---

"We are Kami. We are here to be you. We are many as you are of many minds. We are one as you are one in Ma-Duk."

#62 Added by Fyrosfreddy 9 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Nehrie
The more I read the better understanding I obtain.

I see as part of the problem here that this was a non-pvp game for what 7 years before pvp was added in.

But the non-pvpers use different weapons. They don't stand and face someone. They have a different style.

So it's not really PvP vs PvE it's Pvp vs Diggers. ( no offense intended )

So I disagree with Haniel's list on that ground. PvPers are more liable to loot mats than dig mats. Though I know PvPers who are good at recipes and digging.

What I feel like is wrong is if PvP is not wanted and considered not needed here then why offer it on the website. Why take our money and then try to drive us out of the game? Just take it off the website. Make it not part of the game. Then all the little diggers can be happy again.

Otherwise we need to learn to get along. It's not fair to offer PvP on the website, take our money and then make it virtually an unplayable option.

Your assumptions are based upon a false premise. PvP and areas have existed since the 1st day.... PvP oriented guilds were established in the 1st month

http://forums.ryzom.com/search.php?searchid=963744

And it didn't take 7 years for even OP PvP to be part of game ... Outost PvP came in about 1.5 years post release (September 04 => March 06 = 18 months). Here's an example of the results

http://forums.ryzom.com/showthread.php?t=22504

There was a reason why so many non pvp players were attracted to Ryzom. It was different than the multitude of existing PvP oriented MMOs, so it did draw a large PvE base and, at least on NA server, we lost over 50% of our player base when PvP expanded beyond defined areas and "claiming regions" (Jessica Mulligan's idea) was slated for introduction.

Later on, with population dwindling, there was a resurgence when the NA community decided to ignore game mechanics and the community chose not to engage in any form of non-consensual PvP. All was well with the world, OP battles took place .. those that didn't go didn't go and afterwards no one was walking around with packing grudges.

Yes PvErs do have a different style... it involves not forcing ones views or play style on anyone else or not trying to take anything from anyone else.

No one is trying to take anything away from PvP players other the "assumed right" to force it on anyone else. I see no evidence of anyone trying to force PvP out of the game, (examples please) only to be able to escape it.

Don't understand why you look down on diggers, I don't enjoy digging ... I was 220 in melee and 20 in harvest (from the Fyros newb island) before I did my 1st dig on mainland. Simple fact of life was, if I wanted good gear, digging would be a fact of life. I don't like having to go to work everyday but I like eating and having a roof over my head. If you don't want to dig, then your choice is the same as IRL, pay someone else to do it for you. Not an unreasonable alternative ... as opposed to hiring a 'hit man' to take someone out.

I find the take our money comment quite ironic. On top of the lack of even a single example of Ryzom trying to take something away from PvP, it simply can not be argued that PvErs have access to the same amount of rewards as pvp does... and yet they pay the same subscription rate.

Where we agree is that we do need to get along ... and when you force someone to do something they don't want to do, that is not conducive to that happening. Neither is the dwindling population conducive to the long term viability of the game. If you want the game to continue to exist, disenchanting 505 of the population is not that way to do it.

When PvP was introduced to Ryzom and we lost so many people, I looked at WoW which my sons were playing and noticed one thing that very much surprised me. I counted the number of PvP versus PvE servers and frankly was shocked to see that the number of PvE servers was slightly higher. If we want the game to survive, steering the game to one side or the other is not a wise course of action.

And while PvErs are content to exist outside of PvP activities, it's not unreasonable to ask that they be afforded equivalent opportunities for IG rewards. Most PvPers have no objection to this. Over the last 12 years, the friendships I have established and people I spend time with are primarily PvP oriented, many of them among the best in game.

There is a segment however that thrives on a) having stuff that others don't have, b) working very hard to make it difficult for them to get it and c) objecting to any change that allows them to have the same opportunities they do.

I have no objection to any increase or change in PvP opportunities or anything that will bring more PvP payers in game unless that change a) continues to drive other players from game, b) discourages more PvE players from joining the game or c) furher divides the community into separate classes of "haves' and "have nots". These goals need not be mutually exclusive.

---

#63 Added by Fyrosfreddy 9 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Rikutatis
I could certainly get on board with this idea. In fact it sounds very fun! I think at this point the major problem with it is that it'd require the development of new OP mats that don't currently exist. And it seems like development manpower atm is severely limited and already invested in other tasks, which means we probably won't be seeing that anytime in the foreseeable future.

Well the viability of manpower I have noted as far as player views is concerned seems to be sometimes related to how well the individual likes the idea :). But again while new would be nice to create something different, even as an interim measure I see no real harm in using the same

However, creating an new OP mat is certainly easier than creating a new region or transport system. But make it simple ....

Gresigos - has half the benefit of Erigos and half the benefit of Greslin. Coding would involve little more than a copy / paste and a bit of editing.

Vedorn - As above but with Vedice and Tekorn

MagChen / Rubillo - you get the idea



Flowers - Combine two attributes ...

Warrior Flower - 50% of QL HP Boost and 50% of QL Stam Boost
Mage Flower - 50% of QL HP Boost and 50% of QL Sap Boost
Harvesters Flower - 50% of QL HP Boost and 50% of QL Focus Boost


I'd like to close by complimenting you on your approach. While as a PvPer, your goal in creating this thread was to improve your enjoyment as a person who enjoys PvP, I appreciate your recognition that this need not come at the expense of PvErs and that the game and the community is best served by both groups enjoying all that the game has to offer.

Last edited by Fyrosfreddy (9 years ago)

---

#64 Added by Placio 9 years ago [en] 

{translate}
I want what Freddy is smoking :D
(no disrespect, just those hybrid mat names are hilarious)

Last edited by Placio (9 years ago)

#65 Added by Nehrie 9 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Gees Fryosfreddy can you hold your post down to 1500 words or less lol


blah blah blah I disagree with most of what you said. Just too boring to argue with you.

Last edited by Nehrie (9 years ago)

---


The Clan


#66 Added by Fyrosfreddy 9 years ago [en] 

{translate}
About the answer one would expect when one is unable to counter with a logical or factual argument. I think Maragaret Thatcher said it it best:

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

You made a series of blatant false statements and then complain about a factual rebuttal with linked / dosumented sources proving them to be false. You can't disagree with the history of the game .... what happend happened and what didn't ... didn't.

Edited 2 times | Last edited by Fyrosfreddy (9 years ago)

---

#67 Added by Fyrosfreddy 9 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Placio
I want what Freddy is smoking :D
(no disrespect, just those hybrid mat names are hilarious)

Placio....

You keep creating artificial strawmen and then arguing against them instead of proposals actually put forth

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition"

Just as you changed the analogy about a person wanting access to kosher food, into a strawman about why would a kosher person want a cheeseburger, you are doing it again here.

If two people go to a conference and are obliged to pay for meals, then one of two things must happen. a) The site should offer a meal compliant with those dietary restrictions or b) they can not force the kosher adherenmt individual to pay for a meal they can not eat.

As detailed in past posts (i,e. #26) the idea was not to promote "specific examples" but to reinforce the idea that "equivalent but not equal" rewards could be offered while **not** putting any real examples forward. As I said previously, "using something we are familiar with", I created those hybrids tounge in cheek because and only because they were something everyone was familiar with. Each is different but each has its use. I would exchanging ideas, pluses and minuses, but can we stick to ideas actually being proposed and not create artificial strawmen just so that they can be easily shot down ?

Last edited by Fyrosfreddy (9 years ago)

---

#68 Added by Daomei 9 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Freddy ..

While I originally did not want to jump into the debate once more, my impression was not that Placio wanted to refute your arguments or to devaluate your proposals. He just found the naming funny, to my impression, and it was, indeed. It did, of course, show exactly what your proposal meant.

I would much welcome the realization of those proposals, yet it would be a lot of work. I believe all you told about game history on the NA server and later on Arispotle. I was not there at that time, but it resembles much I heard on Leanon concerning the same period. There, also, many PvE players left when PvP was introduced. Promises were reportedly made that there would be OPs to be won and maintained by PvE/RP means, but that was never realized. Btw., on Leanon, there were also player initiatives which granted OP mat access for guildless and non PvP players, especially the highly popular mobile traders' player event every week.

Yet, the situation nowadays is that PvE offers lots of opportunities, so does RP. I am playing now the sixth year, at insane accumulated times, but cannot say that there is nothing left to me to do on Ryzom (if this were the case, I could still join Ryzom Forge or Core, participate in development, documentation, and translation). I would welcome extensions such as new rites, missions, and regions, and I think they could raise the attractivity of the game and lure old players back. Same goes for the proposals you made.

The players who left in the 2005-7s due to the introduction of PvP won't come back, even if PvP were completely abandoned. And PvP practitioners are part of our community, so I consider it legitimate and important to address their desires. And as much as I welcome your proposals I do not see how they would improve the situation of PvP on Ryzom. When players are leaving because their expectations are not met, it is always a reason to consider improvements. So far, we read much about reasons discourageing PvP players, and some complaints seeming overblown to me, such as accusations that crafters and diggers wanted to expel PvPers. But still, the question how to improve PvP gameplay without damaging the rest, seems open to me.

---

Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral

#69 Added by Rikutatis 9 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Daomei
But still, the question how to improve PvP gameplay without damaging the rest, seems open to me.

Ok fair enough, this thread has been all over place, let me try to summarize my own thoughts here. Please note I have no coding experience and have no idea how feasible these ideas are given the current state of ryzom's development:

1) Encourage OP wars by making the system more simple and easy for smaller groups. First of all, lower the price for a declare. That way people can declare more often without feeling they wasted all their guild funds for nothing if they loose. Ideally, completely get rid of the second phase of the war and raise the TH of the first phase to something between 9-12. That way a smaller force will have higher chances of winning a war. OPs will change hands more often.

2) Make lower quality OPs matter. This can be as simple as giving ALL OPs a % to pop a q250 mat (the lower the OP lvl, the lower the chance), or as complex as introducing an occupation to exchange lower quality OP mats for higher quality ones.

3) Grant PVP points when killing other players in PVP zones as well (such as Matis arena, Prime Roots, Nexus, etc). That way there's more incentive for PVP in those areas on top of the dispute over resources. Because quite frankly, I can get a lot more sup mats if I go dig solo in the non-pvp regions than fighting over supernodes with my faction. At least getting pvp points there would be an extra incentive.

4) The PVP alignment system needs to change. I understand the original goal might have been to make PVP between civlizations matter, but the truth is, people PVP by faction, not civilization. It's completely silly that I kill a Karavan in tagged PVP now and get zero points out of him because his civ fames are similar to mine. You should get points from anyone who is not a part of your faction by default.

5) This one I'm not sure how it can be achieved, but some way to discourage cheesy farming of pvp points. Maybe if you keep killing the same person(s), the amount of pvp points you get from him keep diminishing until it goes to zero (or very low) for a cooldown period of several hours?

6) Add more items to PVP vendors. The skirts and shields are awesome, so some new exclusive items like those. Maybe even craft patterns for faction gear. I know this one is more difficult to achieve due to staff limitations though.

---

"We are Kami. We are here to be you. We are many as you are of many minds. We are one as you are one in Ma-Duk."

#70 Added by Naema 9 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Rikutatis
Daomei
But still, the question how to improve PvP gameplay without damaging the rest, seems open to me.

Ok fair enough, this thread has been all over place, let me try to summarize my own thoughts here. Please note I have no coding experience and have no idea how feasible these ideas are given the current state of ryzom's development:

1) Encourage OP wars by making the system more simple and easy for smaller groups. First of all, lower the price for a declare. That way people can declare more often without feeling they wasted all their guild funds for nothing if they loose. Ideally, completely get rid of the second phase of the war and raise the TH of the first phase to something between 9-12. That way a smaller force will have higher chances of winning a war. OPs will change hands more often.

2) Make lower quality OPs matter. This can be as simple as giving ALL OPs a % to pop a q250 mat (the lower the OP lvl, the lower the chance), or as complex as introducing an occupation to exchange lower quality OP mats for higher quality ones.

3) Grant PVP points when killing other players in PVP zones as well (such as Matis arena, Prime Roots, Nexus, etc). That way there's more incentive for PVP in those areas on top of the dispute over resources. Because quite frankly, I can get a lot more sup mats if I go dig solo in the non-pvp regions than fighting over supernodes with my faction. At least getting pvp points there would be an extra incentive.

4) The PVP alignment system needs to change. I understand the original goal might have been to make PVP between civlizations matter, but the truth is, people PVP by faction, not civilization. It's completely silly that I kill a Karavan in tagged PVP now and get zero points out of him because his civ fames are similar to mine. You should get points from anyone who is not a part of your faction by default.

5) This one I'm not sure how it can be achieved, but some way to discourage cheesy farming of pvp points. Maybe if you keep killing the same person(s), the amount of pvp points you get from him keep diminishing until it goes to zero (or very low) for a cooldown period of several hours?

6) Add more items to PVP vendors. The skirts and shields are awesome, so some new exclusive items like those. Maybe even craft patterns for faction gear. I know this one is more difficult to achieve due to staff limitations though.

My thoughts:
1.+1 on making it cheaper to declare

2. I believe lower q ops once in a while pop high q mats, so even a q50 op will pop a q250 mats once in a while, but.... I support Fyrosfreddys idea of making an Occupation to make higher q op mats from lower q op mats. Or... Bitttymacods idea of using MORE lower q op mats to equal one higher mat.

4. no opinion

5.no real opinion

6.+1 can agree

#71 Added by Exodus 9 years ago [en] 

{translate}
well..

If you're a PvPer the rewards are PvP points to buy few items and that's it... for everything else you have to PvE, fight NPCs, kill bosses, OP wars (yes, because we all know the wars are never between PvPers is faction vs faction (involving most players PvE/PvP)) digging mats.

So in the end you do depend on the PvE community, that's why there's a conflict between PvPers vs PvErs because they do get involved in "world PvP" aka OP wars and at the end is about time, numbers and economics.

When I was marauder and I attacked a Kami OP, I didnt see only the enemy guild, faction's PvPers - I saw the whole faction + the other faction.. so by numbers and resources we were defeated.

It's not a fair system when politics come in and Ryzom is more politics than PvP or PvE...

OP wars mix both PvE and PvP because... you guessed it... both are same faction... a lot of guilds dont PvP outside getting supernodes and OP wars and consider themselves PvE... and most of the community as well..

This was always frustrating as a PvPer your hands are tied because outside "3vs3" everything depends on other game mechanics..

Give PvPers a system where they dont depend on others and people will stay...

I guess as a PvPer.. if you do casual PvP and blend in, you're safe but if you do RP and you want more challenges... you get nada..

But I have to say, I like Ryzom a lot... I like how it mixes everything but only on paper, in reality it's a big failure, or not a failure but a big mess..

Sorry for keep repeating some stuff, anyways, it's just a game, if you dont like it you can always leave and that's that.

Cheers,

Exodus

Edited 7 times | Last edited by Exodus (9 years ago) | Reason: man, i shouldnt post when tired :-(

---

Je suis le début de la fin, l'ombre qui cache le soleil, le beffroi qui sonne votre glas.

#72 Added by Nehrie 9 years ago [en] 

{translate}
Rikutatis
@Nehrie: LOL no, it wasn't 7 years. Game launched Sep 2004, Outpost pvp was added Dec 2005. So pvp wasn't really added that late at all. In fact, if the game had continued on its original path, it'd have been MUCH more heavily focused on pvp with partial territorial control of zones by faction a big thing. That would come in the form of spirals. A shame it never happened.

I had already answered this Fryosfreddy. I had said ty for the info.

I see no need for your attack on me. Notice how Rikutatis just laughed and I laughed.

From reading this forum and reading wiki articles, other forums etc. I had a misimpression. I am sorry I had a misimpression. I had already apologized. I see no reason to go listing a) hate filled emotional statement b) hate filled emotional statement.

What exactly is it you feel you are so deprived of that you want that PvPers have?

I don't understand what it is you want Freddy other than trying to sound like an IRS manual. What do you want?

Nehrie

---


The Clan


#73 Added by Tumbleweed 9 years ago [en] 

{translate}
I see the thread is back from the off-topic nonsense its been drowning in. Fine.
lower the price for a declare

Not sure about this. I'm all for making OP battles more accessible for everyone willing to come and fight, but these payments are one of a few money sinks in game. Not that it adds much value to dapper, but still. Also, troll attacks. Entering fee is a barrier (not a big one, yup) against them.

Next. This
making the system more simple and easy for smaller groups

doesn't go well with that
raise the TH of the first phase to something between 9-12

The OP mechanics already favor defending side. You need one full team of high-level characters to reach the TH at relevant q200-250 OP, and two teams if you intend to push it at least few levels higher. That's, of course, providing there is no defenders. But usually there is some, and quite often there is a lot of them. Raising the TH will only make it harder, borderline impossible, for a small group to achieve any success in battles.
get rid of the second phase

I personally firmly against it. First, you get a chance to have two battles for the price of one. Why to remove that possibility? Second, we have players from all timezones. Losing an OP because you got outnumbered or outplayed is alright. Losing an OP because the attack has started at 3 a. m. my time is definitely not alright. With second phase in place I at least getting a chance to fight back on my terms.

Also, troll attacks, again. I have seen or heard of fair share of people and guilds being pissed off by another person(s) or guild(s) and deciding intentionally declare on their OP at inappropriate time. Some people think that spending a couple of millions dappers to upset someone is a good deal (see my point about declaration fees). Some people think it's fun. Second phase is a backup against such behaviour. Yes, false declares supposed to be reported to CSR, only that I have yet to hear about any person being actually punished for abusing OP mechanics in that way.

# 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 get +1 from me.
uiWebPrevious1234567uiWebNext
  

This topic is locked

Last visit Thursday, 28 November 03:40:31 UTC
P_:G_:PLAYER

powered by ryzom-api