#16 Added by Kimmerin 6 years ago Report | Quote
Edited 3 times | Last edited by Kimmerin (6 years ago)
---
#17 Added by Laoviel 6 years ago Report | Quote
Edited 4 times | Last edited by Laoviel (6 years ago)
#18 Added by Placio 6 years ago Report | Quote
... I am a pawn listening to the battle leader (so, most of the time pressing a couple of buttons to heal/nuke). ...at least half are in the heal pod. They are wasting two hours of their life pressing a few buttons and maybe moving around. Not entertaining.
Last edited by Placio (6 years ago)
#19 Added by Asmodeusmogart 6 years ago Report | Quote
#20 Added by Bitttymacod 6 years ago Report | Quote
#21 Added by Gidget 6 years ago Report | Quote
I personally dislike the 1 hour battles idea. As we all know, there is a common tactic of declaring at sh... *cough* uncomfortable hours for your opponents. While it’s surely annoying, this is a valid tactic. The only counter to this tactic, as of now, is 2-hours length of battles. People tend to be busy IRL, not everyone can log in game before a battle starts. But they can do it during 2 hours of active phase. I’ve seen many battles in which things initially went south for one of the sides, but then this side gathered enough players during first 8-12 rounds to turn the tables and actually win the battle.2 hours length:- allows more players participate in battles;- gives a chance for the side, outnumbered from the start, to win or at least to put up a fight;- partially counters attacks at “bad” times1 hour length:- too fast-paced, leaves more players out;- allows more abuse of “let’s attack at 5 a. m. in their timezone” tactic.
#22 Added by Elvanae 6 years ago Report | Quote
@Elvanae: The mechanics of OP battles are very much a part of the existing discontent. ...during which I am a pawn listening to the battle leader (so, most of the time pressing a couple of buttons to heal/nuke).
I know for sure I am not the only one who isn't happy at all to commit 4 hours of my life,
1. Don't listen entirely to the existing player base. It sounds rude, but the entire point of changing things is to make them more palatable for those who are yet to come. If a change alienates 5 old-timers and makes 30 newcomers stay a long time because they are more interested in the game .. it's a "win" in my book.
#23 Added by Zatarga 6 years ago Report | Quote
#24 Added by Talkirc 6 years ago Report | Quote
Other games - they give you a cookie whether you succeed or not, in fact you don't even have to participate. Ryzom takes your cookie, eats it in front of you, and slaps you 2 or 3 times for bringing a cookie in the first place.
#25 Added by Fyrosfreddy 6 years ago Report | Quote
#26 Added by Sinvaders 6 years ago Report | Quote
Having a horde of 250 players invade a 50 OP is like having a bunch of college players doing pick-up games at the elementary school playground where the baskets are 6 feet off the ground.
#27 Added by Sarpedonia 6 years ago Report | Quote
#28 Added by Fyrosfreddy 6 years ago Report | Quote
#29 Added by Sarpedonia 6 years ago Report | Quote
#30 Added by Revvy 6 years ago Report | Quote
With the bugs and performance of this game compared to other games on the market (even free ones) I'd think they would burn out or just quit. Then what? Do you want to play ONLY with the same old tired names that disappear over time slowly and not see many new people?
Last edited by Revvy (6 years ago)
powered by ryzom-api