search | Login Forums | New posts | Last 24h

DISCUSSIONS AROUND ONGOING PROJECTS
Do you agree with the four proposals detailed in this first post? / Approuvez-vous les quatre propositions présentées dans ce premier post ?
I agree with proposal 1. / J'approuve la proposition 1. 21 (1)
9.2%
I disagree with proposal 1. / Je désapprouve la proposition 1. 29 (4)
12.7%
I agree with proposal 2. / J'approuve la proposition 2. 50 (5)
21.8%
I disagree with proposal 2. / Je désapprouve la proposition 2. 8 (1)
3.5%
I agree with proposal 3. / J'approuve la proposition 3. 49 (6)
21.4%
I disagree with proposal 3. / Je désapprouve la proposition 3. 8
3.5%
I agree with proposal 4. / J'approuve la proposition 4. 53 (5)
23.1%
I disagree with proposal 4. / Je désapprouve la proposition 4. 7
3.1%
Other 4
1.7%
Abstain 4
Poll is closed
uiWebPrevious1234uiWebNext

#37 Added by Revvy 6 years ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Kaetemi
* Throw out the entire current outpost implementation.
* Remove all TPs and respawn points from PR.
* Make PR full open GvG, required, not optional.
* Have all outposts in PR available on a first-come first-served basis, simply by whoever constructs buildings there.
* Whoever pays the dappers to construct the outpost building gets the building.
...
To add to your idea Kaetemi:

Allow players to teleport on the possessed outpost to give building (and the whole system) a great value.

Last edited by Revvy (6 years ago)

---

Spoiler

#38 Added by Kaetemi 6 years ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Sinvaders
I had a similar idea that I explained to some people. Everyone was interested by the idea :)

I'm curious to hear it.

Revvy
To add to your idea Kaetemi:

Allow players to teleport on the possessed outpost to give building (and the whole system) a great value.

That may need to be restricted to only serve players who don't have DP - to avoid the 'infinite lives' battle.

---

Kaetemi

#39 Added by Revvy 6 years ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Kaetemi
That may need to be restricted to only serve players who don't have DP - to avoid the 'infinite lives' battle.

What do you think about this ?

A respawn limitation counter, in each outpost zone (like 20 respawns let's say - adjustable by design)

If the PvE env or the opponents get you more than 20 times before you reach your goal;
You are losing the possibility to respawn on this outpost zone (tactically you may respawn on another outpost zone).

So the outpost can be taken over.
And it will push people to be rewarded in the survival, favor the escape route to counter attack somewhere else.
Instead of spawning, heal and comeback infinitely.

Edited 3 times | Last edited by Revvy (6 years ago)

---

Spoiler

#40 Added by Kaetemi 6 years ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Revvy
If the PvE env or the opponents get you more than 20 times before you reach your goal;
You are losing the possibility to respawn on this outpost zone (tactically you may respawn on another outpost zone).

So the outpost can be taken over.
And it will push people to be rewarded in the survival, favor the escape route to counter attack somewhere else.
Instead of spawning, heal and comeback infinitely.

Hmm. I think the outpost owners would already be at a tactical advantage from simply having the outpost, and the accompanying NPCs.. The attackers still have to spend time to destroy the outpost building -- for a well upgraded outpost this may already take longer than traveling an army back to the outpost. Also throw in healer NPCs (spawn yourself a healer squad instead of respawning), and you've got yourself a pretty nice fortress. Giving the defenders a 'multiple rounds' advantage seems a bit too much 'easy mode' and may tip the balance too much.

Let's say you have a pretty good guild with a nice outpost, and some allies. You've got another guild attacking your outpost with their allies[*]. Your guild can quickly port into the outpost the first round to do the initial defense, together with NPCs -- at this point you have a guild with their allies attacking vs. a guild with NPCs, which can be relatively fair. Your allies are traveling in. Perhaps you fail to defend your outpost, and you all die. Maybe you have your allies tactically wait for your team to join up, or you have them advance. Either way, let's say the opposing guild destroys the outpost building. At this point they can build and have a weak non-functional outpost building -- and now they become the defenders. However, as long as the buildings are not constructed and not upgraded, they cannot get the NPCs yet. You are at this point still completely capable of regaining your outpost, by attacking it, and neither guilds have an advantage now.

Though, if one of your allies happens to have an outpost nearby, it can serve as a regrouping base... Perhaps they could even dispatch their NPC guards.

[*] An alliance system between guilds. Works like making facebook friends. In GvG anyone should be able to heal anyone directly, and allies can still be attacked directly (betrayal!), but AoE healing spells should only affect guild members and allies, offensive AoE should only affect non-allies.

At some point the whole process becomes a battle of resources. Either guilds fight each other to attempt gaining whatever they can gain from outposts, but they end up draining each other's resources.. and in the end the Kitins win... or... There should not be any artificial boundaries or disadvantages to launching an attack, to ensure that a stalemate doesn't develop. :)

Edited 2 times | Last edited by Kaetemi (6 years ago)

---

Kaetemi

#41 Added by Sinvaders 6 years ago Report | Quote[fr] 

{translate}
@kaetemi: I'll look for the small pdf i have written and will put it here.

#42 Added by Talkirc 5 years ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
love those ideas kaetemi, but if you make all of pr pvp, surface sup's are a must to keep the game fair for rangers and other pve only players; if not they would never have fair access to sup dug mats when all of pr was forced pvp with op's and whatnot everywhere. surface op's could be kept but limited to 150 max Q mats (making it very friendly to f2p's and low level players), and keeping PR a high level zone and giving it appeal for the multi-masters because all op mats 200 - 250 are only produced at the PR op's) in this we've covered the low level limited f2p and noob community that could be, and the well established long standing multi-master played since beta 15 years ago player alike.but i'm just a ghost speaking my thoughts ;)

---

Remickla (atys)
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.
What Cookies is about ---- Contact Cookies ---- Cookies at Events ---- For Cookies Diggers and Crafters
Useful Links:
cookies approved referance data, guides, and more. --- ryztools web version --- talkIRC forum post table of contents

#43 Added by Revvy 5 years ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Even if I agree with you both, this obviously something that change the game soooo much it won't be accepted not even reviewed :)
Since the cry and bullstorm after it would be too much to handle for them.

Let it sink into a nice chit-chat between game design dreamer :)

---

Spoiler

#44 Added by Aleeskandaro 5 years ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Aw I missed this poll :(

---




Bisugott(Atys)


#45 Added by Kaetemi 5 years ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Talkirc
love those ideas kaetemi, but if you make all of pr pvp, surface sup's are a must to keep the game fair for rangers and other pve only players; if not they would never have fair access to sup dug mats when all of pr was forced pvp with op's and whatnot everywhere.)

The idea comes along with high level PvE-content areas.

No need to nerf an idea because something else is missing. :)

---

Kaetemi

#46 Added by Placio 5 years ago Report | Quote[en] 

{translate}
Related to proposal 3, removing q50&100 ops, are there too many ops overall? Currently 28, that would go down to 20 with proposal 3. But couldn't we reduce it more, down to 16, if we have just one Jr Op (50-150) and one Sr Op (150-250) per each material? The Ops could produce the same amount of material to increase scarcity, or production could be boosted to increase the benefit of controlling the Op.

Last edited by Placio (5 years ago)

#47 Added by Fyrosfreddy 5 years ago Report | Quote[fr] 

{translate}
Why not set up one set of OPs for the factions to fight over and another for the PvE folks to fight with the Kitin over.

---

#48 Added by Tamarea 3 years ago Report | QuoteMultilingual 

Multilingual | [English] | Français
{translate}

OP refactoring presentation - 2020-08-31

See https://cloud.ryzom.com/s/pCP3JJgBrrMCgip

Edited 3 times | Last edited by Tamarea (3 years ago)

---

Tamarea
Ryzom Team Manager
(FR / EN / ES)
tamarea@ryzom.com

#49 Added by Tamarea 3 years ago Report | QuoteMultilingual 

Multilingual | English | [Français]
{translate}

Ryzom Forge meeting - 31-08-2020

Tamarea & Namcha (RT) – 21:26 UTC
Ce projet a pour objectif de redynamiser les batailles d'avant-poste en redonnant de l'intérêt à tous les OP, en les faisant changer régulièrement de propriétaire et en diversifiant les genres de combat. Il permettra lui aussi de réduire l'avantage gameplay que procurent les multi-alts.
Note descriptive du projet :
Quelques points à souligner là encore :
• Tous les avant-postes, quel que soit leur niveau (qui demeurera inchangé), vont produire soit des MP Q150, soit des MP Q200, soit des MP Q250.
• Nulle guilde ne sera plus autorisée à conserver un avant-poste pour le seul plaisir que lui procure (éventuellement) sa possession.
• À retenir : les avant-postes changerons de mains beaucoup plus souvent et régulièrement que par la passé !

Q : « Changer régulièrement de propriétaire »… Est-ce à dire que nous serons forcés d'abandonner notre « maison » même si ceux qui la convoitent sont défaits lors de chacune de leurs attaques ? Sans qu'aucune chance ne nous soit donnée de la défendre ?
R : Oui cela pourra arriver; dans ce cas l'avant-poste sera pris par des PNJ. Mais de toutes façons, il aura commencé de produire d'autres matières premières.

Q : Dans le cas de batailles d'OP en GvG, y a-t-il quelque chose de prévu pour empêcher les recrutements provisoires dans les guildes en conflit de membres de leur guildes alliées ?
R : Deux solutions de traitement de ce problème sont actuellement à l'étude pour évaluer leurs effets de bords respectifs :
1 • Autoriser le recrutement provisoire en plafonnant le nombre de combattants
2 • Subordonner le droit de combattre à une ancienneté minimale dans la guilde
En tous cas une bataille GvG (option qui, par ailleurs, ne sera pas disponible immédiatement) ne doit pas être identique à un bataille FvF.

Q :Comment décidera-t-on du type de bataille d'OP à livrer ?
R : Par click sur l'OP au moment de lancer l'attaque. Mais le nombre d'attaques GvG par guilde sera plafonné.

Q : Le nouveau système ne favorisera-t-il pas seulement les grandes guildes en leur permettant l'attaque en GvG des petites devenues incapables de bénéficier de l'aide de leurs alliés ?
R : Il est vrai qu'un des objectifs de la refonte est d'éviter que des guildes ne comptant qu'un seul membre détiennent des OP. Mais, s'agissant des petites guildes, l'ampleur du préjudice dépendra aussi du plafonnement du nombre de batailles GvG et elles auront tout de même l'opportunité de conquérir des OP via bataille GvE, sachant que les OP ainsi conquis ne pourront rechanger de main durant les deux semaines suivantes.

Q : « GvE: Guilde vs PNJ pour conquérir les OP pris par les PNJ » De quel type de PNJ s'agirat-il ?
R : Des homins pour sûr, mais la possibilité d'avoir aussi des kitins a été évoquée (et soumise à l'examen des développeurs).

Q : Un OP peut être tenu pour sa faction par une petite guilde qui l'a reçu en récompense de son aide et qui se charge alors du travail d'extraction et de redistribution de ses MP. Si l'OP est pris via GvG « facile » par une grande guilde adverse c'est la faction qui en souffrira. La faction, donc, ne devrait-elle pas être autorisée à aider à sa défense ?
R : Si c'est la solution 1 ci-dessus qui est retenue, la faction pourra aider. Sinon il faudra peut-être, en effet, revoir l'organisation des factions.

Q : Tous les OP produisant des MP de Q150 à Q250, un OP de la Source, par exemple, pourra donc fabriquer exactement les mêmes MP qu'un OP de la Forêt Enflammée ?
R : Chaque OP, quel que soit son niveau, pourra en effet produire des MP des trois qualités, mais le taux de production de MP des OP de d'un niveau donné sera supérieur à celui des OP de niveau inférieur.

Q : Comment se feront les rotations de MP et de propriétaires ? À intervalles fixes ou aléatoires ? Toutes ensembles ou échelonnées dans le temps ?
R : Toutes ensemble (reboot du serveur), à un intervalle de deux mois et demi à trois mois IRL, mais la date exacte sera aléatoire. Beaucoup de mécanismes demeurent à préciser, cependant, s'agissant des rotations : il vous seront détaillés lors d'une prochaine réunion.

Last edited by Tamarea (3 years ago)

---

Tamarea
Ryzom Team Manager
(FR / EN / ES)
tamarea@ryzom.com

#50 Added by Tamarea 3 years ago Report | QuoteMultilingual 

Multilingual | [English] | Français
{translate}

Ryzom Forge meeting - 2021-04-12

Ulukyn (RT) – 20:27 UTC
We've strated the work on the outpost battles refactoring project.
As some may have noticed, four outposts have popped in the Nexus, of four different "levels" (100, 150, 200 and 250).
Their names suggest that they are not "like the others" and will not function in the same way at all. In fact, their ways of working will evolve following the avancement of the refactoring project.
At first, their conquest will be the object of GvE battles (a single guild fighting the NPCs defending the outpost), none of them will be owned by a guild (nor will they host any drill). That in order to test the impact of the projected shortening of the battle duration (from two hours to one) in the best conditions.

Q: During this test period, will the battles still include two phases?
A: No, because these are test outposts. If conquered after one hour of battle, an outpost will be returned immediately to its owners: the defending NPCs (out-of-faction marauders). But, if any battle can be a rewarding challenge, it costs equipment, ammunition, and time for those who fight it. So, the guilds that test will be rewarded for their commitment (to a degree yet to be determined).
We're planning for a guild to launch one attack per week, so hopefully four tests per week (one for each of the outposts) will allow everyone to participate.

Q: Will fighters be tagged and PvP allowed during these test battles?
A: These are outpost battles, so attackers will be OP tagged, yes. But they are also GvE battles in which, in order to not skew the tests, only the attacking guild's PCs will participate, with no allied or enemy PCs, so no PvP fight will be available.

Q: Will the level of NPC defenders be the same for all four outposts?
A: No. As with outposts in other regions, the level of the outpost is determined by the quality of the materials it can produce. The "level" 100 outpost in the Nexus will, as elsewhere, be easier to "conquer" than the level 250 outpost, so a guild will be able to judge its progress in the fight exercise by the level of the outpost it manages to conquer or the threshold it manages to make it reach.

Q: Will the level of each outpost be unchanging?
A: Yes, and once the project is finalized, i.e. once the redesign of the outposts is effective throughout Atys (the tests at the Nexus are indeed just the first ones of a long series), only the nature of the materials produced by any outpost will change between battles, not their quality.

Q: Are there any plans to establish new outposts, for example in the Prime Roots?
A: No. For now, our priority is the completion of the current project: we don't want to slow it down by spreading our efforts.

Q: Given the "PvP area" status of the Nexus, what will prevent anyone from attacking the guild busy testing an outpost battle?
A: Outpost PvP prevents guild PvP by construction, plain and simple.

Q: Does this mean you can quietly drill or hunt for an hour in the Nexus as long as your guild is engaged in an outpost test attack?
A: Basically yes. Relevant comment.

Q (off-topic): When will range weapons be finalized, like 1H weapons were?
A: Since our goal is to finish as many of the current projects as possible in order to have a constant rhythm and an increasingly efficient team, we had to postpone the launch of some others. Thus, the final development of the shooting weapons is not abandoned, far from it. It is just put on hold.
However, if you wish to participate in the working group that is nonetheless reflecting on the subject, you can contact Tamarea privately.

Q (off-topic): Are there any plans to do anything to boost non-outpost PvP to make it more attractive? If not, wouldn't it be possible to have a meeting to discuss this?
A: We'd like to be able to address all the topics, issues and difficulties that players may encounter. But we can't answer all the requests right now, it would be counterproductive.

Edited 2 times | Last edited by Maupas (3 years ago) | Reason: Typos EN

---

Tamarea
Ryzom Team Manager
(FR / EN / ES)
tamarea@ryzom.com

#51 Added by Tamarea 3 years ago Report | QuoteMultilingual 

Multilingual | [English] | Français
{translate}

Patch - 2021-05-17

The four outposts recently established in the Nexus are activated (opened to homin attack). The characteristics of the battles to be fought for their conquest not only differ significantly from those of the "historical" outposts, but will evolve as the redesign project progresses. Below are those adopted for the first phase of testing:

  • Mode: Guild vs. NPC (GvE), where only the guild having declared war can participate in the battle (no allied or enemy PCs on the battlefield).
  • Duration: 55 minutes (11 rounds of 5 minutes).
  • Declaration: Only one battle per week per guild and per outpost is allowed (so any guild can fight, at best, four battles per week, one on each of the four outposts).
  • Schedule: a new battle can start at the beginning of each hour for each outpost. A guild wishing to attack must make its declaration within 5 minutes before the start time. For example, a guild wishing to be the attacking guild for the 9pm battle must make its declaration of war at the earliest 8:55 pm, but before 9:00 pm. If several guilds wish to register, only the first one will be retained, the others will have to try again for a next battle.
  • Victory conditions: the attacking guild must pass the threshold set for it (10 at most) at the outpost it is attacking.
  • Outcome: A won battle does not give the victorious guild possession of the concerned outpost (the latter is returned within the hour to the NPCs who defended it) but any battle fought closes with the granting of a reward.
  • Reward: its nature and size are determined by the threshold of the attacked outpost and are displayed as soon as the war is declared. It is automatically awarded to the testing guild at the end of the battle.

    The thresholds set for a given guild at the outpost that will be the target of its next test battle and the rewards to be expected for the latter will evolve as follows:

  • The initial threshold for the four outposts is set at 3.
  • The higher the threshold, the higher the reward... and the reverse is true.
  • After a defeat (outpost threshold not exceeded during the battle), the outpost threshold will remain the same for the guild.
  • After a victory, the offered threshold of the outpost at subsequent battles of the same guild will be increased permanently by one. But if this new threshold is found too difficult to exceed by the guild, the latter can choose to set a lower threshold to the outpost for the next battle.

    Example:

    A guild attacks for the first time the outpost 250 of the Nexus (whose threshold is then for it set to 3) and wins. From then on, it can choose, for its next test battle, to attack the same outpost with threshold 3 or threshold 4. In the first case, even if the said next battle is victorious, the threshold that will be proposed it for a third battle will be 3. In the second case, the latter threshold will be preset to 5 (if victorious) or 4 (if defeated).

---

Tamarea
Ryzom Team Manager
(FR / EN / ES)
tamarea@ryzom.com
uiWebPrevious1234uiWebNext
  
Last visit Friday, 22 November 23:43:57 UTC
P_:G_:PLAYER

powered by ryzom-api