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 - 2020-08-31

Tamarea & Namcha (RT) – 21:26 UTC
The aim of this project is to revitalize outpost battles by restoring interest in all POs, by having them change owners regularly and by diversifying the types of combat. It will also reduce the gameplay advantage of multi-talts.
Project description note :
Some points to emphasize here again:
• All outposts, regardless of their level (which will remain unchanged), will produce either Q150, Q200 or Q250 materials.
• No guild will no longer be allowed to keep an outpost for the sole purpose of enjoyment (if any) of its possession.
• To remember: outposts will change hands much more often and regularly than in the past!

Q : "Change owners regularly"... Does this mean that we will be forced to abandon our "home" even if those who covet it are defeated in each of their attacks? With no chance for us to defend it ?
R : Yes this can happen; in this case the outpost will be taken by NPCs. But it will have begun to produce other materials anyway.

Q : In the case of GvG OP battles, is there anything scheduled to prevent the temporary recruitment in the conflicting guilds of members of their allied guilds?
R : Two solutions to address this issue are currently being studied to evaluate their respective side effects:
1 • Authorize temporary recruitment by capping the number of combatants
2 • Make the right to fight subject to a minimum seniority in the guild.
In any case a GvG battle (an option which, incidentally, will not be available immediately) must not be identical to an FvF battle.

Q : How will the type of OP battle to be fought be decided?
R : By clicking on the OP when launching the attack. But the number of GvG attacks per guild will be capped.

Q : Won't the new system only favor the big guilds by allowing them to attack in GvG the small ones that have become incapable of benefiting from the help of their allies?
R : It is true that one of the objectives of the refactoring is to prevent single-member guilds from holding OPs. But, as far as small guilds are concerned, the extent of the damage will also depend on the capping of the number of GvG battles and they will still have the opportunity to conquer OPs through GvE, knowing that OPs thus conquered will not be able to change owner again during the following two weeks.

Q : "GvE: Guild vs NPCs to win the OPs taken by NPCs"… What kind of NPCs will these be?
R : Homins for sure, but the possibility of also having kitins was evoked (and submitted to the developers for consideration).

Q : An OP may be held for its faction by a small guild that has received it as a reward for its help and then takes over the work of extracting and redistributing its materials. If the OP is taken through "easy" GvG by a large adverse guild, the faction will be the one that suffers. Shouldn't the faction, therefore, be allowed to help defend it?
R : If solution 1 above is chosen, the faction will be able to help. If not, it may indeed be necessary to review the organization of the factions.

Q : As all OPs will produce materials from Q150 to Q250, an OP in Fount, for example, will be able to produce exactly the same materials as one in Flaming Forest?
R : Each OP, regardless of its level, will indeed be able to produce materials of all three qualities, but the materials production rate of OP of a given level will be higher than that of OP of lower level.

Q : How will materials and owners rotations be done? At fixed or random intervals? All together or staggered over time?
R : All together (server reboot), at an interval of two and a half to three months IRL, but the exact date will be random. Many mechanisms remain to be specified, however, regarding rotations: they will be detailed to you in a future meeting.

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 - 12-04-2021

Ulukyn (RT) – 20:27 UTC
Nous avons commencé le travail sur le projet de refonte des batailles d'avant-poste.
Comme certains l'ont sans doute remarqué, quatre avant-postes sont apparus au Nexus, de quatre "niveaux" différents (100, 150, 200 et 250).
Leurs noms laissent entendre qu'ils ne sont pas "comme les autres" et ne fonctionneront pas du tout de la même manière. En fait, les modalités de leur fonctionnement évolueront au fur et à mesure de l'avancement du projet de refonte.
Dans un premier temps, leur conquête sera l'occasion de batailles GvE (une guilde seule combattant les PNJ défendant l'avant-poste), aucun ne sera propriété d'un guilde (ni n'hébergera, donc, de foreuse). Ceci dans l'objectif de d'abord tester dans les meilleures conditions l'impact du raccourcissement projeté de la durée des batailles (de deux heures à une seule).

Q : Durant cette période de test, les batailles comprendront-elles toujours deux phases ?
R : Non, car il s'agit d'avant-postes de test. S'il est conquis au bout d'une heure de bataille, un avant-poste sera rétrocédé aussitôt à ses propriétaires : les PNJ défenseurs (des maraudeurs hors faction). Mais, comme toute bataille, si elle peut représenter un défi gratifiant à relever, coûte de l'équipement, des munitions et du temps à ceux qui la mènent. Les guildes testeuses seront donc recompensées de leur engagement (à une hauteur qui reste à déterminer).
Nous avons prévu qu'une guilde puisse lancer une attaque par semaine, ce qui laisse espérer quatre tests par semaine (un pour chacun des avant-postes) qui devraient permettre à tous de pouvoir participer.

Q : Les combattants seront-ils taggés et le JcJ autorisé durant ces batailles de test ?
R : Il s'agit de batailles d'avant-poste, donc les attaquants seront taggés OP, oui. Mais ils s'agit aussi de combats GvE auxquels, afin de ne pas fausser les tests, seuls les PJ de la guilde attaquante participeront, sans PJ alliés ou ennemis, donc sans possibilité de JcJ.

Q : Quand débutera cette phase de test ?
R : Les avant-postes de test étant déjà en place et le développement progressant sans anicroche, nous espérons la lancer dans les prochaines semaines.

Q : Le niveau des PNJ défenseurs sera-t-il identique pour les quatre avant-postes ?
R : Non. Comme pour les avant-postes des autres régions, ce niveau est fonction de la qualité des matières premières qu'il est susceptible de produire. L'avant poste de "niveau" 100 du Nexus sera, comme ailleurs, plus aisé à "conquérir" que l'avant-poste de niveau 250. Une guilde pourra ainsi juger de sa progression dans l'exercice du combat au vu du niveau de l'avant-poste qu'elle parvient à conquérir ou du seuil qu'elle parvient à lui faire atteindre.

Q : Le niveau de chacun des avant-postes sera-t-il immuable ?
R : Oui. Et une fois le projet finalisé, c'est à dire une fois la refonte des avant-postes effective sur tout Atys (les tests au Nexus ne sont en effet que les premiers d'une longue série), seule la nature des matières premières produites par un avant-poste évoluera entre les batailles, non leur qualité.

Q : L'implantation de nouveaux avant-postes, par exemple en Primes Racines, est-elle prévue ?
R : Non. Pour lors, notre priorité est l'achèvement du projet en cours : nous ne souhaitons pas le ralentir en nous éparpillant.

Q : Étant donné la qualité de "zone JcJ" du Nexus, qu'est-ce qui empêchera quiconque d'attaquer la guilde occupée au test d'un avant-poste ?
R : Le JcJ d'avant-poste empêche le JcJ de guilde par construction, tout simplement.

Q : Est-ce à dire que vous pourrez forer ou chasser tranquillement durant une heure au Nexus pour peu que votre guilde soit engagée dans une attaque test d'avant-poste ?
R : En principe oui. Remarque pertinente.

Q (hors-sujet) : Quand seront finalisées les armes de tir, comme l'ont été les armes 1 main ?
R : Notre objectif étant actuellement de terminer un maximum de projets en cours afin d'avoir un rythme constant et une équipe de plus en plus efficace nous avons dû repousser le lancement de certains autres. Ainsi, la mise au point définitive des armes de tir n'est-elle pas abandonnée, loin de là. Elle est simplement mise en attente.
Si vous souhaitez cependant participer au groupe de travail qui réfléchit malgré tout sur le sujet, vous pouvez contacter Tamarea en privé.

Q (hors-sujet) : Est-il prévu de faire quelque chose pour dynamiser le JcJ hors avant-poste afin de le rendre plus attractif ? Sinon, ne serait-il pas possible de tenir une réunion abordant ce sujet ?
R : Nous aimerions pouvoir traiter tous les sujets, toutes les problématiques et toutes les dificultés que peuvent rencontrer les joueurs. Mais nous ne pouvons pas répondre dans l'immédiat à toutes les demandes, ce serait contre-productif.

 

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 23:47:59 UTC
P_:G_:PLAYER

powered by ryzom-api