IDEAS FOR RYZOM

How many civ-neutral guilds do you know? I have exactly three in my guild list, and members of one never pvp anyway (PT).

Of course people within a civ-aligned guild could still be neutrals, but I wouldn't extrapolate over the players base starting from my friends' list.

Otherwise, with the civ-aligned caps at +100 +75 +25 +0, a marauder will only get +3 off a person if said person has bothered to raise the first 3 fames to max, and hasn't lowered any below -25. Otherwise it's +2 or lower.

Actually, I believe this could be fixed by simply not throwing a person's religious fame at -50 when they align with the opposite guys, but instead a -20. This allows marauders to get some points off religious people, which is a good chunk of the players at high levels. Would change the roleplay a little, but it's justifiable because the karas could still hope you'll see the light even if you align kami.

In any case, you need the data to see the larger picture and see how *any* changes affects dynamics.

Was not saying there are tons of civ neutrals and that that was the usual scenario, I am saying that is the worst case.. I was that case for about 3months before I realized I had to get my civ fames up to earn points.

What I am saying is I reckon everyone gets an average of around +2. I don't think a new system is warranted when there are much more important things (in my opinion of course) to be dealt with. I am however saying the old system worked fine and the change back wouldn't take too much effort.

Different from Virg, I think that Casy's examples are well founded and reflecting the situation adverse to marauders. However, I still favor a radical simplification honoring all kinds of PvP equally. I do not know the old system, maybe that could work, too.

Nevertheless, I have a different question. If there are concerns about PvP point farming, would it be a solution to limit the number of victories per hour honored by PvP points? E.g.: no more than 20 victories each hour. With equivalent opponents, and statistically same number of victories that would mean 1,5 minutes per fight (if doing nothing else which is irrealistic). So it would not hinder serious encounters which usually will last longer. But it would maim leeching with several kills per minute.

I can only speak from my personal experience and what I know, which is that no one except Rollocks (and he may even not) has any negative fame except kara.

The old system was 320 points max and split between people involved in kills, boosted if you used a lower skill weapon and dependent on your opponents skill level also. At the moment there is a cap of 1 kill every 5 minutes on someone which does not prevent some people from farming PvP points with alts sadly.

Would it be possible for the devs to log PVP kills and find farmers that way?

Technically spoken, it would be easy to log everything. But figuring what is transgression would still be a tedious and frustrating task. Not everything is obvious, and too much surveillance may spoil fun and drive players out of the game. Beneath that, it is burdening the CSR with very unpleasant tasks. And the vicious ones may find a way to work around while the innocent may feel harrassed and injustly accused.

There are two ways to address transgressions

- by common sense and community consent. If an attitude is widely frowned upon it will hardly spread
- automatically by game mechanics. Thus my proposal with the max victories per hour

Virg,

The only negative fame (other than Karavan) that I have is with the few tribes that will not allow me to have positive fame. Since these are Matis and Karavan tribes, it is fine with me.

Rollocks
Guardian of the PvP Point Farmers

Ah so there we go. Everyone I know has no negative fames only positive, which agrees with marauders.

casy, you say my proposal for points for homin a killing homin b is not fair? it's the fairest system for EVERYONE, REGARDLESS OF FAMES.

everyone want's to quote RP as a reason for this and that, honestly, the RP of the game is simply an excuse.

the system is BS right now, i can't earn points for a kill of anyone because of neutral civ fame, which is wrong, it basically says that if MY RP is to not support any civ more then another i can't get pvp points for killings.

you focus on the mara's ONLY it seams, as your worried about how many points YOU get, well, my idea would allow you to get as many points for a kill as ANYONE ELSE could get.

MJ, you say that pvp system will bring all the kids to pvp, i doubt it, takes lot's of long hard work to get the master lvl skills to really do any good at pvp, they'd spend a long time dying before they could ever earn a point, simply because they would stand little chance.

as for farming pvp points, i've sat in the mara camp and watched mara's farm them with alts for hours, imagine that. farming is something that's going to happen no matter what the system is, though with the current system it's worse because for some farming points is the only way to earn them, because at least when you farm, you know that the toon your killing for your farming will at least GIVE you SOME points.

like i've said before and still say now, the current system is not fair, you want to make pvp points related to RP, fine, but make it some that the civ neutral "RP" where the RP is hominist (+50 all civ's) can get at the least a base of points.

so:

base points is say 100pvp points per kill regardless of anything, and aligned / mara get's a multiplier bonus for their choices for "RP" reasons.

honestly, RP doesn't seam to be anything more then an excuse to cover the larger issue, and since no 2 RP's are totally identical (and some players do NOT RP) using rp as an excuse for doing or not doing something is simply an excuse.

simple is fair, but i guess FAIR isn't something anyone here want's to talk about. thus i'll go back to my point of view that any PVP outside of OP's and SN's is stupid. (want to change my opinion you'll have to make it at least equal and fair at a baseline point for all homins regardless of alignments)

also with this complex system there's no way it seams i can earn a point, so why would i ever want to bother with tagged pvp, i already disagree that there are forced pvp zones, you can't get points for killing anyone in those if your not tagged, so what do we have them? so that people can make life on atys hard on others, nothing more. (a fair way to allow harassment)

i'm repeating myself over and over, and getting nowhere, so i guess i'm talking to the trees.

counter my idea that points should be equally available to EVERYONE (even you as a mara casy, so by disagreeing with me your saying you like the disadvantage you have by being a mara, which is not what you keep claiming, i'm proposing to give you exactly what you want, but you don't think it's fair becasue it's good for EVERYONE, not just mara's.)

Talkirc,

At the risk of having my post being removed or edited I will say. "Your proposal of killing points for a homin A killing a homin B is not fair." It is not fair to the homins who have sworn an allegiance to a nation and to religion.

From my perspective killing a Matis or Karavan should be the way a player receives points. If a player kills a Fyros or Kami they should lose points.

I imagine the Matis or Karavan have a different perspective.

OOC: I really don't understand why a player that is "neutral" complains about their inability to benefit from PvP. Stop whining, choose an allegiance and reap the benefits of PvP. Homins should sit on the fence complaining about PvP points or try to vilify those homins who engage in PvP and consistently RP the part. At one time Ryzom was promoted and even considered to be a role-playing game. I hope that someday it can return to that status.

Rollocks
Guardian of the Vilified Dead Camper

I think the system as it is, isn't all that bad

Talkirc may be right, that everyone may have a reason to fight anyone once in a while. However, i think that no one should be rewarded for hunting their allies.

Also a true neutral player shouldn't be doing any PvP, becasue well that's pretty much what being neutral is about. If you join the fight, you take sides and you are no longer neutral. And that is correctly reflected in the current system, a neutral palyers gets no points and gives no points.

And that is one thing that is always getting confused, a neutral players is not at 50 fame, a neutral player is at 0 fame

at 50 fame, you are hominist and a hominist fighting a hominist shouldn't be right, however a hominist fighting a marauder should be getting maximum. If that's not the case, that's not the intention of the current system and is an ovbvious bug.

Keldun.

What are your thoughts on an aligned player get points for killing a neutral player?

Rollocks
Guardian of Dead PvP Point Farmers

Once again, are they 'Neutral' or un-aligned?

Keldun --

I would disagree that a neutral player should have zero Fames. "Neutral" means you don't take sides one side against another. It doesn't mean that people don't like you.

The Fame scores show how well the Faction or Nation likes *you*, not how much you like *them.*

I do agree that truly neutral players should reconsider their stance if they want to play at PvP. Hence the stance of Phaedrea's Tears on PvP and the reason we will probably never own an Outpost.

That stance might have been true in the original setup, when there was no "negative" side.

But now If you have positive fame, you are no longer neutral, you support the factions and take side against marauders.

The devs made it so that the sides are exact opposites, you can't align with both, so to be neutral, you have to align with neither.

Rolloks, by my deifinition of neutral, aligned players shouldn't be fighting with neutrals, as they are not enemies so there shouldn't be points.

Any positiv aligned player fighting a hominist is even worse, as they are more or less allies.