Outposts Outlined [Archive]

ozric

September 13th, 2005, 08:33 PM

You know, I was long excited about outposts from the beginning when Nevrax announced them as having Dynamic content.

<snip>

Now that Nevrax has dumbed it down to yeah another PvP land battle I've lost most of my interest in it.
Unfortunately, I echo these sentiments after reading the "detailed description" on the outposts.
The seeming dumbing down of this feature is a big disappointment.

The original stated intention was that outposts could be obtained by co-operation with the tribe that owned the outpost, by doing missions or other activities for them, or by force if this approach was desired. Already, half of this method of acquirement has been removed, and seemingly, it will be difficult for a guild that has mainly harvest/craft members to obtain/maintain a decent outpost now.

Since early beta, i was led to believe that building and maintaining the outposts themselves was to be achieved at least partly by the use of "mission mats" (prospecting with "knowledge" still currently brings up a source description of eg. "Construction", "Food" etc.) and this could have been an ideal opportunity to utilise these materials meaningfully, rather than the bland usage that they have now merely as quest items.

Neither of these issues is mentioned in the details released.

Time will tell how this feature will pan out, but i fear that it is an opportunity lost, and will not have as big an impact on the current/future player-base as the developers would hope for. A year overdue, I dont see this as a game-winning feature....

grimjim

September 13th, 2005, 08:51 PM

I am guessing they will be similar to the troops that formed during the invasion when we crafted gear for them ?

What I mean is, the defender purchases squads at their outpost, which then help defend their outpost.

The attackers, however, seem to get units to attack with too. What are these and where do they come from?

thosholm

September 13th, 2005, 09:23 PM

The attackers, however, seem to get units to attack with too. What are these and where do they come from?

<cough, cough, sidling up to Jyudas> May I interest the gentleman in our new Fairhaven Public Mercenary Guild? All members fully trained, equipped, and absolutely loyal as long as payment is provided. All of course also fully discrete with an absolute 'No Kill And Tell'-policy.

boinged

September 13th, 2005, 09:23 PM

Hmm, this cross of PvE and PvP should lead to some very varied tactics. I'd be like to know what happens to either side if they wipe/respawn during a battle i.e. is the battle over or can they continue, is there dp? And how are the outposts taken in the first place, is it just a mad rush to be the first to challenge or will there be a few weeks of challenges and whoever reaches the highest level gets it? Also, I take it we can't heal our guards, but will they take splash damage from area of effect attacks on the opposition?

It may get a bit hectic if you capture one, then every 24 hours you've got to fight to defend it. Some people might just say "sod it", others might start a new game like "outpost griefing" where they try and take as many so they've got a fight every night. Maybe the max level thing will help prevent this, but I'd prefer a safe period of a couple of days at least, plus the slower level decay that was previously mentioned.

If you own an outpost you will get some mysterious bonus so you've got something to lose (plus the kudos of owning one, the work put in winning it, the dapper spent on guards). If you're attacking you have nothing to lose so why not go nuts?

IMHO with attacking you should stand to lose something as well - maybe you have to pay the guards medical bills for how many you kill (ok life insurance payouts :P) if you lose. Maybe you have to pay for a declaration of war permit, or do missions to gain points and the favour of the local ruling body.

It's not mentioned but I hope there is some way crafters/harvesters can make themselves useful to outposts - upgrading it so it has a defensive bonus, making guard equipment. Of course, the danger is of a guild making an outpost impossible to conquer, so maybe the attacking side should have similar powers - seige weaponry? Perhaps the dapper that harvesters bring in to pay for new guards will be enough - are we going to see prices on mats going lower and lower as the market changes? :)

If I understand the turn-based thing correctly it means the attacker can choose their 2h spot and then the defender theirs at some other time (but within 24 hours?) This is a good thing at least and means that two guilds could even fight for the outpost without meeting. Before this I thought it would be a straight fight, last team standing. This also allows two non-PvP guilds to fight for the same outpost with a non-interference pact (backed up by the local heavies).

Greater numbers in an attacking or defending group is always going to help. Even if outposts were won by most mission points gained/mats dug/yubos killed in a time period, most forms of competition then more will generally be better. Smaller groups might get bullied but perhaps the community will do something about that. Alliances will be formed, maybe even 'taxes' paid to powerful groups for their support. Time will tell if it's better to sink your dappers into buying more NPCs or hiring your friendly mercenary group ;)

Lots to think about anyway and last but not least, I doubt outposts will be the be all and end all of Ryzom. Seems like there's plenty of other stuff to come if they don't turn out to be your thing.

mrshad

September 13th, 2005, 09:31 PM

This sounds...umm...unique?

Fighitng against waves of NPCs, and if you kill enough of them fast enough, you win? I think i got that right...

Anyway, the piece I am still concerned about is the 24 hour lapse between the delcaration of war and the commencement of activities. Obviously on a ocean-spanning server, this could have undesirable consquences. I would like to see an adustable scale that lets the defending guild add up to 24 hours to the end of the "preparation period", allowing them to choose the time when most of thier members will be on in order to effectivly defend thier territory.

Well, what I would really like to see is this entire idea scraped for something that does not promote PvP conflict, as there really are a lot of better ideas that could be implemented in SoR...but they seem to really want us to love this, so.. *shrug*.

ajsuk

September 13th, 2005, 09:35 PM

Well it's about time..

This was a bit overdue.. considering the fairly short time in which outposts are meant to be implemented you'd have thought the inital concept would have been thought of and shared long ago.

The concept as it stands now does seem to be reasonable(ish) Needs some improvments and we could use alot more detail..
I'm worried that at such a late stage Outposts wont get the attention/feedback (ideas, alterations, programming, testing, even totaly different concepts) it should have to make it as great as posible.

While we shouldn't be doing Nevrax's job for them, we also shouldn't be landed with something we've not had the time to get just right. (at least, right for the majority of the community) After all.. we're the ones that pay for it.

khopesh

September 13th, 2005, 10:13 PM

This sounds...umm...unique?

Fighitng against waves of NPCs, and if you kill enough of them fast enough, you win? I think i got that right...

You basically fight wave after wave until you cannot continue. There is a minimum, and apparently a maximum. This sets the bar for the defenders. It's indirect PvP.

Anyway, the piece I am still concerned about is the 24 hour lapse between the delcaration of war and the commencement of activities. Obviously on a ocean-spanning server, this could have undesirable consquences. I would like to see an adustable scale that lets the defending guild add up to 24 hours to the end of the "preparation period", allowing them to choose the time when most of thier members will be on in order to effectivly defend thier territory.

I can see where this would be a beneficial feature of the system that they are proposing. Shadowbane tried to something similar to this with "Bane Circles". The problem was precisely that people set them up for times that one side or the other couldn't attend. This should alleviate that issue, so that North American guilds don't have some sort of time advantage over United Kingdom guilds, and vice versa. You can schedule the guild event for times when the most members interested in attacking or defending can attend. I see this as a beneficial and positive feature of the proposed system.

Well, what I would really like to see is this entire idea scraped for something that does not promote PvP conflict, as there really are a lot of better ideas that could be implemented in SoR...but they seem to really want us to love this, so.. *shrug*.

Could you please detail some of those ideas? This is a quite innovative way to run a PvP encounter of a specific piece of virtual real estate. If they'd allow crafters/harvesters to build battlements, troop equipment, and siege engines, I'd say they'd have it pretty much where anyone in-game could contribute to the guild effort.

It will also add a more political atmosphere to this game, which is normally only bred by tension. Conflict, in here or in the world, promotes danger, and danger is an immersive element in any game. We see it in its current form by the PvE aspect of the game. It is dangerous to explore, as many creatures out in the world find you a tasty snack.

micrix

September 13th, 2005, 10:16 PM

I read it twice and then went to the german site and read the translation ;)

This seems to be somehow interessting. Much less PvP then i thought.

What i want to know is if the number of players and/or NPCs are limited somehow ? Or is the size of a squad dynamicaly adjusting with the number of the attacking group ?

svayvti

September 13th, 2005, 10:47 PM

This sounds...umm...unique?

Fighitng against waves of NPCs, and if you kill enough of them fast enough, you win? I think i got that right...

Few MMOs actually have any kind of "raid" engine Nevrax first bragged about for launch and was supposed to be a key part of Outposts. Plenty of MMOs have land battles, notably DAOC, Lineage, Lineage 2, Neocron 2, Anarchy Online, World of Warcraft, Shadowbane and of course the upcoming City of Villians. Ryzom is just trying to play a game of way-behind catch-up with this version of outposts. Most of which burn out players with griefers and force people out of guilds they want into uber guilds.

but not very many games have triggered invasions and defenses (I can think of Anarchy Online - Alien Invasion), Guild missions (can't think of any), or a way for tradeskill and gathering classes to participate in land control.

This PvP idea might be good for a limited number of outposts (maybe Prime Roots) to keep them competitive, but I hope Nevrax can hold to the vision they sold us on originally. The vision that players have been waiting for, not just PvP.

ajsuk

September 13th, 2005, 11:17 PM

Right, after thinking on this a while..

Me thinks the rounds idea is fine, had to happen..
The NPC's also have a place I feel but.. it almost apears to be NPCvNPC rather than PvP. While >some< NPC involvement would be good, couldn't we have some other systems in place also?
Maybe defenses of some other kind. Harvest mats to build Obstacles, small wall sections, trenches, mounted range weapons?
I'm not saying turn it in to Battlefield (http://battlefield.ea.com/), just saying we could use other defense types too. As it stands at the moment we might aswel go back to playing sonic the hedgehog (http://www.sega.com/sonic) with the wave after wave of computer bad guys rather than an online multiplayer game. :rolleyes:

petej

September 13th, 2005, 11:46 PM

Are these guards (the hired/bought ones) also the ones which patrol outside the camp at normal times ?

If so it would be possible for a guild who wished to attack to decimate them by pulling agro prior to declaring war and hence deplete the outposts stock of bought NPC defenders

thebax

September 14th, 2005, 12:08 AM

I also believe it would be more fair to all concerned if it were set up so that war could not begin less than 24 hours after declaration, but within, maybe an addition 24 hour window after that time. Perhaps have both guilds secretly bid the time they want the battle to commence after the initial 24 hour period, then average between the two, an additional level of strategy.

I would also like to second the idea for the difficulty degrading one level per week, instead of every two days.

It does sound a bit one-sided though, the attackers have nothing to lose, wheras the defenders, even if victorious, lose any upgraded guards they have to use. Shadowbane was mentioned earlier. To prevent "guild griefing", a very real possibility under the proposed system, they had bane-circles. They required you to buy a bane-circle before you attacked another guilds town, for a substantial price. It was much cheaper than building the town yourself, but, usually at least, meant that the aggressor was actually interested in conquest, rather than just being a vandal/griefer/royal pain in the ***.
Along the same lines, perhaps we could have it so that a declaration of war must be presented by the aggressors to an official, who will ratify it, and notarize that it has been recognized as official, for a tax. This tax will by much less than the outlay for the outpost, upgraded guards, and whatever else we are allowed to improve it with, but will be enough to prevent a group of jerks from forming a guild and declaring war on Saturday, attacking on Sunday, and disbanding their guild on Monday to go gank folks in PR. It would have to be based on a percentage of overall costs for Outposts (which we do not yet know) but around ten million dappers sounds like a good starting place, maybe more. If the defenders stand to lose 100 million dappers in guard troops, and still be victorious, it should cost the aggressors around 50 million to declare war, etc.

pr0ger

September 14th, 2005, 12:28 AM

The level thingy lemme remember of the "coliseeum" concept in T4C.

Yeah, this provided "draft" is lacking too much info.
- how exactly PC will help their NPC squad ?
- how death is handled (moreover with an infinite battlefield) ?
=> when attackers win over 1 level, since defenders PC are supposed to help their NPC, it means they're all killed by attackers.....??! who'll rez them for next battle level ???

- where does came from the attackers' NPC squad ?
=> defenders squad belongs to selected outpost... attackers squad belongs to guild hall "supply corps"... so having 3 outposts means 3 times more dappers spent into defence squad ... erm i'm confused... maybe there is a "bought squad pool" where players pick in to set up defence/attack ?.... I need a draft about upkeep/management of squads!

outpost battle sample :
threshold is 7, team A (attackers) vs team D (owner/defenders)
A : 5 ==> A lost.
A : 7 ==> battle win, so D : 5 ==> A win outpost
A : 7 ==> battle win, so D : 7 ==> tie, D keep outpost.
A : 9 ==> battle win, so D : 8 ==> A win outpost, thresh set to 9

=>
To keep the outpost, the defenders don’t need to do better than attackers; they just have to reach the same level.Heh !! anti gank system, isnt it ? an enormous attackers squad wont be any use against a weak outpost... weak outpost owner could win following pattern below :
threshold is 4, attackers have prepared attack squad up to level 20
A : 6 ==> battle win, so D : 6 ==> tie, D keep outpost.
... ...
So the strategy here is to make sure attackers loose at the lowest possible level so counterattack turn would be easy.
.....
flaw : a big PC team could easily reach a very high level, then at counterattack turn, defenders will loose at level 1 ... the big PC team could set tons of "high threshold" outpost this way pretty quickly.... something is missing in the draft about that.

to avoid abuse, please confirm :
- levels reachable by attackers is infinite
threshold is 3 :
A : 12 ==> battle win,... new thresh set to 12
- players, with dappers, upgrade the level by making squad, who'll spawn in a definite pattern, harder to kill.
- players can't change squad spawn pattern (since it definite the "level")
- squads will be like the cutthroats : easy to hit but with many HP!
- defenders could play "dumb" and making weak squad to spawn, so attackers will think "let's go above min threshold", but just after min threshold defenders use serious squad (and team tactics) to win over attackers.

note @ thebax : dude, 50mil dappers sounds like nothing for you!!!! it tooks me 9 month to get 50mil dappers. I fear to be put aside of outposts just because i didnt have as much time to play as others. bothersome to be unable to enjoy outpost only because RL doesnt allow many playtime.

boinged

September 14th, 2005, 12:56 AM

A note on costs: a master harvester can make 1m-2m per hour (400mats x 5k mat). Let's say they only do 10 hours of this per week (for no xp) = 10m-20m. Your average guild is going to have 5+ of these people, then with very little work that's 50m per week. On the other end of the scale, think about a harvesters guild ;), 20+ masters, 20+ hrs/week working towards a common goal...

random44

September 14th, 2005, 01:30 AM

hmmmmmm

Most of us have waited quite a while for outposts right? I think all of you agree that this should impact Ryzom with some outstanding gameplay.

Well, from this description so far, it's looking rather half rate. There needs to be more dimensions. These could consist of some things mentioned, such as tactical/defense improvements to the outpost before or during a battle. It would also be great to see different ways of capturing an outpost than just combat. I know that's been mentioned many times before. I won't go into detail, because theres tons of detailed posts on that topic on these forums.
Even the ability to outfit your guards with gear would add interest. Having your guards holding excellent weapons, and even having them have a uniform, corresponding to the colors of your guild symbol.

I'm really enthusiastic about outposts, and I want them to come no matter how they turn out, but the more the merrier.

wepps

September 14th, 2005, 01:48 AM

Discuss it!

sweeeeeeet

keoni

September 14th, 2005, 02:31 AM

If I read this correctly, then what will make it interesting is that you'll have to fight not only the NPC squads, but the PC forces of the opposing guild and their declared allies. Presumably, the PCs will be able to fully interact with their NPC squads, to include healing them (& if not, why not?).

I agree with others, there should be a significant "mobilzation cost" of some sort that aggressors have to pay, perhaps scaled to the level of the outpost they're trying to capture. To make that more interesting - if the attackers win, let them get a percentage (maybe half) of the mobilization cost back. But if they fail in their assault attempt, all or part of those funds should go to the victorious defender as spoils of war. This should help keep the battles from turning into griefing on a grander scale.

oauitam

September 14th, 2005, 04:01 AM

1. Declaring War (24 hours)
If a guild wants to take an outpost...

Why would a guild want to take an outpost?

8. Conflict area The conflict area is unlimited, the two guilds are in PvP mode everywhere during both attack and defence periods.

I'm not very good at thinking up exploits and so on but can anyone imagine why point 8 is there? Is there some reason to fight away from the battle apart from grudges/griefing/annoying the opposition? It may be realistic but it doesn't seem to be much fun.

If guilds are going to be forced into opening themselves up to PvP (assuming there is some reason to want to hold an outpost) then at least allow any people that don't want to be involved to be safe while they're playing the game however they prefer elsewhere in Atys.

oauitam

September 14th, 2005, 04:11 AM

The bit I don't get is where the attacking squads come from.

As I read it, there are no attacking squads, only defending squads.

In the 'attack phase' the attackers assault the outpost which is populated by the defenders' squads (and maybe defending players too).
In the 'defence phase' ("counter-attack") the outpost's current owners assault the outpost which is now populated by the other guild's squads (and maybe players too).

The notes are uncler as to where these squads appear. It's most likely that in the 'attack phase' the defenders' squads appear inside the outpost itself. In the "counter-attack" maybe the other side's squads appear inside it too and "the role's are reversed" completely.
[It's guesswork but it is one possible reading of what the note implies - just as this answer is to only one possible reading of your question ;) ]

alexrowe

September 14th, 2005, 04:45 AM

Well this seems good hopefully the release of outpost aren't going to turn out like the Encyclopedia release.

madnak

September 14th, 2005, 05:21 AM

I think the defenders should have a major advantage over the attackers. I agree there be a cost to attack and think that "elite troops" should cost more for the attackers. Still, this makes it a matter of only dappers. A high-level attacking group will be able to take a low-level outpost effortlessly.

Many players have a goal of peaceful outpost-building. I really think that should be a viable option, but under this system it sounds as though having an outpost will entail a constant tug-of-war. It also seems like the uber-guilds are going to get LOTS of outposts.

By the way, a number of my biggest questions about outposts weren't answered here. How much does upkeep for an outpost cost? What are the actual benefits of an outpost? How do the benefits/upkeep scale? Most importantly, what option will we have to build on an outpost that we own?

mrshad

September 14th, 2005, 06:32 AM

Well this seems good hopefully the release of outpost aren't going to turn out like the Encyclopedia release.

Ohhh....

That just about killed what was left of my optimism.

andy707

September 14th, 2005, 08:01 AM

This looks like it could be fun. Seems to be an improvement over the "towers" in Anarchy Online where, more often than not, the defenders didn't have a chance to gather and organize against an attack. Often the defenders would not even bother to try to defend and just hoped there were enough of the static towers in their turf, that the attackers couldn't destroy them in the alloted time.

I'm wondering, though, how Outpost battles will work out in practice. Assume that the attackers and defenders are of equal strenght, that is, in a (non-outpost) GvG fight it's a toss up who will win.

Now during the attack phase, the attackers have to fight PC-only against the defenders who are PC+NPC squads. Would the attackers be able win any levels at all? (Assuming they are othewise equal GvG).

On the othere hand, if the attackers get a few levels, does the defense even have a chance? After all, the attackers were able to win PC vs. PC + a few squads worth of NPC's. When the roles are reversed, the defenders, it seems to me, would not have a chance, the battle is already over.

Only if the guilds, otherwise equal in GvG, are unbalance with respect to when their players play (one strong in US the other Euro, say) would the defense phase be meaningful. Which I think is great, but to avoid humiliation, a guild should be able to surrender when it's clear they don't have a chance.

Perhaps I'm overlooking something though and in the case of the guilds being equal during the phases, you'll still be able to wipe out the squads up to a few levels or so. If that's the way it will work (for some reason I can't see, perhaps because the NPC's are not very strong), then, I think, there will be much more tension and excitement in the outpost battles.

Monco
Eleytheria

grimjim

September 14th, 2005, 08:52 AM

Couldn't you find a friendly guild to declare war on your outpost and then not show up?

Then you could annihilate the attacking force of NPCs and ramp up your defence value to a stupid level for several days making you harder to attack for other groups.

Also, couldn't alliances of guilds constantly declare war on each other's outposts to prevent anyone else from declaring war and trying to take them?

Sorry, just seeing potential exploits.

kwhopper

September 14th, 2005, 09:25 AM

System sounds decent. Could be fun if tested correctly. Few ideas that could make it a tad more interesting/fair (some realistic, some just wishful thinking) -

- Defensive structures (tower, walls, gates)
- Offensive siege units
- Unique "Hero" units. Can only be summoned in one defensive wave. Costs a buttload. (2h Weapon Dual Wielder, Mounted Fighter, etc...)
- Safe period. Few days after a successful defense where an outpost cannot be subject to another challenge (3 days).
- If an outpost capture is failed, guild may not attack ANY outpost for 2 days. Also, cannot attack same outpost for a week.
- Cost to mount attack
- Thresh level degrades slower

I do like the fact that it doesn't always have to end up being a direct PvP encounter, leading to potential exploits. Sounds decent, hope it gets a lot of testing.

xenofur

September 14th, 2005, 10:15 AM

Couldn't you find a friendly guild to declare war on your outpost and then not show up?

Then you could annihilate the attacking force of NPCs and ramp up your defence value to a stupid level for several days making you harder to attack for other groups.from what i have read so far there will also be a certain amount of dappers to be paid for being allowed to declare war, aside from the constant upkeep. also, the level the attacker reached to take over the outpost will be the minimum threshold, not the level the defender managed to reach, so there will have to be a certain amount of effort to be put in by the attackers. this effort will have to be at least as big as the effort of any guild the would-be-exploiters are trying to prevent take-overs from. add to that the danger of accidentally losing your outpost by not reaching the necessary def-level while trying this maneuver and the added costs you will have to put in to have squads ready for real take-over attempts and you have an exploit that is almost useless. =)Also, couldn't alliances of guilds constantly declare war on each other's outposts to prevent anyone else from declaring war and trying to take them?true, there should be a time limit from one take-over attempt to the next from the same guild, although this will still leave gaps open.Sorry, just seeing potential exploits.why apologize? that's exactly what they're asking for, in order to prevent a desaster similar to aen.

pr0ger

September 14th, 2005, 10:16 AM

/agree with kwhopper suggestions :)

edit : xenofur post addendum
also, the level the attacker reached to take over the outpost will be the minimum threshold, not the level the defender managed to reach, so there will have to be a certain amount of effort to be put in by the attackers. this effort will have to be at least as big as the effort of any guild the would-be-exploiters are trying to prevent take-overs fromNot in case of friendly take over : defenders let attackers reach insane level and let them control an insane-min-level outpost, and vice versa

/edit end

Couldn't you find a friendly guild to declare war on your outpost and then not show up?

Then you could annihilate the attacking force of NPCs and ramp up your defence value to a stupid level for several days making you harder to attack for other groups.

Also, couldn't alliances of guilds constantly declare war on each other's outposts to prevent anyone else from declaring war and trying to take them?

Sorry, just seeing potential exploits.

Well
- add cost per war declaration as thebax said
- set up that outpost reward is enabled only after x days of peace time
- set up war declaration tax to raise up if war is declared always between same guilds too often...
- and for others, let GM monitor guild activity...

Oh, about "friendly outpost war" : one guild wanna give its outpost to another... defenders PC will not help npc squad, even more they could join attackers (members join temporarily the attackers guild) to help raise the threshold ... exploiiiiit ! allow an "abandon outpost" instead

I just think of something :
.there is squad (spawn) level
.there is also outpost overall level (who depends of how many investments is made in by guildies... it allow better rewards) - big guilds would not have any interests into them, beside bothering small guilds -
.the outpost overall level limits the maximum squad (spawn) level attackers could reach (so it avoid insane min threshold on weak outpost) - that have to be fine tuned. if strong guild deliberately let their outpost be weak, they could always win the counterattack battle... solution : when counterattack battle reach the max squad (spawn) threshold of current outpost's level, the outpost's level increase at end of war!... what ? "free" outpost level improvement w/o dappers expense ? not really since daily outpost upkeep increase with outpost's level -

so there is : delay between fight, cost of war declaration, tax growth rate of war declaration between same guild, max squad (spawn) level, decrease rate of min threshold, outpost level, outpost level's improvement cost, upkeep of outpost's level, outpost reward interesting enough to justify improving outpost level (ouch so many factors here), global upkeep malus when a guild control many outposts (and avoid "all ur outpost are belong to us").... ....

omg devs must have an hard time to fine-tune gameplay :D :D :D ;)

On the othere hand, if the attackers get a few levels, does the defense even have a chance? After all, the attackers were able to win PC vs. PC + a few squads worth of NPC's. When the roles are reversed, the defenders, it seems to me, would not have a chance, the battle is already over.
True, very true and very concerning. There must be a "malus on npc+pc team" and "bonus on pc team only" somewhere. And it's prolly a kinky one to equilibrate sides... ?!!?

toneh

September 14th, 2005, 10:38 AM

Remind me again? Why would anyone bother with one in the first place?

Will they have things like:

Unique forage spots
Training grounds
Produce a steady income over time
etc

xenofur

September 14th, 2005, 10:44 AM

my guess based on several statements by nevrax: they'll make it possible to produce consumables

jinnear

September 14th, 2005, 10:50 AM

8. Conflict area The conflict area is unlimited, the two guilds are in PvP mode everywhere during both attack and defence periods.

((Now, wouldnt this mean that an attacking force could simply use some sort of kamikaze-strategy?
Example: Attackers stand and wait or just run and hide somewhere far from the outpost while one elected homin of their team goes to nearest group of mean aggro-mobs, uses invul and drags them to the camp. If this dont kill the defence Im sure its a pretty good way of weakening them... or even so, if the attacking force would close in while the aggros are in the outpost, but stand far enough away not to get the aggro and then start nuking the defence...
I hope they make this forbidden.))

drizzeth

September 14th, 2005, 10:54 AM

Just read i through..sounds like an interesting system :)

Also im wondering, the paid squads, are we still able to equip them using items we crafted ourselves?

drizzeth

September 14th, 2005, 10:57 AM

Remind me again? Why would anyone bother with one in the first place?

Will they have things like:

Unique forage spots
Training grounds
Produce a steady income over time
etc

Im also very very interested in that indeed :D

The side benefits and very important, guild fascilities buildings? Guild mission givers? Guild trainers? Guildfame? Guild Experience?

ajsuk

September 14th, 2005, 10:59 AM

All of these posts for me just further my worries.. So many of the questions are about simple details that should have been included in this 'draft'.. :rolleyes:

What are we meant to give feedback on? lol
We're having to guess half of the scenario's..

I don't consider myself a big moaner.. I'm not a fan boy either.. credit where credit's due I think but to this I say: Take it back and do it again. :p

As for the fairness.. As I see it..
A way to make things work would be to introduce a 'level system' for outposts just like for leveling skills.
Maybe collect the offensive skills imformation of guild members and use those to calculate what outposts the guild can or can't attack.

micrix

September 14th, 2005, 11:34 AM

Remind me again? Why would anyone bother with one in the first place?

Will they have things like:

Unique forage spots
Training grounds
Produce a steady income over time
etc

The outposts provide unique advantages. Each outpost gives a bonus to the guild that occupies it. The guild can also construct a few buildings on the outpost's territory to gain further advantages.

This seems to be more then just produce consumables. There is more. But even when there are no advantages it seems to me to be neccessary for the game and lore.

Ppl try to get out of the PvP thing for a while. There is more. Lakelands have strategic outposts in BB and Loria. From the viewpoint of the lore it is an honor and a duty to keep those strongholds. In this example we Trykers should not let in Matis again and stand and die at the Zorai border.

kwhopper

September 14th, 2005, 11:56 AM

What would be really cool is if along with outposts they added some guild only content for those holding them. Of course I'm talking about new areas and things of that sort, but it would be cool. I can wish, can't I?

- Outpost NPC guy directs you to new zone A to retrieve artifact B. You, some guildies, and a squadron of NPCs from your outpost are sent on mission. Fighting, killing, guarding, digging, etc...ensues. Retrieve artifact, bring back to outpost...bonus! Success boosts your outposts resource level. You gain access to farming/harvesting type things. (Farms that generate certain amount of mats per day, increased storage, ec...)

- If you've held your outpost for say a month either unopposed/undefeated you begin to face outside conflicts from NPCs. If not kept in check Kitin spawn rate near your outpost is increased leading to possible attack. Would encourage guilds to tend to their property, even if not heavily contested. Bandits could attack/rob outpost if left unguarded too long. Either you have to hunt down the Bandit boss or wait for an attack and defend. Success boosts your outposts combat/defense level. Rewarding you with offense/defense structures.

- Outpost NPC guy sends your diggers to wild new places to get wild new mats that can only be used to create wild new facilities in your outpost. Through completing crafting missions crafters gain access to these wild new plans and your guilds outpost gets all types of wild new stuff. Craft/resource level increases. Craft level increase raises quality of materials used for outpost, increasing toughness, Qlv of weapons/armor worn by default guards/sentries increased.

Of course for this type of stuff to really take shape would take time. To have an outpost for a given amount of time would require you to defend it. However, through some of these missions your defense of the outpost would be made easier. So you would have to make decisions on whether to build defenses first, or make that pretty garden off to the side.

Stuff like this (not exactly, just proposing ideas) would make outposts (at least in my opinion) worth having and something that a guild would WANT to attain/defend. Some of the bigger outposts in prime locations could become almost like little cities. Merchants, stables, trainers, walls, guards, etc...

Buuuuuut, why don't we wait and see what the ACTUAL implementation of outposts is before we go making crazy suggestions on how to improve them.

micrix

September 14th, 2005, 12:19 PM

Buuuuuut, why don't we wait and see what the ACTUAL implementation of outposts is before we go making crazy suggestions on how to improve them.

We do wait :) But some good points where posted allready. Exploids shouldnt be possible in any case.

I think Devs outlined to give a little insight. Many people are concerned about PvP and especially about griefing. The post from Nevrax shows somehow that PvP is not the point about outposts. A challange seems to be dapper and timeconsuming. The hugest part of the playerbase will not declare war every 24 hours ;)

There will be some struggeling in the first weeks but then it will be quiet again. The factions will take a more important role in everydays life on Atys.

Homins then did another huge step in their evolution after the swarm. We builded our cities and now we populate our ruins again.

It is possible that the one or other or both factions do not like our regained strengh and therefore will try to influence.

I am really looking foreward how this will take place and what next step will arise on the horizon of hominkind :)

ajsuk

September 14th, 2005, 12:21 PM

Those are some really good idea's kwhopper.

Buuuuuut, why don't we wait and see what the ACTUAL implementation of outposts is before we go making crazy suggestions on how to improve them.

As for this though.. well, it's best to try and get as many things right first time around before making alot of mistakes and spending alot of time fixing/altering.

hans1976

September 14th, 2005, 12:25 PM

As soon as a round starts, one or more NPC squads appear at the outpost to defend it. The goal of the attacker is to get rid of all the spawned squads before the end of the round. The goal of the defenders is, of course, to not let the attackers achieve their goal by making sure the squads stay alive.
8. Conflict area
The conflict area is unlimited, the two guilds are in PvP mode everywhere during both attack and defence periods.

People assumed your defenders are to be healed. I read something different: The attackers will not only get attacked by the guards, but by the defenders as well (who may or may not be able to heal the guards).

Interesting tactics are coming up....

oauitam

September 14th, 2005, 01:16 PM

Why would a guild want to take an outpost?
Remind me again? Why would anyone bother with one in the first place?
There is more. But even when there are no advantages it seems to me to be neccessary for the game and lore.
What would be really cool is if along with outposts they added some guild only content for those holding them.
Why take an outpost?

After having slept on it, this seems to be a very important question. As I see it, the counter-intuitive response is the best for everyone.

There should be no tangible game benefit to characters from owning an outpost.

If you want more PvP to be added for the chance to fight against real people, with outposts you have it. No need for any benefit from owning the outpost as well.

If you want to be more involved in the lore, with outposts you have it. No need for any benefit from owning the outpost as well.

If you don't want to be involved in more PvP or are in a small guild or are a casual player, the outposts don't affect you. You're not missing out on content or any benefits by not owning an outpost.

As long as the reason to fight over an outpost is, "it's fun to fight over an outpost" then everything is fine and the game designers have done their job well.
As soon as there is some other reason than, "it's fun to fight over an outpost" then ooc hostilities can get into the system and any outpost-only content is restricted to only some of the players.

ajsuk

September 14th, 2005, 01:18 PM

Why would you fight for one if it doesn't do jack for you? :rolleyes:

aylwyne

September 14th, 2005, 01:48 PM

There should be no tangible game benefit to characters from owning an outpost.

I disagree with this. I think Ryzom in general is severely lacking purpose. I don't want to see yet more game mechanics added with no real purpose. If there's no benefit to taking an outpost, people will quickly become bored of them and we'll be back to screaming for 'content'.

That being said, I don't like the idea of outposts being centered strictly around combat. I've said it many times before but "PvP" does not stand for "Player vs. Player combat". There's many forms of direct competition that can occur between players that does not involve combat. I'd like to see outposts that can only be taken by out-harvesting or out-crafting another group.

See post #2 in this thread (http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14738) for more detail on some ideas for different outpost types.

oauitam

September 14th, 2005, 01:50 PM

Why would you fight for one if it doesn't do jack for you? :rolleyes:
Fun!

The potential for problems only arises if there are other reasons.
(If you re-read the above post you'll see some answers to your question.)

ajsuk

September 14th, 2005, 02:01 PM

I did read it.. but.. you can fight guild v guild now without outposts.. it'll just be a useless thing to own and pay money for.. big whoop lol.

toneh

September 14th, 2005, 02:03 PM

I suppose to that if you own one, and defend it successfully against an attack, more people will challenge you, because they know you just spent a pile of cash defending it :D

wepps

September 14th, 2005, 02:29 PM

Mechanics with Purpose

Additional discussions should pursue the purpose of outpost ownership, besides the obvious - that is, "guild interested in PvP therefore here we are at the outpost."

If you pay for something, you are expecting a return on your investment of some sort. Clearly define what that return is, and allow ownership to have an over-all effect on Atys.

Tactical Thinking

One of the things that I used to really enjoy about Everquest, my first MMO, was the wide-open combat system. There were so MANY things you could do with that combat system that dueling in the game became one of my past-times. However, I would NOT duel in an Arena, or area set aside for that purpose. Why?

Because it was boring. It was the same old Arena, and by its design, it allowed certain classes advantages over certain others.

To clarify, I would never fight anybody unless they were 6 levels above me. And I never lost - as long as I had the entire zone to work with. I was able to apply tactical thinking and out-whit my opponents in every case, and this is where the FUN game play was found! In an arena, there were no tactics. Just buttons in the right sequence, and this was boring as well as unbalancing.

Since those times, each new MMO that has arrived on the scenes has removed more and more of those tactical possibilities in an attempt to put a box around what a character can do, and therefore remove any potential exploits a player could have at his or her disposal.

I have always felt that this is an error in judgment. Exploiting technically does not exist, if you simply call it tactics and apply that type of thinking to the design.

Specifically, one previous poster said that "you should not allow mobs to be pulled to the fort." I disagree. In fact, there should be any number of possibilities in the area that get players (especially leader-types) THINKING of what they could exploit toward the end-result of achieving a victory. Make these random, or make them plentiful. Design of surrounding terrain as well as the fort itself should be aligned toward that type of thinking. Perhaps the guild can even develop the surrounding terrain towards that purpose in any number of ways, to give them a defensive advantage.

Force-multipliers - is what this is all about, and is what tactical thinking is by its nature. A player/leader or guild should have available to them any number of different methods of increasing their effective force POWER by utilizing exploits of the surrounding area. THIS is what tactics is all about, expanding your thinking to achieve a victory against not-necessarily-good odds.

I would suggest a concentration on this, in other words, not only allow exploitation of the surrounding area so a force can multiply their power, but figure out methods of implementing even MORE than what may have been overlooked.

This way, players with the right button presses won't always win the engagements by default.

Effect of Outpost Placement

...or, Strategies.

Aside from tactics, which is the exploitation of anything available to a force to magnify its effective power, there are also the strategic considerations to be taken into account.

Long story shorter, specific locations for outposts should include anything from easily defended zones, to very dangerous ones, with moderate in between. Each increase in difficulty of maintaining that outpost would also warrant a greater return on the investment, and also a greater effect on the world of Atys.

This highly simplifies the strategic concept, but also adds SOMETHING in the form of a strategy to be considered by the leaders of a guild.

Conclusion: I have often argued that exploitation in an MMO does not exist, but is simply the players seeking a vast improvement of their content through tactical thinking. Options = fun, and by allowing freedom to find and use methods, terrain and objects to improve your chances of survivability in an engagement, you are applying tactical thinking to the situation, and should be regarded as a good leader for soing so, not a cheater that should be banned from game play.

Even so, without a PURPOSE the entire concept falls apart. If nothing else, this needs to be addressed.

grimjim

September 14th, 2005, 03:02 PM

Since those times, each new MMO that has arrived on the scenes has removed more and more of those tactical possibilities in an attempt to put a box around what a character can do, and therefore remove any potential exploits a player could have at his or her disposal.

Balance does tend to turn character concepts into a grey and uninspiring mush.

The best 'balance' I find in TTRPG mechanics is to make different builds and styles of character be able to be strong _in_their_own_may_.

In Ryzom terms, and simplistically by way of example.

Mage > Fighter so long as they stay at range.
Fighter > Mage if they get in close.

There's a difference between tactics and exploits.

Exploits are what we in the TTRPG world would call 'metagaming', or playing the system rather than the role, using knowledge and choices that your character doesn't have or know in order to be more effective.

This is a bad thing (TM) and another argument against PvP.

thosholm

September 14th, 2005, 03:31 PM

I was thinking about those squads/teams that will be fighting along/for the attacking/defending guilds. I think we saw the standard squads already in action in the Cutthroat event.

andy707

September 14th, 2005, 04:50 PM

ajsuk

September 14th, 2005, 05:41 PM

Monco
Member of Eleytheria

Good ideas there :)

sofiaoak

September 14th, 2005, 06:20 PM

The conflict area is unlimited, the two guilds are in PvP mode everywhere during both attack and defence periods.
So if I understant this correctly.

If I don't wanna be part of this outpost wars, but don't wanna quit my guild because it. I can just stay my own appartment during both attack and defence periods?

wepps

September 14th, 2005, 06:25 PM

Exploits are what we in the TTRPG world would call 'metagaming', or playing the system rather than the role, using knowledge and choices that your character doesn't have or know in order to be more effective.

This is a bad thing (TM) and another argument against PvP.

Ah but the problem that has always existed is the fact that exploiting IS tactics...outside the game. If one were to implement a wider variety of choices in tactics, simply not calling 'exploits' by that name anymore is one method. Of course, there is balance to consider.

If you were to design that portion of the game AROUND the potential exploits and allow them, then they are no longer exploits, but tactics. It's a fine line.

As a developer, it's easy to say, "we overlooked this, and therefore it's an exploit." In my opinion, this is the wrong attitude. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun, and allowing these kinds of actions, even promoting them, allows a much greater variety of choices in the game play.

Everquest was different. A given character had SO MANY things that he or she could do in the form of spells, skills, and whatnot at any level, that over the couse of character development the balances went away just by addressing the final power of a given class. As long as it was geared towards their purpose, most of the potential imbalances went away just by the vast nature of abilities over 50-65 levels.

With each passing MMO, developers have been more and more attempting to limit the problems of balance and exploitation by further and further limiting the abilities of the classes.

As a result, though, the potential choices go away as you pursue development from this perspective, and that's why I always argue for a wide-open, anything goes system of play.

In an RPG, there are potential exploits. In an MMO, there are potential content possibilities in the form of exploits.

But truthfully, in a truly massive and interactive world, exploits technically should never exist. Instead, it should be developed with those in mind, and encourage them as they can easily be considered a content multiplier.

If a player has a wide variety of choices, the existing content they may utilize through those choices is enough. In other words, what they can DO is content as well. If the player, in their character, is totally limited in choices, then you have no choice but to apply massive content in other forms, usually in a new cave to explore, and new item drops.

I prefer the former for matters of good gameplay philosophy.

dc77066

September 15th, 2005, 12:39 AM

So if I understant this correctly.

If I don't wanna be part of this outpost wars, but don't wanna quit my guild because it. I can just stay my own appartment during both attack and defence periods?
[Off topic]

Good thing I just got cable hooked up in mine! Sofi, come on over!

[/off topic]

-Raku

dc77066

September 15th, 2005, 12:52 AM

Ah but the problem that has always existed is the fact that exploiting IS tactics...

Someone more famous than I once said "sometimes an exploit is just an exploit."

Maybe I didn't understand the logic... If society caters to the criminal element they wouldn't bother being criminals?? We have criminals because someone made something illegal?? If there isn't a law against it then it must be okay, despite any moral or ethical complications??

Oh yeah, we were talking about Outposts. Yay! Outposts! Can't wait. Keep up the good work devs and keep the details coming!

-Raku

svayvti

September 15th, 2005, 02:30 AM

Can the devs tell us why PvP outposts and not the original guild mission / dynamic invasion outposts?

What do the devs think of the various PvP arguments going on in the other forums?

What happened to the original vision of outposts and what of that might we expect to see someday?

sk8rss

September 15th, 2005, 03:06 AM

I say bravo. Nowhere does it say that this simplified version of outposts won't expand later in development. I'm VERY excited to see that they're coming!

wepps

September 15th, 2005, 04:40 AM

Someone more famous than I once said "sometimes an exploit is just an exploit."

And this is true there are times, but only if the game play is not designed around it.

Maybe I didn't understand the logic... If society caters to the criminal element they wouldn't bother being criminals?? We have criminals because someone made something illegal?? If there isn't a law against it then it must be okay, despite any moral or ethical complications??

Let's be realistic here. This is not society, this is not conforming to a set of rules we agree upon.

This is war. In war, there are no rules, and THAT is why combat is the centerpiece of any MMO. Without the conflict, there is no game.

aylwyne

September 15th, 2005, 05:04 AM

Let's be realistic here. This is not society, this is not conforming to a set of rules we agree upon.

The griefer motto! j/k

I do think that this type of attitude is the cause of many of the harsh feelings that people develop and that come out especially with PvP. It's very easy to detatch the avatars you see around you from the people behind them and thus act in a way that you wouldn't to a person.

I've often heard people say that you shouldn't take things personally but that's just not how us human beings tend to work. We personify everything. We name our cars. We call ships ‘she’. We have pet rocks. We personify. It’s not a surprise that when presented with an avatar that looks quite human, that shows emotion, and that we designed to look just how we like, this tendency to personify and invest our emotion is even greater. Expecting people to detach from this just isn’t realistic.

This is war. In war, there are no rules, and THAT is why combat is the centerpiece of any MMO. Without the conflict, there is no game.

No rules of war? In most societies through history there have been rules of war (don't target officers, messengers and diplomats strictly off-limits, etc.). Today, there's certainly rules and laws governing warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war). It's not surprising that the community wants to see some structure and rule behind the PvP system and not just have open anarchy.

wepps

September 15th, 2005, 06:12 AM

The griefer motto! j/k

I do think that this type of attitude is the cause of many of the harsh feelings that people develop and that come out especially with PvP. It's very easy to detatch the avatars you see around you from the people behind them and thus act in a way that you wouldn't to a person.

I've often heard people say that you shouldn't take things personally but that's just not how us human beings tend to work. We personify everything. We name our cars. We call ships ‘she’. We have pet rocks. We personify. It’s not a surprise that when presented with an avatar that looks quite human, that shows emotion, and that we designed to look just how we like, this tendency to personify and invest our emotion is even greater. Expecting people to detach from this just isn’t realistic.

No rules of war? In most societies through history there have been rules of war (don't target officers, messengers and diplomats strictly off-limits, etc.). Today, there's certainly rules and laws governing warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war). It's not surprising that the community wants to see some structure and rule behind the PvP system and not just have open anarchy.

Society's written laws of war are nice and all, but they are mostly the evolved sensibilities of western thinking. Often, our enemies choose not to adhere to them. Do we declare them exploiters and ban them from play?

Essentially we do, yes, assuming we win the war :)

But that aside, simply choosing to further limit the abilities of a force of players to defend themselves is not a tried and true method of game design. In fact, I count it a major failure in development thinking, regardless of what the industry experts like to spout in September in Austin.

PvE and PvP play, if limited, allows for only a set few actions a player can take. In other words, there is no real thinking involved. You have 6 things to choose from, press the right button.

There is no possible method of accurately recreating a leadership atmosphere in PvP, for example, if there is nothing for you to do but click the button and order the troops to attack, or root somebody yourself. It's boring. There are no options.

Let me provide a couple well-known scenarios and see how they fly:

Prior to world war two, Heinz Guderian developed a method of fast, slashing attacks using concentrated armor forces in combined arms offensives with infantry and air forces to achieve breakthroughs that could then be exploited. Later, the allies named this new mobile warfare, Blitzkrieg. What he was doing was exploiting several things...terrain, objective positioning, weather, technolgical superiority, and other more minor considerations, to achieve an objective quickly and destroy enemy communications.

Later, in 1943 in Russia, faced with massive and superior Soviet artillery, the Germans chose instead of defending mountain terrain, to implement what became known as Reverse-Slope Defense. By using these tactics, they denied their presence on the front, observed slope of hilly terrain where they could be targeted by superior artillery. Instead, they hid on the opposite side of the hill and set up interlocking fields of fire, making that defense a lot tougher to break since artillery could no longer be accurately employed. They exploited the terrain to achieve an advantage, or in this case, remove the enemy's advantage.

In Stalingrad, the Russians threw every available man into defense of the pile of rubble. With inferior tactics, inferior training, no air superiority, poor leadership, bad morale, and facing the most powerful army in human history ever assembled to achieve an objective, the Russians successfully defended that rubble from the German onslaught long before Operation Uranus cut off the 6th Armee and killed it.

How? They totally removed the German advantages on several levels. The Germans were not trained or equipped to deal with urban warfare. They were open-field mobile forces, and when caught in city limits, it was only a matter of time and sacrifice. They further took the German superior leadership from them, by sending armies of snipers after their officers, forcing low echelon personnel into the unstable role of commander. Instead of employing massed artillery there, they relied on independent mortar teams that could more accurately target in an urban environment. They exploited the situation and removed the enemy's advantages to achieve the victory.

In Africa, during Montgomery's offensive into Lybia, the Germans were tricked into believing that the British army would be striking in one location by deploying an entire offensively postured army...made up of cardboard trucks and tanks. When Rommel defended against an assault at that location, the British launched an assault from the other and kicked them back to Tunisia as a result. The British exploited German intelligence and their own ability to use these new methods of redirecting the attention of the enemy to achieve the victory.

When the German Me-262 Jet fighters showed up on the scene in 1944, there was a great outpouring of hope in the Luftwaffe and in Germany in general. These new aircraft were fast and powerful, and their allied counterparts could not match that speed and firepower. As a result, it was predicted allied daylight bombing would screech to a halt in a matter of just a few weeks. Instead, the allies turned to chasing those bombers down to their airfields, and shooting them out of the sky as they slowed to land. The result of the deployment of the jet fighters was inevitably a depletion of the German pilot reserves, and a shortening of the war.

Are all these exploits?

Yes. They are.

In the military, though, they are called tactics.

sofiaoak

September 15th, 2005, 06:57 AM

Quote from Outposts Explained:
The conflict area is unlimited, the two guilds are in PvP mode everywhere during both attack and defence periods.

Just wondering can outpost to be used as put guild members in PvP situation without they consent or is there still some consent flaging before this happening? I'm just curios as this can split our communities even more. At the moment PvPers and non PvPers can still be in same guilds, but can they be after this?

mrshad

September 15th, 2005, 08:03 AM

Lots of good history

That woudl be relevant if RL = IG.

But, sadly for some, it doesn't
In real life, simple because we can kill someone doesn't mean that we do.
This is largely because, IRL, once we die, we are dead.
We can not get magical abilities by slaughtering cattle over and over again.
In fact, about all we learn from that is how to butcher faster, which may be a good skill, but it certainly doesn't make an martial artist.
In real life you can not find a 'tactic' that will make money magically appear in your account, or let you teleport aroudn the map. In game we call those thing exploits, because, even if they exist, they are not suposed to, and using them is certianly cheating, not tactics.

My point here is, you can not compare milatry history and the rules of engagement to anything in SoR. They simply do not track on any meaningful level. As informative and well written as your post is, it ultimatly has very little relevence due to the vast differences in subject matter.

Now, I can see how leveraging terrain and and the surrounding fauna in order to get an advantage while attacking enemy fortificaitons could be a valid tactic. I agree with that view point. With all the problems PvP is going to bring us, training aggro into the confict will be the very least of our worries.

xenofur

September 15th, 2005, 09:27 AM

Now, I can see how leveraging terrain and and the surrounding fauna in order to get an advantage while attacking enemy fortificaitons could be a valid tactic. I agree with that view point. With all the problems PvP is going to bring us, training aggro into the confict will be the very least of our worries.that's all he was talking about ;)

wepps

September 15th, 2005, 02:01 PM

that's all he was talking about ;)

Yeah that's all I'm talking about :)

But the poster I was responding to was giving real life examples, so I provided those from the proper perspective.

Although I was comparing apples and oranges basically, he was comparing apples and automobiles, and I needed to bring him back to the fruitstand hehe.

So when the guy argues that, yes in real life we have rules of war, that's not the point. What he is describing using his real life comparisons is CHEATING. That is, the rules are outlined through the code, here is the plethora of things you can do. But some chose not to adhere to the rules and need to be punished, these are using 3rd party programs to alter the ruleset.

Exploiting, however, is something different. It doesn't really exist.

Some examples:

In Star Wars Galaxies, near release of the product, I witnessed 2 fellas fighting a really tough critter. They were maneuvering it so that objects were between the critter and themselves, thereby buying them time to take it down, but they were brand new to the game and had no skills or firepower. The end-result was they were killed, but I watched them keep that critter busy for over half an hour. Now, because of the nature of how they would be rewarded, through the ruleset provided governing max-experience payout, they would have done better to go find things their own size, and they were aware of this they were just...having fun!

Instead, the SWG CSR banned those two from play, and then added code so that if a creature gets caught up on anything at all, it would teleport directly onto your position. Yeah, that was fun :P

The players were using tactics to overcome their weakness. It didn't work, but this is a TYPICAL thing the human mind will attempt to use to solve a problem, not an exploit which would force the developers' hand.

In World of Warcraft, a tough NPC in the middle of a ring of say, a hundred other mobs, was inside a cave. A group went there, and applied tactical thinking to take that NPC down. They had a rogue sneak into the NPC's location, aggro it, and the Warlock in the group teleported him back to the group without aggroing all the intervening junk. After an extended fight, they took the guy down.

The entire group was banned from play for exploiting.

Give me a break. That's not exploiting, that's GENIUS! True tactical thinking adds flavor to a game that may often be lacking content. But the difference between being able to accomplish these things in the gameplay and calling them content, and the cave you have to go to to find the game content, is that it is always readily available to the player character.

A player logs on, and that fun content is automatically presented to them directly, and then by expanding that content to the rest, the game is just magnified in fun game play.

So, by calling the above examples exploiting and taking over-baked measures against the players, these companies served only to alienate a player type seeking tactical thought in their game play, and nothing more.

It's a game. There should never be a situation that cannot be exploited in some fashion. But by providing a great number of things to do potentially OUTSIDE the normal button presses, it balances itself out as these are available to all sides in the engagement.

But hey, I know how things work....

"WTH! What's the point of my jet if they just shoot me up at the airfield anyway? BAN THE EXPLOITERS!"

I'm not judging before it comes to us live, and I'm not telling the developers what to do. What I am doing is hopefully opening up a possible different avenue of approach that is often overlooked, and perhaps spark something in their creativity when it comes to this new feature. Nothing more.

Anyway, I've had my 15 minutes.

ozzy111

September 15th, 2005, 02:43 PM

I may be missing the point but allow me to throw something out there . . .

The attacking force must kill all the defenders in a given round, repeat the process several times, and then at the appointed time it is decided if they obtained the appropriate level to take the outpost. Ok, so what if every round the defenders leave a small contingency at the post and they run in several directions for the duration of the round, thus evading death. Then they could return at the beginning of each round to repeat the process. . . . Thus thwarting the efforts of the attackers ???

Another potetial tactic for weaker/smaller guilds who own outposts?

Ryzorski

ozzy111

September 15th, 2005, 02:56 PM

Couldn't you find a friendly guild to declare war on your outpost and then not show up?
Then you could annihilate the attacking force of NPCs and ramp up your defence value to a stupid level for several days making you harder to attack for other groups.
Also, couldn't alliances of guilds constantly declare war on each other's outposts to prevent anyone else from declaring war and trying to take them?
Sorry, just seeing potential exploits.

Don't forget the defense value falls a level every two days (if I remember what I read correctly) So in order to retain a defense level you would have to arrange a friendly invasion quite often to maintain it.

I'm not sure your second point is viable unless rumors of the true attackers intentions leaked to you before they attacked.

Just some additional thoughts.

Ryzorski

aylwyne

September 15th, 2005, 03:17 PM

But the poster I was responding to was giving real life examples, so I provided those from the proper perspective.

Although I was comparing apples and oranges basically, he was comparing apples and automobiles, and I needed to bring him back to the fruitstand hehe.

All I was responding to was your completely false statement that in war "there are no rules".

wepps

September 15th, 2005, 03:33 PM

All I was responding to was your completely false statement that in war "there are no rules".

And again, what you are describing is a false example, as you are producing apples and automobiles.

In war, EXPLOITING is everything. CHEATING is the comparison you mean to make.

Okay here we go...

We all make a set of rules to govern ourselves during a time of war, and let's say we refer to them from here on out as the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Convention, then, is what the developers are saying is the ruleset, through the code they apply.

A player comes along, let's call him BinLaden, who decides he isn't playing by those rules, and therefore purchases the /Usesuicidebombers 3rd party program.

This player is cheating, and when caught, will face the ramifications of his actions.
________________________________

The USMilitary Guild has the Predator Drone available to them. Recently, one of those drones provided witness to a 3-man terrorist team setting up a mortar unit to bomb a school.

Typically, you would take out that team. Instead, the command was issued by the Guild Leader to let them attack, and follow them back to their hideout, which the drone did, and then blew up the building, removing the greater threat for the future by killing the other Guild's base.

Is this exploiting?

Yes, according to typical game designs these days, the Guild would be punished for doing something that the developers did not anticipate.

I maintain, however, that this is TACTICAL THINKING, not exploiting, and is a leadership quality, not something to be punished. If you are looking for good leaders, you aren't searching for left-brained individuals whose abilities to analyze (or code) are exceptional, you are looking for individuals who are right-brained, creative thinkers.

Left-brained individuals will look at the situation, calculate the math, and conclude the engagement can't be won. Right-brained individuals will figure out how to win anyway, by exploiting everything OUTSIDE the math. This is tactics, and this is a very important aspect of leadership.

Exploiting many different possible methods to confuse an enemy, reduce his force power, or magnify yours for the purpose of winning an engagement regardless of the math, THAT is tactics.

In the end, what you were describing is the rules governing CHEATING. That is an entirely different perspective than what I am talking about. In war, there are no rules, you make it up as you go along by exploiting every possible method available to achieve the victory, nothing else matters.

edit - Truthfully, those rare individuals that can BOTH think creatively and analyze accurately are invaluable to any team. And although you can train a creative thinker to accurately analyze a situation, you can never train an analyzer to think creatively....just an afterthought.

xenofur

September 15th, 2005, 03:33 PM

this was brought up in another thread:
due to point 8. it would be possible to instakill homins on respawn, how about a full non-pvp zone around teleporters or even whole cities?

hans1976

September 15th, 2005, 04:09 PM

wepps

September 15th, 2005, 04:15 PM

Weps: Something to think about is while these players were having fun (to which I fully agree), there is a whole lot of idiots who will misuse the same sequence of events to harvest a mob repeatedly. Please let's nt starts the discussion what can be defined as "Fun". ;-)

@Ozzy: You will have to kill the defending NPC's, not the players. I doubt a player can steer the NPC's to that lvl.

lol!

True it's a weird concept. But to simply describe 'fun', you can easily just state that...

Options = choices = content = fun

Therefore, options = fun. And although this is only one aspect of the definition, the way I describe it suggests that it is readily available to any player without having to go find it. It becomes a part of a player's potential repertoire of skills or abilities no matter where they are on the map, and magnifies the existing content by default.

And I'll just leave it at that, I've said too much really hehe.

Again, I'm not criticizing the design, or saying "wepps method is how it should be done", I'm just hoping to spark the creative thinkers on the development team to see a possibility whereas previously they may have ignored it.

edit - exploits themselves are not necessarily BAD, if the development team is willing to see them from the creative perspective. They may be an opportunity rather than a negative oversight. If they are willing to expand on the exploits rather than just try to suppress them, there is potential fun content to be found!

hans1976

September 15th, 2005, 08:06 PM

lol!

True it's a weird concept. But to simply describe 'fun', you can easily just state that...

Options = choices = content = fun

Therefore, options = fun.
I know a few greek philosophers you should connect to a generator, they will be spinning in their graves so fast, they can power a medium sized city...

A whale = mammal = human = Wepps.
Therefor, Wepps is a whale.

Do tell me how you keep your machine dry with that much water around?

wepps

September 15th, 2005, 08:43 PM

I know a few greek philosophers you should connect to a generator, they will be spinning in their graves so fast, they can power a medium sized city...

A whale = mammal = human = Wepps.
Therefor, Wepps is a whale.

Do tell me how you keep your machine dry with that much water around?

The Greeks didn't have online gaming :)

ajsuk

September 15th, 2005, 09:51 PM

This is getting boring y'know. :p

philu

September 16th, 2005, 02:35 PM

I have a question - given the current problems with healing in the PR where it's not possible to heal out of team, how is healing going to work in these Outpost battles?

Will we be able to heal out of team? More specifically, will we be able to heal anyone in our Guild?

If we can't then I see major problems with Outposts.

thebax

September 16th, 2005, 02:40 PM

asaseth

September 17th, 2005, 03:41 PM

Some benifits that I think would be nice:

Ability to buy a TP to ones guild's outpost. Restricted to guild members or allied guild members too.

Ability to respawn at outpost.

Guilds can hire permanent outpost guards that protect only the people who belong to the owning guild (or allied guild members too). That way guild members (allies) can hunt or forage around the outpost and run to guards if they get into trouble.

Outposts have trainers, merchants and mission givers. A stable?

In general, it would be nice if an outpost was a place that guild members would want to hang-out at, for whatever reasons.

Monco
Member of EleytheriaThey would probably have to impliment either the TPs or the respawns. The respawns would be good durring the attack phase (you can be ressed, but you would be respawned every time the attack lvl went up) and the TPs would, if nothing else, give guilds a reason to 'invade' the 'enimy's territory', cause the Karavan TPs wouldn't be useable by high-kami-fame people, and the kami vic-versa, so you would need the 'forign embasy/military base' just to have access to those lands.

oauitam

September 19th, 2005, 06:33 PM

One outpost per guild ?

ajsuk

September 19th, 2005, 06:39 PM

One outpost per guild ?

Yes another detail they failed to mention. :rolleyes:

sehracii

September 19th, 2005, 06:56 PM

They've mentiond in the past a few times that it will be possible to have more than one outpost, but will be a very heavy resource drain.

rushin

September 19th, 2005, 11:51 PM

svayvti

September 20th, 2005, 03:06 AM

They've mentiond in the past a few times that it will be possible to have more than one outpost, but will be a very heavy resource drain.

They've mentioned a lot of things in the past, but it appears much of it has been scrapped and reworked.

For instance the description of outposts on page 37 of my manual is much more interesting and makes no mention of PvP. Dynamic guild battles without the easy potential for a griefer element.

We do need a much more thorough understanding of what Nevrax is changing about their implementation of Outposts and what they're not. Personally I wish they'd go back to the Dynamic content with raid aspect rather than the simple PvP aspect of Outposts.

michielb

September 21st, 2005, 09:04 PM

I tried to read through this thread but it only made my dissapointment more painful...

I have no choice but to agree with the people who said that outposts has been dumbed down and this makes me sad. This game had so much promise when I first read about it and that made me sign up for beta.
I've lived through, and learned to appriciate, patch 1. I waited patiently for things to come and defended the game tooth and nail and now I look and see what's planned for outposts and all I can say is: "Been there, done that, bought the frigging T-shirt"

I'm very sorry but this simply isn't good enough...

dakhound

September 22nd, 2005, 02:23 PM

ok it seems a bit screwed up to me,

the powerful high level PvP guilds who want to fight, hardly anyone wil attack their outpost unless they obviously fall into this catagory too as a long drawn out tug of war will.

the RP/peaceful guilds have no choice and will eb attacked by above mentioned guilds whether they want it or not and then will not even bother trying to take it back as they are outmatched and really cant be arsed with a long drawn out battle.

I'm not saying that outposts once conquered should be owned forever but there should be very strong advantages to the defending side. A time limit for re-attacking an outpost should also be set (2 weeks sounds good to me) and that should include all guilds (to stop certain people who will just create guilds so they can attack again if they lose)

I'm sure outposts will be fun to play with and many people will build them up and put alot of care into them, why should you have to fight a battle every 24h to keep em when you dont even like to fight.

moaning git again I suppose. but I guess I'm missing something

gvozd19

September 23rd, 2005, 11:58 AM

Im tryed waiting Outposts.
More then one year we take empty word's about "how will Outpost's".
How old will it ?
When i see new's about 21 November i take a decision, stop playing in Ryzom. Grasped. May be with reliz Outposts i backed game.
Grasped pay money for simple promise. I play in game not for waiting something, i wanna have fun, and if you take promise, you must cary out it.

jamela

September 23rd, 2005, 06:59 PM

If a guild wants to take an outpost, it must first declare war to the current owner of that outpost. The war declaration takes 24 hours, to allow the two opponents to organize themselves, to give them a chance to be there when the true conflict occurs. During this period, the attacking guild can choose a time when the “attack battle” will take place and the defending guild a time where the “defence battle” will take place.

Not enough detail here, for me.

As I read this, after the declaration of intent there is a 24 hour period of grace during which the attacking guild must state a time for their attack, and this cannot be within the grace period. What outside time limit is there for the attack battle? 48 hours from declaration? A week? A month even? (At first thought I'd suggest 72 hours.)

Is there any further period of grace to allow the the defenders to organize themselves for the attack battle, or can the attacking guild declare in the 24th hour that they will attack in the 25th? In the Matisian spirit of civil hostilities I'd think that, again, a minimum of 24 hours notice for the attack would be honourable, but I don't see why this should be mandatory amongst the lesser races. (All battles should have to break for tea at 16:00 anyway.)

Does the defending guild have to state the time of their possible counter-attack within 24 hours of the declaration of intent? Surely not, as they cannot really declare a time until the attackers have stated theirs. As roles are reversed following a successful assault, I would assume that the defending guild had until 24 hours after losing the outpost to declare the time of their counter attack - losing an outpost being equivalent to a declaration of intent to recapture it.

That quote aside; in other respects I am keen to see how these battles will play out. I'm dying to hear, though, more about the development aspects of Outposts. It makes sense that Outposts be won and defended through combat, but the retaking of Atys requires much more than arms, armour and magic. I want to know about what Outposts will bring in terms of taming and exploiting the rich resources of Atys for the children that will be born here.

desertt

September 24th, 2005, 08:42 PM

ill just wait till the time comes and see how all things go

alyssah

September 25th, 2005, 12:42 AM

It seeems to come down to wether or not you can affortd the best defenders. Obvviosly a small guild could not. A larger guild can do whatever the hell it wants. So, at the end of the day it is important whether you want to blitz or just enjoy the game FvF at some point, yu have to make a decision/.

xenofur

September 25th, 2005, 09:58 AM

you do realize that outposts are content aimed at keeping high-level people busy?

300881j

October 5th, 2005, 11:24 AM

Well after reading the thread, i am interested in how this may work when as a newbie myself that has only just manage to get to lvl 50 in melee will help in pvp.
Yes the NPC squads may have lvl 50 def, but what about guilds which are over powered by fighter and mages with most skills maxed out.
If one guild is over powered then there is no way of fighting againsts them.

The only method that i could think of is similar to the board game warhammer where each team has a certain amount of army points to use, for example, each team has 1000 army points to use, the higher the lvl of the character the more points are use meaning a slighty smaller army compared to the weaker team which may employ more as they are lower of stats.

but even this method has its flaws, as player them may get singled out.

but either way with what seems to be happenning is that either way player will get singled out. player will always use their uber character, and the weak will always be singled out.

although with the point you have a choice in to seeing if u want a bigger army or a smaller army with a few uber.

i think its a possibility but thats only in theory. But PVP(GVG) will be much better than having waves of constant brainless NPC attacking.
Possibly as a big event when guild have to get together to protect there land from evil that could happen.

Possibly do that your ur next year B/Day nevrex. Have a big bash, world Verses NPC

vguerin

October 5th, 2005, 04:38 PM

sehracii

October 5th, 2005, 07:45 PM

There will only be 28 outposts at launch -Just about everyone will know where they all are pretty quick :(

alexrowe

October 5th, 2005, 08:16 PM

Don't worry in about 6 or more months they will release more lol :p .

herc2004

October 6th, 2005, 11:06 AM

I hear about outpost 8 or 9 months now.
Still waiting :)
Nevrax sure knows how to make its subscribers feel hurted by fake promises.
Lets see again will they put a delay in the already big delay.

jared96

October 9th, 2005, 07:09 PM

Most of us have waited quite a while for outposts right? I think all of you agree that this should impact Ryzom with some outstanding gameplay.

No, I don't think that is the case at all. The outposts I looked for ward to would be defending a place agaijnst kitin raids of the sort we saw in beta and FBT. Now what we are being offered is the same old thing everybody else does. Nevrax just can't seem to get it thru their heads that the peeps platying Ryzom are playing Ryzom because it is diffrent from other games. Making it the same is the surest route to game closure that I can imagine.

jared96

October 9th, 2005, 07:30 PM

If you don't want to be involved in more PvP or are in a small guild or are a casual player, the outposts don't affect you. You're not missing out on content or any benefits by not owning an outpost.<

Wrong. During beta and FBT there were frequent tests of the RAID engine and it was the most fun many of us ever had in game. This was the concept of outposts thatw as sold to us. The peeps who found Ryzom back then came to Ryzom primaraily for ONE thing COOPERATIVE vs COMPETITIVE play. There is a large component of the player base that stays with Ryzom for this reason.

Defending an outpost against Kitins is a very enjoyabale concept. Degending it against peeps who, as many have said, have no real "benefir" of taking an outpost, seems pointless. Now I know that this opinion is not one held by only a small portion of players.

Logic would have it that not every Outpost, or town /city, in the historical comparison will be "involved" in a war. Is there not a role to play for guilds that have no interest in the PvP concept ? Such outposts can serve as waypoints, points of supply, source of mercenaries (some guilds may have players that want to partake while most do not).

More importantly, if Ryzom wishes to attract new players to game, wehere do these peeps fit in ? Seems they are limited to joininge xisting guilds rather than forming their own with players their own level.

I see no logical reason for not allowing a guild to have an outpost and declare itself neutral.