hmm. Still No...

[ffxjosh]

After checking out what the Ring patched today im still a bit dissapointed.

So i made a poll to see if you guys agree with me.

Basicly, should we be given the option to have PvP in the Ring?

I think yes. but what do u guys n girls think?

YOU CAN VOTE FOR MORE THAN ONE OPTION :)

Tyilin

xxx

[iphdrunk]

Since it is a scenario that you are entering at your own will, let's GO BIG so broaden gameplay rules so the creator of the scenario can allow:

- full blown PvP regardless of tag allowing indiscriminate attacking and healing any other entity, including guild and team members. Real AoE spells and no "you cannot heal this player because we haven't figured how to do it properly yet".

- perma death (within the duration of the scenario) so unrezzed fallen combattants are gently invited to exit and cannot rejoin. Go King of Nexus go!

- full looting of corpses, including the equipment you are wearing.

- permanent (within the duration of the scenario) loss of stats and characteristics for every death.

uh? what? why not? :P

[ffxjosh]

- full looting of corpses, including the equipment you are wearing



Would require some serious changes to the game mech's - thats prob why not ;)

other than that im all for it :D

Tyilin

xxx

[oldmess]

Duels should be available without any work from the scenario designer. Faction PvP should also be available without any work from the scenario designer. Both of these types of PvP are player-level, opt-in types, so it should just be available in all scenarios. If you want to enter a scenario designed as a Romantic Getaway with your PvP tags lit up, that's on you. Those that don't want to PvP in that environment can just turn their tags off and your PvP status becomes irrelevant to them.

Additionally, I'd like to see an option that the scenario designer can activate to make their scenario work like an Outpost battle. i.e., you enter the scenario and get a custom messagte from the designer that asks you to choose one of two sides *or* neutral. The names of the 2 sides can default to "attack" and "defend" but should be configurable by the designer.

The functionality should be exactly the same as the outpost zones when they are battle-active. Also, the listing at the Ring Terminal should clearly delineate the fact that this scenario uses the "Output style" PvP option so people know before they enter it.


Lastly, I don't see a need to make scenarios work like Nexus or the other PvP zones. Forced guild-based PvP removes the choice from the player. But if others see this as useful, that's fine with me as long as it's an option at the scenario level and the scenario is marked clearly at the Ring Terminal.

Basically, we should hopefully want to hold to the theory of opt-in PvP. If a zone requires PvP, it should be marked before we get there if possible or at least have a non-PvP area around the spawn so we can leave once we get the PvP warnings. Marking it at the Ring Terminal seems even better so we don't waste time going in if we aren't interested in PvP.

[iphdrunk]

Would require some serious changes to the game mech's - thats prob why not ;)

hard to tell.... if javings can unequip the weapon you are wearing (also bear in mind tht armor parts are unequipped when HP reaches 1) and you can automate or "fake" from the server a player trade seems fairly easy to me. Yet, I have no idea the effort it would really take, depends on your views.

[zanthar]

I agree that PVP should be an option with the ring, but with the stipulation that such events with manditory PVP have a PVP tag stamped on them in the description of the event when the PVP option is selected just so Ganking doesn't happen through a misleading scenario descrition.

[oldmess]

- full blown PvP regardless of tag allowing indiscriminate attacking and healing any other entity, including guild and team members. Real AoE spells and no "you cannot heal this player because we haven't figured how to do it properly yet".

Personally, I'd prefer the more controlled outpost-style zones because it force people to pick a side. The side you are picking can be defined by the scenario designer. But as long as the zone is clearly marked that it's full, open pvp, I don't object to your idea being another option.

- perma death (within the duration of the scenario) so unrezzed fallen combattants are gently invited to exit and cannot rejoin. Go King of Nexus go!

- permanent (within the duration of the scenario) loss of stats and characteristics for every death.

If it's not a huge amount of work, these both seem reasonable to me as long as they don't affect you outside that scenario.

- full looting of corpses, including the equipment you are wearing.

Allow the looting of scenario specific quest items that you might have, yes. That makes it consistent with the rest of your suggestions; it's different than the rest of Ryzom but it only affects the scenario itself, so that's OK. But looting the rest of my gear or dappers? No thanks.

[oldmess]

I agree that PVP should be an option with the ring, but with the stipulation that such events have a manditory PVP tag stamped on them in the description of the event when the PVP option is selected just so Ganking doesn't happen through a misleading scenario descrition.

Agreed and if there are different types of zone-PvP implemented as I suggested, then the stamp should be clear about what type of PvP options are turned on.

[iphdrunk]

But looting the rest of my gear or dappers? No thanks.

Well, that's in part the fun of it. You carefully select the gear you enter with, also giving a market to choice and excellent gear you consider you may lose. It is not as if you have to carry everything with you at all times. All these suggestions are, of course, up to the designer and clearly stated at scenario entrance.

But yes, your suggestion about items tied to the scenario is also another possiblity, yet I consider that the former suggestion is doable and opens opportunities. You need to decide whether entering with that aen +7 to pwn them all or to be cautios and use the other grind armor instead.

[sidusar]

But looting the rest of my gear or dappers? No thanks.
As long as the scenario gets a big red glowing warning sign on it, I wouldn't even object to that.

As Ani says, it might open up more demand for decent choice gear. That'd be a good thing, I believe.

And if they can loot your dappers, there might actually be some use to leaving them in your appartment :)

[tigrus]

Since it is a scenario that you are entering at your own will, let's GO BIG so broaden gameplay rules so the creator of the scenario can allow:

- full blown PvP regardless of tag allowing indiscriminate attacking and healing any other entity, including guild and team members. Real AoE spells and no "you cannot heal this player because we haven't figured how to do it properly yet".

- perma death (within the duration of the scenario) so unrezzed fallen combattants are gently invited to exit and cannot rejoin. Go King of Nexus go!

- full looting of corpses, including the equipment you are wearing.

- permanent (within the duration of the scenario) loss of stats and characteristics for every death.

uh? what? why not? :P

Yes indeed to all of them.
I also suggest making a decay system. That penalties your armor/weapon if/when you die in there:)

[oldmess]

As long as the scenario gets a big red glowing warning sign on it, I wouldn't even object to that.

As Ani says, it might open up more demand for decent choice gear. That'd be a good thing, I believe.

And if they can loot your dappers, there might actually be some use to leaving them in your appartment :)

If the scenario is well marked, I won't object to the idea. BUT, I also probably won't use any scenario like that.

Another option would be something that allows the scenario designer to require participants to put a certain amount of dappers or items "at risk". Those items could be looted by the person or team that kills that player. That would allow you to create risk/reward scenarios that still keep with the "pvp should be voluntary" nature of the game.

[zanthar]

But looting the rest of my gear or dappers? No thanks.
I don't have a problem with this as long as The looting of players is CLEARLY MARKED in the ring terminal as a matter of fact I would agree with any combat option as long as it is clearly tagged/flagged in the terminals and for that matter there should be categories for all ring scenarios I.E. Roll Play, PVP with X option(s) turned on, Lore expansion, or what ever! Having scenarios would just make things easier IMHO and if this is already in play please forgive my nieveity (SP) on the subject.:D But, I do agree with Oldmess in that the looting of dapper is not fair because you can't put it in the bank then enter the scenario unless I again have missed this in game!

[grimjim]

This would be genuinely consensual, provided it is marked as such.
I'd like the opportunity to boot dead players automatically (permadeath) from PVE scenarios though.

[iphdrunk]

Another option would be something that allows the scenario designer to require participants to put a certain amount of dappers or items "at risk"

But precisely, if you consider the dappers and the items you enter with being "at risk" in what is that different?

It's a nice trade-off... the gear you enter with in part determines your chances and "performance" yet the stakes are higher. All the combattants think the same. And to some extent, it rewards players who win with real things.

[iphdrunk]

Personally, I'd prefer the more controlled outpost-style zones because it force people to pick a side. The side you are picking can be defined by the scenario designer. But as long as the zone is clearly marked that it's full, open pvp, I don't object to your idea being another option.

On that note... aren't we always claiming that we should be marked as picking one side based on our actions rather than enforced by gameplay mechanics? if you want to pick the "defending" side, then go for the attackers and heal the defenders. The drawback I see tho, is that we lose the automatic "tagging" and "targetting" but not sure if that would be a bad thing or more realistic (this does not preclude the customary use of the /tar Jackoba macro tho :P).

[mugendo]

The ring is the perfect place for people to create their 'Ideal' world space. I am sure many Roleplayers have scenarios prepared, and as this thread shows there are people wanting PvP area to enjoy.
There is already arena areas in the main world....having them in player created ring instances makes perfect sense.
I am sure the tension level will increase when entering an area labelled 'DANGEROUS..PROCEED AT OWN RISK'

[oldmess]

This would be genuinely consensual, provided it is marked as such.
I'd like the opportunity to boot dead players automatically (permadeath) from PVE scenarios though.

In theory, the "scenaro permadeath" option could be de-coupled from the PvP discussion. i.e. any respawning takes you out of the scenario if this option is turned on. This specific option doesn't need to be marked in the scenario listing since there's no DP or other permanent effect to dying in the Ring. It would be nice if the designer made an npc mention or imply it in someway but it's not a requirement.

[oldmess]

On that note... aren't we always claiming that we should be marked as picking one side based on our actions rather than enforced by gameplay mechanics?

Others have made that argument, but I have not. I like the way the outpost pvp style works, to be honest. You enter the zone and you choose your side. It's clear. If I nuke you, it's not a mistake or a ganking. You're on the other side of some specific competition.

I'm not saying all PvP scenarios should use this option, but since we know this PvP style is available in the code, I'd like to see it made available to the scenario designer as well.

If you want full open PvP style, get rid of the zoned GvG nonsense in the roots and open that area up. The GvG thing is already annoying if your travelling with non-guildies, so open it up fully and have a full risk style. That's fine. But also allow the more controlled style as an option to designers.

But precisely, if you consider the dappers and the items you enter with being "at risk" in what is that different?

It's a nice trade-off... the gear you enter with in part determines your chances and "performance" yet the stakes are higher. All the combattants think the same. And to some extent, it rewards players who win with real things.

I'm beginning to come around on this issue. Is it possible to put most of your dappers someplace like a bank or your apartment? I wasn't aware of this option. If it is, then I'll agree with the open-looting option.

Well... one restriction and then I'm OK: You can't loot from me anything that I can't trade to you. i.e. No stealing my TP tickets. That creates a potential exploit where an experienced player buys a bunch of TP tickets, goes into a scenario and allows newbs to kill/loot him to get those tickets.

Also, how would inter-shard looting work if I steal an Aniro TP ticket? Ugh, I don't even want to think about the programming problems that might cause.

[iwojimmy]

Yay !! Go Ryzom Counterstrike !!

Like the permadeath idea

dont like the looting.. how much of your valuable gear do you carry because you dont have enough storage space to leave it behind ? and one point of the Ring was nothing from it would transfer over to the ~real~ ryzom

but being able to do small conlficts, and name the sides .. so we arent doing these DAMNED kami/karavan crap all the time would be great.. and for guild PvP training..

I am a supporter of LIMITED PvP, and this certainly seems a reasonable implementation.

[oldmess]

and one point of the Ring was nothing from it would transfer over to the ~real~ ryzom

To be precise: Nothing could be *gained* from the Ring (except later they added xp cats to the discussion). You could bring something in from the main world and give it to someone else (see the marketplace thread somewhere else). In that instance, nothing is *gained*, it is simply moved from one player to another.

Looting (if you can put your main dappers into a bank somewhere) is an extension of that as long as the scenarios are clearly marked as having that option turned on. Looting is non-consensual, so we need the ability to consent to it upfront as well as being able to prevent items from being looted (by leaving them in town).

You raise the concern that you don't have enough storage. I would love to see the dev's allow us to buy additional bulk in the apartments so that concern could be reduced.

[clyne]

I do not usually participate in discussions but here I go just a logical thought.

Homins are civilized beings as I had figured. What would exactly be the logic behind homins stripping off another homin's cloths? (since armors are the only outfits on atys they are cloths). 'gear' is just a fancy nick name when if we throw in a few other equitable items.. though I am not much in to PVP or rather FvF yet should such a feature show up in ring - that's the end of hominity :o

Its strange enough homins harass aen and take home her infinitely stocked armor sets... I cant bear to see or hear stories about any more such shameful acts :p

I would really not mind it for dappers, jewels, weapons or even spare armors in the bag - but why the armor that we are currently wearing? It takes the realism out, personally at least.

[rothimar]

The following is a reply made my Marjo in a recent Spires thread:


A few words about the Spires.

We originally planned to add them in the same time as the fame changes, but this wasn't made possible as we couldn't test them deeply enough within the time. Then we had other features in the pipe (RoS, Rē, Kitin's Lair) that couldn't be delayed, so the Spires testing got stalled.

After reading your feedbacks and also rethinking our priorities over the last months, we decided to not rush the Spires out. There are a few points we want to rethink about them. However for now, we have other work ongoing to be released after the Ring, including new Ring features that you've been asking for (such as foraging, PvP, etc.) and the Kitin's Lair.