Ring - The Scoring System
 

Here's Marjo's explanation of the scoring system for the ring:

http://www.ryzom.com/documentation/f...coring-system/

I see two problems with this:

1) It's totally based on the use of combat skills and so means story telling and other non-combat scenarios will provide neither reward for players nor rankings for authors.

2) It penalizes lower players for using skills lower than the scenario level, but rewards players for using skills above the scenario level.


I'm working on a story telling scenario that can be completed by any character that can follow dialog and no longer finds suckling yubo's a chalenge. The only kill task now is for three flegling izam (less if you guess which izam drops the reward). It includes lots of tasks and a few puzzles designed to show the different npc's point of view on the situation and lead to a reward of a long dialog from long-forgotten historical figure. Nothing that will lead to ring rewards for the players or rankings for me, no matter how engaging a story I tell.

I could up the rewards/rankings if I add a step for the slaughter of 100 suckling yubos. Everyone gets lots of RRP's, except the AoD's who kill all the yubos with a couple bomb spells. But yubo slaughter wouldn't fit the story.

On the second point, the system makes it hard to make a chalenging hack-and-slash scenario for players with skills under 200. Say you design an "advanced" 100-150 scenario balanced for 3-4 players with combat skills in the 100-150 range. The scenario could be completed by a team of 9 with skills in the 70-100 range, but they wouldn't get any RRP's. If your team of 3-4 includes a couple players who are Avatars of Something but also have 100-150 level skils, there is no penalty for getting past a tough situation using level 250 skills. The scoring system rewards the high level players and penalizes low level players. Scenarios like Rosidera Forest would get top ratings and generate lots of RRP's for players with 200+ skills and nothing for any player with sub-200 skills. It's the lower level characters who need the cats, not those with max skills.

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

Also the "no-trade" aspect means that you cannot use them to benefit your friends as part of a social gaming experience.

These rewards are _more_ limited than the PvP versions, take more time and effort to aquire and will unfortunately lead to "hack-n-slash" scenarios designed only for farming, while social, puzzle and other scenarios are left out in the cold...

*facepalm*

Still, it _is_ a step in the right direction and I look forward to future revisions and balancing...

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

Yay more cats ingame...

That makes my month...

(there's irony in this post btw)

Edit:actually lower levels dont need cats as much as high levels, less skill tree's, faster levelling, most lower quality cats produced by op's and ingame. In general I've found its the older players who don't get the cats in preference of the new players in guilds and game too as they can live without them but the new players all crave them inguild. Perhaps a chance for higher levels to earn some cats for themselves might not be too bad if its implemented well.

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

you're supposed to be rewarding people with high levels, duhh ;)

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

An alternate way to get them than OPs is a good thing.
The byzantine and combat-only, non-tradable way of getting them... less good.

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

Just completing a scenario should grant at least a point. While this would still favor the hack and slash, it would at least give the RP types something without being easily exploitable.

This would also help people with lower level combat skills.

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

I don't think anyone wants to NOT give points, there just needs to be balance. I hack and slash thru some scenario's with risk of respawning... if all I do is chat, where's the beef ?

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

In spending the time socialising, improving the game, negotiating, solving mental and social puzzles, engaging in word games, playing a role and adding depth. All much better reasons to reward than straight combat.

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

My honest opinion, yet it may clash and I don't expect it to be shared.... but here it goes.

I am a bit wary of this. First, from a purely selfish perspective, it looks to me like an important effort in defining ranks, ratios, points, etc.... while several aspects of the game still needing completion. Anyway, ontopic: there are basically 2 different aspects: one rewarding players playing the scenario, and the other rewarding players creating the scenario.

First, the "rewarding players". As much as I would / do / enjoy roleplay (or could, depending on the mood) and I see the possibliities of different scenarios, in my opinion, the notion of ring rewards was supposed to account for the fact that during the time spent in the ring, the player could not be "productive" in the mainland. From a simplistic point of view, "the rewards account for the XP you are not gaining". If roleplaying is not "rewarded" in game -- one could spent hours chatting and socializing, trading, exploring, solving puzzles -- why should be rewarded in the ring? where is the "lost XP to account for"?. why is that, that the first thing that would come to mind is... "if we need to roleplay, why not RP in a ring scenario, so we get XP cats after, and not on the mainland" , etc. you get the picture.

"Well, RPs need to be rewarded for the time and effort it takes"... yes, true, BUT, if RP activities were to be rewarded (which I agree they should) then they should be rewarded throughout Ryzom, not only in scenarios. With the current system, no it does not seem appropriate to me. The ring reward system should aim at the gameplay aspects that are rewarding currently In Game. While other aspects should / need to be considered, they need to be considered globally, and not through this.


On the "rewarding scenario creators". One would naively ask wether the creation itself is or is not rewarding enough for authors. Is not the praise from players and thanks good enough? No, it seems not. It seems that to some extent Nevrax needs to throw bones to scenario creators to motivate them, to create, don't they? Scenario creators need their own way of recognition and ego-boosting (I am master scenario creator, ranked number 1 by 95% of players, my scenarios rock so much that players are begging me to create another). To me, this is yet another form of PvP -- as much as In-Forum PvP.

While I do expect all these "recent announcements" to prove me wrong, I still see how for the last one and half years everything 8ok, ok, almost everything, you nitpicking) has been ring-related, and although this was needed and relevant... maybe some ring features could be classed as secondary or non-priority ? what about doing as with Ops, PvP, etc. and leave a preliminary version and then focus on other things?. All this "scenario creator ranking" seems a simplistic way to try to trigger the competitive and ego boosting soul in content creators.

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

I agree. I don't find it any more helpful than LT's proposed PvP ranking scheme or the issues with the ranking system during the Temple War. On the other hand it is useful for players looking for good scenario creators to be able to see how a particular scenario or creator has been ranked.

Frankly I'd rather I had the ability, as a creator, to trade my scenario popularity/success for rewards I can place IN my scenarios to motivate people to play them. If my capability to produce good scenarios was rewarded with Crystals and other rewards I could place IN my RP scenarios that then provides the motivation and compensation for the players who want to do those things. One could even dish out a handful of crystals based on 'good roleplay' as is done in many TT games.

The risk, of course, is that guilds artificially inflate the rating of their pet designer's scenarios so they can hand out 'kewl stuff' but the current incarnation is just going to encourage crystal-farming scenarios anyway, something I thought we were trying to avoid. :/

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

Good and interesting idea, worth considering and evaluating. The first thought that comes to mind is the risk of a snowball effect tho: the more players play your scenario, the more rewards the content creator can put in them, thus attracting more players due to the rewards.

Nice idea tho, just mentioning a possible drawback.

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

Didn't stop 'em with Outposts did it? ;)

I agree, that's also a problem but it's better than encouraging one-upmanship.

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

Ok, I just read about the RPR scoring system and I have to say it sucks. Why? Because it does nothing to take into account scenarios that are designed for any level to complete.

For example in the scenrio I built, I spent lots of time designing it so that you could either fight the level 150-250 mobs, or you could sneak around and find other ways to kill the mobs where you don't ever have to fight. In otherwords a player at level 20 can beat it just as a player at level 250 can beat it.

So according to this new system anyone who figures out how to beat the scenario without every resorting to combat, gets nothing. The reality is that if someone figures out how to beat it without combat, they should get more as they had to use their brains more than simply killing stuff. And yes, it's more than just timing things right.

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

I went back and reread it again. The more I read the more it sucks. The system is biased towards group play? The authors rating is based upon the points players earn in the scenario?

So again, if I create a really incredible scenario where I spent the time designing it really well for any level of player. Yet only one player can go through at a time, I don't get a rating? Especially if the player never resorts to combat?

So what we end up with isn't going to be players making and playing lots of great unique scenarios that tell stories. We are going to end up with a bunch of hack and slash scenarios. I'm left asking what the hell the point is of the Ring, if all you want people to create is the same crap that is in game already? Furthermore why should I bother creating puzzles and other things in game when the only thing to get rewards is killing?

Yet again I am left asking why bother with the ring at all?

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

I'll still produce the stuff I want to produce anyway, but this is going to act as a demotivator to people to take part in it.

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

Raynes, I don't usually agree with most of your posts, but you're spot on here, on both posts. There is no longer an incentive to be creative, to ponder on options; hack 'n slash get's the rewards, guile and cunning, intelligence get nothing. I could just play on the mainland if I wanted that; I get experience/rewards for defeating mobs there.

Lo and behold, even a pen and paper game as bland as Dungeons and Dragons (I'm gonna get slapped for this by Jyudas :p) suggests to reward 'clever use and innovative thinking on skills'; the 'bashing-down-the-door' playstyle isn't the only one around, nor the only one to achieve goals.

I was at least hoping Ringmasters would be allowed to dispense rewards themselves or allocate ample points for rewards where they see fit. For instance if I were to create a mission to steal an object from a tribe:
*Get past the guards by slaughtering them: 1 reward point.
*Get by the guards, manipulte scenery object AND if NPC group 1 Guards is still alive: 2 reward points

And I want to create challenges for players in the right levels, not reward Avatars of whatnot to plow through; if I wanted to reward them I'd make challenging maps for their levels. They could have at least tried to use a comparable system as is used on the mainland on distributing experience; you learn less or nothing if it's below your skill. If higher level players are so worried about getting experience, why aren't they gaining it on the mainland?


It's a creative outlet to some, a means to share lore, knowledge, vision, pure entertainment and a joy you get from seeing players wrestle through your machinations. The rewards for players only come second to me; heck I can live without. If you really need to get rewarded (material, experience) for every deed you do, every action you take, why bother? I never understood.

Edit: something to set the record straight: the above is not a sneer at you Raynes, but more a general feeling I get across a lot of games. Motivations ought to be character driven, not player driven.

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

There are other less time consuming ways for me to have a creative outlet (like killinga tribe, taking a screenshot, and doing rp for it). Why should I spend days creating content for them and never get any sort or reward for it?

I should clarify that to me reward is simply as getting high ratings for my scenarios. With this system pretty much any scenario I choose to create will not get much of a rating at all. What's really going to happen is the exact opposite of what a ratings system should do. The really good and interesting ones will get lousy ratings, while the hack and slash combat ones witll get the best ratings.

I did think of one other question. What is to stop people from always making their scenario the lowest level type and putting low level mobs in it? Then people just killing to get scenario points? There could be no story, no logic, no planning. Yet that scenario will get mega ratings simply because people killed a lot in it.

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

Hehe, seems I edited to late. I know what you mean, and I agree there. You're the player creating something for other players. I only meant by that statement rewards for characters and incentive for characters. Would the valorous knight save the princess if he wouldn't get some sort of reward for it? 'Tis quest sux!!! It gives no xp, no loot and the princess is fugly!! I'm off for that grail; maybe I can fence that fur sum gold.'


Exactly, that's my biggest fear as well. I could make a map filled with kitin wave after kitin wave, npc's that stay silent, you kill the kitins and get the points, I go for diner and get the points, I come back and disconnect the scenario. Do this a couple times and everyone has heaps of points. And for what?

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

Before they offered rewards for the Ring, I remember it being about creativity and how folks couldn't wait to put their ideas out there. Now they added the XP cats and it's just another conflict. The most popular player made content can be of any type/style if the players enjoy it, there should be no difference in rewards IF there needs to be rewards.

There does need to be some activity though, elsewise the evil empire can make a scenario where all they do is enter daily enmasse and plot their next evil schemes. I can see all the rolepaying now... plans to attack/defend against the evil Kamists. Practicing formations, feints and protecting our forces. Solving the puzzle of what the enemy will come up with next... oh the agony...

Since they'd only be gathering around, the map can be as simple or elaborate as the mapmaker was creative. Either way it'd be the go-to place for the hordes of the evil empire and would rank highly as part of their evil scheme. Why should they get more cats, they already keep most of Atys without cats by their guilds defending their OP's ?

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

No, I'm not going to slap you around. As far as RPGs go D&D is pretty bland. This will just end up with Crystal farms though and while that helps take some of the sting out of Outposts the Crystals (and other rewards?) being non-tradable harms that role.

Yeah DT, it wasn't meant to be about rewards but as 'alternate revenue stream' for Crystals etc is a bloody good idea for providing access to content for non PvP players.

In TTRPGs there is a classic and constant argument between 'System doesn't matter' and 'System matters'. Personally I fall on the side of 'System matters'. That is to say that a system that supports and encourages particular modes of play, styles, or activities is better suited to them than trying to shoehorn them in.

In something like Feng Shui or Exalted this comes out in a mechanism called 'Stunts'. Basically the more descriptive and evocative your description of your actions the bigger the bonus you get to perform those actions.

In other games different systems such as bloody and graphic critical hit tables, systems for tracking humanity or sanity all play their role in encouraging and supporting play in a certain idiom, encouraging it.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that if you want this to be successful as something more than pure hack and slash you need to find a way of encouraging its use in alternate ways.

My suggestion would go back to my original one, its abusable but I can't see a better alternative. Give the Adventure Master points based on the ratings etc of their scenario that they can cash in for rewards to offer IN their scenarios that will, in turn, encourage people to play their scenarios by providing incentive and will put control back into the hands of the AM.

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

This discussion reminds me of discussions on a NWN PW I played on and was quite involved in. The server was focused on RP, but it's much easier to give XP for a kill than for roleplaying. The MDM (master DM) didn't want to bribe players to roleplay by giving out XP for it, it should come naturally - because it was an RP server.

So the hack&slash people leveled several times faster than those who preferred to chat and intrigue in the town (the quests were like Ryzom: no XP) which lead to roleplayers questioning if the server was really aimed for roleplayers. After several attempts to distribute XP in different ways, we decided for flat rate. One RL hour in the game gave 200 XP.

The result was that because the hack&slashers couldn't control their XP flow they got bored and stopped logging on, and the server got too deserted for the RP'ers to roleplay in and the project sort of died after that.

So, while I can say clichés like "RP is a reward in itself" (which is true) rewards are important for the Ring to succeed. But it is a tricky question, because there are as many styles to play as there are players.

How would it work if the Adventure Master gained some XP (or cats) per player joining the scenario to distribute to the players in his/her adventure? Then it would be up to the AM to give a player who roleplay or who does something clever to bonk the player with some XP, to encourage (or bribe) him to continue.

I don't think the rewards need to be great, but they should be there.

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

Maybe a combination of the system as proposed although the lvl thingy looks abit weird, using a 250 skill in a 150 scenario should get less reward, and a flat rate time thing like Ulani said running in the background.

For sure hack n slash would get more reward and some peeps would exploit by just sitting logged in but that way pure RP gets somthing back.

Ringmasters should get a higher rate of background time related points.

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

Well... Why don't they impose character limits? like not being allowed to use higher level stanzas and such, so that you'd have to use your wits to get through something with limited ability, and the reward would be greater for the first group to get through that ring, and each subsequent group would recieve less of a reward... and the longer a ring went without rewarding the first group, the greater the reward would become.

Pros:
Uberpowering your characters and relying on character ability would be limited so that you'd actually be relying on player skill instead of amount of time spent grinding;

By allowing for a wait-to-reward system, more difficult rings that force players to use their knowledge would produce greater reward, and would thus be more desireable to attempt;

Being the first to crack a long timed ring would have its own fame amongst the community out of character as the player would have done something others had not;

Can't abuse this type of system because everyone would want to be the first to get the reward at some point, and unless the entire populous of ryzom held a conspiracy to not complete a particular ring first, someone would eventually set the curve;


Cons:
Authors could make very difficult rings that would easily be bypassed with knowledge of one simple thing, wait a few weeks, and tell their friends how to be the first to crack it. (There is a chance of others stumbling upon it though);

Possible boycott by making something impossible for anybody but 250s with the best gear, and then those 250s deciding not to beat it for a long period of time (thus a boycott);

Balance issues of risk vs reward;


If anyone can think of more pros or cons, please, do tell. My brain kinda hurts from analyzing my own work. XD

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

It is clear from the discussion here that there is a general misunderstanding about the way in which the Ring Reward system works. I gathered your concerns for Daniel Miller, Producer of the Ring. He is preparing a document explaining how the system works in a little more depth and answering your questions. More to come!

Re: Ring - The Scoring System
 

As far as Ring designers go, I don't see that there needs to be a reward beyond a rankings system, be that a mechanical one in-game or gossip-based one on the Web. There are plenty of maps out there for Quake or Neverwinter Nights to prove that there is plenty of kudos to be earned through such endeavours.

I am sure that rewards for developers will just encourage the development of poor quality content, be that hack-and-shash or not. What I fear most is the ring terminal being full of things thrown together half-heartedly by people who are primarily motivated by free stuff; I don't look forward to the amount of time I will waste playing complete tripe before I find a gem. Although a volunteer could be good or bad at the job, at least they are more likely to have self-motivation and pride in what they create.

A question: If I publish my scenario, so that anyone can host it, then who gets the points, hoster or author? If hoster, then it will mean people won't share scenarios, either for other people to learn from or to allow them to be more widely hosted. Frankly, I don't intend to leave my PC on all the time to run a scenario, but I would have no problem with other people hosting it if they thought it was good enough. Why not just host a popular scenario you find on the web, since you get all the rewards for none of the effort? Alternatively, if people keep hold of their sources to make sure they get their hard-earned rewards, then the only result will be a lack of skilled developers since there will be no good scenarios out there to learn from.

As far as rewarding players, I actually think that is unneccessary whether it be RP or not. However you allocate points, people are going to be able to grind their friends' Rings much more efficiently than they ever can on the "balanced" mainland. The reward for Ring players should be that it is going to have a lot more effort (developer hours creating it per player hour spent in it) put into it than the mainland ever could have. The mainland is so large and intended as such a time-sink that it would be impossible to individually script it all - Ring should ideally be the other way around. This is a lot less important than the developer/host getting paid, since I am already effective at ignoring powergamers and the like.