Outposts shifting to GvG

[geezas]

Originally Posted by vladww

The longest a guild owns an op, the hardest it is to defend it
( Defense malus which increase with every week of ownership ) [/b]

The 20 guards are a detail, Nevrax just has to unspawn them.

I agree though that would need a small but simple implementation on Nevrax side.

That would leave some OP's with 1 weanie yubo and a fledgeling yber as defence

(sorry to make jokes in this, so far, interesting and mature discussion but I could not control myself)

[geezas]

I really like to write a whole chapter about what I think of outposts, but don't have the time. Some good points have been brought up so far so I won't ramble

I'm still waiting for other way's and different outposts to be released. Trading, diplomatic, scientific. and other way's of obtaining and holding them...

[vladww]

Originally Posted by geezas

That would leave some OP's with 1 weanie yubo and a fledgeling yber as defence

What do you mean ? A whole guild is defending here.
Also why not having a minimum of 5 guards. Minor balancing detail imo.

[mugendo]

Faction control of outposts fits the lore of the land, it is also the most practical way to represent PvP in Ryzom.
The current system of Kami/Karavan/neutral works fine.
If I want to remain out of the PvP I have that choice...but still remain 'active' in the politics of the conflict. If I want to 'voice' my opinion on the battlefield I can 'declare' my faction.
This basic system I would not alter, but the rewards for OP ownership/participation should be thoroughly looked into. Maybe a suggestion thread dedicated to OP rewards Nevrax ?

[sehracii]

Originally Posted by vladww

Read my post again :

- The longest a guild owns an op, the hardest it is to defend it
( Defense malus which increase with every week of ownership )

The 20 guards are a detail, Nevrax just has to unspawn them.

I agree though that would need a small but simple implementation on Nevrax side.

What exactly do you mean by "defense malus" ? We already have thresholds that decrease with time.

Also, if you agree with my earlier post that larger numbers favor a more dynamic situation (easier to kill the guards when 100 vs 100 players are there rather than 20vs20) wouldn't increasing some "defence malus" on the current AvA situation STILL be more dynamic than GvG?

[vladww]

Originally Posted by sehracii

What exactly do you mean by "defense malus" ? We already have thresholds that decrease with time.

Also, if you agree with my earlier post that larger numbers favor a more dynamic situation (easier to kill the guards when 100 vs 100 players are there rather than 20vs20) wouldn't increasing some "defence malus" on the current AvA situation STILL be more dynamic than GvG?

Defense malus exemple :
For each week of ownership, an extra attacker Npc will help the challenger guild.
A big guild sitting on an OP for 2 months will face an extra 8 enemy NPC helping the challenging guild.
Or decrease the number of guards overtime in the same manner.

So many ways to implement, doesn't matter which one is used.

The whole point is this:

Do Ryzom players wants to keep FvF (AvA) the way it is ?
= A same big coalition controls the OP's forever, getting stronger & stronger as time pass, while more join their ranks & the opposite side leaves for Cho ?

I really don't see anything dynamic here, even less challenging or simply fun.

[sehracii]

Originally Posted by vladww

Defense malus exemple :
For each week of ownership, an extra attacker Npc will help the challenger guild.
A big guild sitting on an OP for 2 months will face an extra 8 enemy NPC helping the challenging guild.
Or decrease the number of guards overtime in the same manner.

So many ways to implement, doesn't matter which one is used.

I'm not sure how this would work. Do the attacker NPC's spawn in the middle of the outpost in the mix of the defender NPCs? Sounds like easy slaughter, unless attackers hold the center (but they need the advantage to get there, not stay there)
Less defending NPC's would work. HOWEVER, less defending NPCs would make AvA more dynamic than GvG. Higher numbers favor attackers. However many NPCs guards there are, their effecit is minimized when turnout is large.

Originally Posted by vladww

The whole point is this:

Do Ryzom players wants to keep FvF (AvA) the way it is ?
= A same big coalition controls the OP's forever, getting stronger & stronger as time pass, while more join their ranks & the opposite side leaves for Cho .

I really don't see anything dynamic here, even less challenging or simply fun.

That is not the situation we have right now. We have two sides (call them wha you will), of approximately equal number of people, holding approximately equal number of outposts. I agree its not dynamic, but it is balanced AvA.
There's no reason Kami should hold as many outposts as Kara if they have less people.


What effect Cho will have on this, I can't say. I can see potential problems, but its pure speculation.

[aardnebb]

Originally Posted by sehracii

That is not the situation we have right now. We have two sides (call them wha you will), of approximately equal number of people, holding approximately equal number of outposts. I agree its not dynamic, but it is balanced AvA.

Not _quite_ true. One Alliance holds 1/2 the OPs on the server. The other half are divided up into a number of smaller groups, some of which work together in some situations. Some of them are community OPs that dont take part in PvP at all.

Originally Posted by sehracii

There's no reason Kami should hold as many outposts as Kara if they have less people.

Actually I think that it would improve the balance if a smaller side held equal OPs. People would drift towards that side as they get more crystals per person. Unfortunately it doesnt work that way and you get small guilds like GoJ holding an OP because they are part of a huge alliance, so they get fat on the produce while others starve.

[sehracii]

Originally Posted by aardnebb

Not _quite_ true. One Alliance holds 1/2 the OPs on the server. The other half are divided up into a number of smaller groups, some of which work together in some situations. Some of them are community OPs that dont take part in PvP at all.

All I'm saying is there approximately equal number of people on the two sides to distribute the products too. Will never be exact, but it seems reasonable balance to me.

Originally Posted by aardnebb

Actually I think that it would improve the balance if a smaller side held equal OPs. People would drift towards that side as they get more crystals per person. Unfortunately it doesnt work that way and you get small guilds like GoJ holding an OP because they are part of a huge alliance, so they get fat on the produce while others starve.

Small guilds holding outposts is not just the result of big alliances. There are better examples outside the huge alliance you speak of.

The "drift to the side with more outposts" theory has been proven incorrect. Otherwise one side would have taken over. It hits a critical mass and community factors keep the sides in check.

[grimjim]

Originally Posted by sehracii

The "drift to the side with more outposts" theory has been proven incorrect. Otherwise one side would have taken over. It hits a critical mass and community factors keep the sides in check.

Actually it hasn't. What we have acheived through great effort by the community is a 'pause'. Not a reversal or an equilibrium. One side does still have the power to take over, its just slightly harder work than it was, for now. How long until it overcomes this bump is where there's possible contention.