It's a PvP poll not a flame thread o_o

[mrshad]

I voted no.
The mechanics seem okay...the correct arrangement of different classes seems to yeild consitent results. I think the magic resist jewels are a bit underpowered or too hard to get a hold of, but that is just my impression.

As far as the result, i think we can agree it is flawed. Fighting for outposts is okay, that outposts give XP bonuses is not all that wise. Like every single PVP implementaiton in every other "PVP for Terrirtory" game ever made, this one ends up dominated by the largest coherant group. Of course, it would help (on Aris anyway) if the other group would bother showing up, but that is a disscution we can save for another time.

Players that have access to cats will run through levels faster (not twice as fast, though. We run out of cats long before we run ot of levels.) And those players will leave the game sooner, having achieved all the numbers they want. Bad move on Nevrax's part.

[marct]

Originally Posted by grimjim

Then how do you suggest returning some tactics to it and stopping it being a simple zerging? If you don't like an idea, improve it or suggest an alternative.

The game designers would need to add strategy type abilites and tactic type things. When everyone is basically limited to a 50m attack (some ranged is slightly better), everyone is out in the open, and such it is difficult.

There are no decisions in the skill tree that take you one way versus another with various tradeoffs in that. This is where you get diversity, strategy and tactics. Being able to buy out every skill tree is silly. Being forced to make trade off decisions in every single tree you pursue is where you get that.

A total re-spec would be required at this point to accomplish this though, so fat chance. Not to mention all of the skills and abilites, animations, etc.

[ajsuk]

eheh, well like I said, you wouldn't like my responce, but it is what it is.

[grimjim]

Originally Posted by marct

The game designers would need to add strategy type abilites and tactic type things. When everyone is basically limited to a 50m attack (some ranged is slightly better), everyone is out in the open, and such it is difficult.

There are no decisions in the skill tree that take you one way versus another with various tradeoffs in that. This is where you get diversity, strategy and tactics. Being able to buy out every skill tree is silly. Being forced to make trade off decisions in every single tree you pursue is where you get that.

A total re-spec would be required at this point to accomplish this though, so fat chance. Not to mention all of the skills and abilites, animations, etc.

Interesting, but the open-endedness is a large part of Ryzom's appeal. Some new battle auras or stealth abilities would add a new tactical dimension though, or a crafting tree for building defences that could be set up. Adding to rather than altering or taking away might also provide options.

[sehracii]

Originally Posted by grimjim

OK, someone else to whom I was responding initially felt that there was a lack of tactics. It currently suits you for whatever reasons, but would could/would you suggest to address their concerns?

Why would we want to put MORE emphasis on PvP skill?
What's wrong with politics and diplomacy playing an important role?

Think what you will, but its important. I've seen many battles won and lost because of politics.

Any shift of importance between PvP skill/diplomacy is bound to make some people unhappy.

[ajsuk]

Originally Posted by grimjim

Adding to rather than altering or taking away might also provide options.

My ears perked up slightly...

[grimjim]

Originally Posted by sehracii

Why would we want to put MORE emphasis on PvP skill?
What's wrong with politics and diplomacy playing an important role?

Think what you will, but its important. I've seen many battles won and lost because of politics.

Any shift of importance between PvP skill/diplomacy is bound to make some people unhappy.

Not more, _some_ rather than simple mass and inertia.
And politics and diplomacy are great, but with entrenched groups of the current size don't make a fantastic amount of difference save when talking about a few controversial locations.

[grimjim]

Originally Posted by ajsuk

My ears perked up slightly...

Well, it's the same problem as with the teleport tickets. If you take away something people already have it causes a lot of problems and resentment. Whereas if you bring in additional options, even if they change the scope of things, or even miss out a group, then the problems aren't so pronounced.

So rather than tinkering with what's already there, you could add options that change the gameplay dynamic instead.

[ajsuk]

you were doing well but I'm heading slowly back to curling up & sleeping under the radiator...

[grimjim]

Originally Posted by ajsuk

you were doing well but I'm heading slowly back to curling up & sleeping under the radiator...

Well then, what sort of things do you think might add to OPs and provide a more satisfying and tactical play?

I was thinking, off the top of my head, siege engines and defense towers or something.

The days leading up to the battle people could forage and supply materials for defensive and offensive fortifications to give the harvesters etc a bit of a role.