An Alternative to Throwing Little Guys Under a Bus

First: Don't delay the start for everyone except tribes of 5+. This is too easy to abuse. Tribes can form and reform until at least one member has a tribal totem on every decent spot in the game. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a tribe drops to below 5, that totem doesn't go away, or at least doesn't go away right away, leaving ample time for a tribe member's alt to change it to a homestead if that is ever necessary at all, and still blocking a legitimate claim).

Do let large tribes (15+ or maybe 20+) choose a location and place their totem, with guide oversight. But only if the large tribes can agree amongst themselves on who is placing where. If they can't come to an agreement, they fail at politics and certainly shouldn't have any advantage over solo players and small tribes (that last part was aimed directly at those who claim solo players and small tribes need to 'play more politics' by the way).

Then all the members of the large tribes who have placed their totems must log immediately out of the game and not log back into the game until after the rest of us have had three hours or so to place our totems.

This way, no one can abuse an extra early start by forming and reforming tribes for alts and friends or by splitting into a bunch of 5+ or 10+ tribes for launch day to take as much of the map as possible.

Yet the truly big tribes don't have to worry about losing those areas most suited to large settlements.

It might also help with any possible lag issues.

It will put a stop to the big tribes pointing fingers at each other and going back and forth over totem placement on the 18th. With the advantage of a head start for tribes large enough to truly need it and with negotiation beforehand, every one of them will be able to find a suitable location.

This solution will completely eliminate complaints of special treatment based on beta seniority or any other special treatment, since the only consideration is the difficulty a truly large tribe would have in placing their totem properly on suitable land in the midst of a general land rush.

This wouldn't be a bad solution but I'm afraid its not possible to make it. How could tribes prove their member count ? How can the devs force the big tribes' members to log out after they placed the totem and not to log back in after a short while ? Even if they could, what if a tribe has 30 members, they declare 20 as their member count. So 10 of their members will be able to log in during the solo-small tribe session and drop totems everywhere.

I think that as a totem can hold larger capacity you should lose something to accomodate large numbers. smaller spots should be better than the big spots.

The employees and "guides" should stay out of it. Period. Wipe the slate clean and let everyone have at it. It's bad enough that tribes can place safe zones over resource nodes; I don't want any developer favoritism. That never does a game good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caffy

I think that as a totem can hold larger capacity you should lose something to accomodate large numbers. smaller spots should be better than the big spots.

---

While not exactly pertinent to this topic, I'd certainly favor upkeep on totems.

I agree with you mrcalhou but it seems that the whole launch deal on Feb 18 has people so uptight. I feel like the current state of the game isn't near finished and we should look to good solutions to this issue but probably after the real launch is closer to hand.

It's not really surprising that it has people so uptight. Totem placement represents a significant advantage for tribes. The way many of the game systems are set up, as of right now, is very imbalanced. You set up a totem near a good bunch of junk piles and you are set. So what we're most likely going to see is the rise of the power tribes that were able to set their totems by all the resources and then all the have-nots are going to be clamoring around with little but their pre-order weapon, relatively speaking of course.

I would just like to see people looking for solutions instead of worrying about wether they will get screwed or not. The game hasn't launched (it has been pushed back) yet so it will still be an issue to look at as we get closer to launch (which could still get pushed back more).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caffy

I would just like to see people looking for solutions instead of worrying about wether they will get screwed or not. The game hasn't launched (it has been pushed back) yet so it will still be an issue to look at as we get closer to launch (which could still get pushed back more).

---

Looking for solutions is exactly what I was doing. But after spending the past hours in green mist looking for a decent, unclaimed place to put a totem, only to discover that even the ones I thought no one else could possibly want or even find are now taken, well, now I'm also worried about getting screwed, given the latest clamor for preferential treatment for tribes over small groups and homesteaders.

I guess now I hope totems do get saved, because I'm going to need that spot after all. My last one (placed some time after midnight on launch day) was up with no problems for a day or two, until I rerolled. A guide who was passing through even stopped to chat for a minute prior to the announcement deadline, so I know that the spot is good and should have been recorded.

I can't really believe this game has so many people now that vast swaths of land are claimed in that many areas. I think people have been forming and reforming tribes to put down totems covering large areas in as many places as possible, and I sure as hell don't want the lowlifes who are willing to cheat that way to have a head start when it really is going to matter.

How about 1) fixing the game 2) then when the game launches we start in a world where people don't already have a claim or knowledge of where the best place to be is... IE remix world or coordinate system so people didn't have innate knowledge of the world before the landclaim process started.

would be nice if the community had the ability to oust tribes and single player homesteads, who would stand no chance given a real life scenario as such.

we have to deal with locked tribe locations for a LONG time before tribal wars is anything more than just a "we hope" timeframe.

At least removing the anti-sandbox idea of safezones would allow for...say...hopi tribe to make pandemics life a living hell if they ended up jacking the hopis planned location (given the devlopers give all who paid a fair chance that is) the community would then give pandemic the oppertunity to move or not progress. However theres so many anti-sandbox protective measures that this scenario could never be a possibility.

Just a thought i guess, totem placement is going to be a huge deal once the small junk piles are used up, and the land becomes so full of safe zones that moving to a new loaction will be near impossible. Since these safezones now turn a team of 1 into an unstoppible force. Some people might not be bitching now, but they will months down the line when the special tribes are able to procure resources, but the little guy isnt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caffy

How about 1) fixing the game 2) then when the game launches we start in a world where people don't already have a claim or knowledge of where the best place to be is... IE remix world or coordinate system so people didn't have innate knowledge of the world before the landclaim process started.

---

Wouldn't bother me, but I have no clue how difficult or time consuming it would be to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fflhktsn

would be nice if the community had the ability to oust tribes and single player homesteads, who would stand no chance given a real life scenario as such.

we have to deal with locked tribe locations for a LONG time before tribal wars is anything more than just a "we hope" timeframe.

At least removing the anti-sandbox idea of safezones would allow for...say...hopi tribe to make pandemics life a living hell if they ended up jacking the hopis planned location (given the devlopers give all who paid a fair chance that is) the community would then give pandemic the oppertunity to move or not progress. However theres so many anti-sandbox protective measures that this scenario could never be a possibility.

Just a thought i guess, totem placement is going to be a huge deal once the small junk piles are used up, and the land becomes so full of safe zones that moving to a new loaction will be near impossible. Since these safezones now turn a team of 1 into an unstoppible force. Some people might not be bitching now, but they will months down the line when the special tribes are able to procure resources, but the little guy isnt.

---

1. This game isn't reality.

2. Name one sandbox game with zero safe zones.

personally I would want to be semi nomadic and not have a place to be permanent but would rather like to be able to pack up and move to the next best junk pile down the road :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fflhktsn

At least removing the anti-sandbox idea of safezones

---

Screw it. I'm taking the bait. Safezones are NOT anti-sandbox. Lack of choices is anti-sandbox. Therefore, having no safe zones is anti-sandbox because it removes the players choice of whether or not to play in "safety." If there were incentives for players to play in non-safe areas then you have your sandbox and your PvP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrcalhou

Screw it. I'm taking the bait. Safezones are NOT anti-sandbox. Lack of choices is anti-sandbox. Therefore, having no safe zones is anti-sandbox because it removes the players choice of whether or not to play in "safety." If there were incentives for players to play in non-safe areas then you have your sandbox and your PvP.

---

we agree for the most part. unless that choice is to nullify others play options, such as a pvp player.

as i understand, your point is: removing pvp as a viable option = not restricting choices, neither is restricting where in the world these players are able to play.

the sandbox solution is to let the players make areas safe given the tools already in the game.

solo players should never be caterd to in a game like this, that is what themeparks are for. they have the ability to set shop up in player made safe zones, and the ability to make friends who will cater to the hermit mountain man rp if thats the route they choose.

you always have to option to make areas safe yourself in a sandbox, however removing playstlyes that are dependant on the world being unsafe is exactly what you dont want, as it restricts players choices that differ from yours.

id settle for patrolling police men aor patrolling protection space ships, however that really doesnt make sense given the IP of the game.

also, just saying safezones are not anti sand box and using caps on the word not, doesnt make it true. it removes my option to be a needed and necessary in game protection force. for this reason, there should be no option to be magically protected in the apocalypse, as no such ability would be afforded anyone who survived the apocalypse.

What I'm saying is that having safezones does not make a game any less of a sandbox. I think that the safezones need to be balanced in such a way so that there is a reason for people to leave them. When I play a game I don't want to be paranoid all the time, having to look over my shoulder. At the same time, I do not want to be able to do everything in safe areas, because that will destroy the balance of the game. I think that there needs to be resources, mobs, and activities that can only be done outside of safe zones to encourage players to play in those areas. This way when I play I'm given the choice of staying in "safety" or venturing out into more dangerous areas depending on how I'm feeling that day.

The key thing is that both play-styles should be encouraged, and, more importantly, they should be reliant on each other. Safezone players are going to trade PvP players for those items that they can't get, and at the same time the PvP player might be able to get items at a cheaper rate.


Edit: As far as any lore considerations goes, the apocalypse in this game was brought upon by like demons and stuff, so magical protection wouldn't be entirely lore-breaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caffy

How about 1) fixing the game 2) then when the game launches we start in a world where people don't already have a claim or knowledge of where the best place to be is... IE remix world or coordinate system so people didn't have innate knowledge of the world before the landclaim process started.

---

this would require a redesign of the entire map, that could take months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fflhktsn

solo players should never be caterd to in a game like this, that is what themeparks are for. they have the ability to set shop up in player made safe zones, and the ability to make friends who will cater to the hermit mountain man rp if thats the route they choose.

---

Oh, I see now! If you get your unlimited pvp, it's a sandbox. But I shouldn't get to play solo in the sandbox. Because options and room for different play styles only fit with your definition of 'sandbox' when we're discussing your options and your play style.


Let me try out my definition of a sandbox and we'll see how you like it, then:


PvP players who want unlimited access to victims should never be caterd to in a game like this, that is what first and third person shooters are for. they have the ability to kill everyone, anytime, anywhere, and the ability to make enemies who will cater to the PKer serial killer rp if thats the route they choose.