Good vs Evil, or not

[dfend]

Yesterday, I talked to a guide about the alignment system. I wanted to know how the PvP would work after beta. I assumed that there would be fights between Good and Evil with Neutral players staying out of fights most of the time. After all, they are neutral and the other players are aligned with a "faction".

But the guide told me that Neutral and Good players will be save on their territory while Evil players will not. Looting/stealing of stuff from baskets and bags on territory is not ingame. This is the same for everybody, Evil players too.

So what this comes down to is Evil players will be killable by everybody, everywhere without alignment hits. In return, they get to kill and loot players who are outside their own territory. The thing is, hardly anybody ever leaves their territory. And if they do, they are usually very close near their border so they can often sprint back within seconds. And I'm not talking about ganking new players at world entrance points. Thats not PvP, thats just lame. But I can see how they get killed because currently, thats very likely the location with the most players outside their territory.

I dont see much PvP going on and I dont understand why this has to be. From what I understood Evil players could take stuff from Good aligned territory and in return, Good players could loot from Evil territory with the advantage being at the Good players because if they die, they can respawn anywhere. The Evil player gets ported back to his tribe.

Why not make it so Good can fight Evil everywhere or if you dont want the larger scale PvP before Tribal Wars, at least implement stealing from baskets so people who want player vs player interaction in one way or another can have it.

Everybody who does not want to take part in this kind of action and rather gather and craft some stuff and build houses, terraform the area and such should pick neutral. Neutral players would have a safe zone on their claim on which neither Evil nor Good aligned players could hurt them. Also stealing from Neutral tribes territory should not be possible. They are truly Neutral, but that also means they cannot attack/kill Good or Evil aligned players or steal from their territory without alignment hits. After all, they are Neutral.

[woachaos]

This is how things should work. Can't be too hard to enable pvp and stealing for good and evil. For neutral everything stays as it is. This way everyone can get what they want and I really can't see any disadvantages for anyone.

[yoori]

Wait till game goes live right now every one is sitting in tribal lands and learning the game, no point in trading. Once it'll go live goods will have to be tranported, animals tracked by hunters, there'll be plenty ocasions for evil players to set ambush and for good players to try and prevent it.

edit: If you enable looting from good tribes every one will go neutral. And what would stop me from going into your village and taking out every valuable thing you have, when all your tribe members are offline?

[naughty]

Wait till game goes live right now every one is sitting in tribal lands and learning the game, no point in trading. Once it'll go live goods will have to be tranported, animals tracked by hunters, there'll be plenty ocasions for evil players to set ambush and for good players to try and prevent it.

sorry but an important feature like the alignmentsystem should be tested in the beta...and NOT after release. the alignmentsystem is simple useless at the moment. please read again what dfend wrote ;-)

[woachaos]

Wait till game goes live right now every one is sitting in tribal lands and learning the game, no point in trading. Once it'll go live goods will have to be tranported, animals tracked by hunters, there'll be plenty ocasions for evil players to set ambush and for good players to try and prevent it.

edit: If you enable looting from good tribes every one will go neutral. And what would stop me from going into your village and taking out every valuable thing you have, when all your tribe members are offline?

Nothing would stop you from doing that except we had walls and maybe gates. Thats the fun about it. And whats the problem about everyone being neutral ?`If people want to stay safe let them, but why not giving them the chance to decide themselves ?

[naughty]

Nothing would stop you from doing that except we had walls and maybe gates. Thats the fun about it. And whats the problem about everyone being neutral ?`If people want to stay safe let them, but why not giving them the chance to decide themselves ?

exactly this :-)
you wanna fight against each other? -> good or evil
you wanna live your carebearlife? -> neutral

[dfend]

edit: If you enable looting from good tribes every one will go neutral. And what would stop me from going into your village and taking out every valuable thing you have, when all your tribe members are offline?
If you're Good and I'm Evil, nothing will stop you. In return, nothing will stop me from looting your tribe too. Thats the fun of it.

However, you could put some extremely valuable stuff on your character before logging out. With only one character per account this would work very well as you can't create mule/bank characters (well, unless you pay ...) At some point, gates might get implemented so palisades/walls might prevent people (they need to be destroyable with some effort tho). And if you're Neutral, you either cannot steal from other players territory or your alignment will shift.

If they go for alignment shift, it would have to be integrated in a way that it shifts Neutral players away from Neutral and not just towards Good or Evil or they could steal from Evil, then from Good, then from Evil again etc and would always stay Neutral.

[FabricSoftener]

As a long term Darkfall player I would like to throw in a point of view. One of the troubles in Darkfall is not the grieving pvp as much as a lack of pvp with meaning and to much of random pvp hunts with no meaning. There is nothing in the game mechanics that explictily prevents people from having clan warfare with meaning as instead of random pvp 'light' but there appears to also not be anything that encourages people to have more meaning behind their conflicts.

Solution? I dont know, but one thing is clear, if its 'open everything' and left for the community to form everything like Darkfall it will attract what I call the 'casual pvper' the ones that want 1vs1, grieiving and arenas.

[Niburu]

Really good idea. This would add content to the game while you don't touch core mechanics

[Hummel139]

Yesterday, I talked to a guide about the alignment system. I wanted to know how the PvP would work after beta. I assumed that there would be fights between Good and Evil with Neutral players staying out of fights most of the time. After all, they are neutral and the other players are aligned with a "faction".

But the guide told me that Neutral and Good players will be save on their territory while Evil players will not. Looting/stealing of stuff from baskets and bags on territory is not ingame. This is the same for everybody, Evil players too.

So what this comes down to is Evil players will be killable by everybody, everywhere without alignment hits. In return, they get to kill and loot players who are outside their own territory. The thing is, hardly anybody ever leaves their territory. And if they do, they are usually very close near their border so they can often sprint back within seconds. And I'm not talking about ganking new players at world entrance points. Thats not PvP, thats just lame. But I can see how they get killed because currently, thats very likely the location with the most players outside their territory.

I dont see much PvP going on and I dont understand why this has to be. From what I understood Evil players could take stuff from Good aligned territory and in return, Good players could loot from Evil territory with the advantage being at the Good players because if they die, they can respawn anywhere. The Evil player gets ported back to his tribe.

Why not make it so Good can fight Evil everywhere or if you dont want the larger scale PvP before Tribal Wars, at least implement stealing from baskets so people who want player vs player interaction in one way or another can have it.

Everybody who does not want to take part in this kind of action and rather gather and craft some stuff and build houses, terraform the area and such should pick neutral. Neutral players would have a safe zone on their claim on which neither Evil nor Good aligned players could hurt them. Also stealing from Neutral tribes territory should not be possible. They are truly Neutral, but that also means they cannot attack/kill Good or Evil aligned players or steal from their territory without alignment hits. After all, they are Neutral.

/this !

[esudar]

good idea.

hell every change is good since the allignment system and player interaction in general at the moment is total crap and non-existant.

let people fight each other if they want and carebears can hide.

[BigCountry]

I support this 100%! Seems to work for all parties involved.
:D

And agree 100% it should be implemented and tested now, not later - later on a production DB is BAD. lol

[yoori]

You seem to forget that it's not faction-based PvP game. War will be over resources and territory.
Good players get renown for doing good things and evil players for evil things, this way good player stealing would shift towards evils side.

[Niburu]

Were is the WAR over ressources when you have a safe soon ? Tbh i think you didn't understand what the Op was posting

[dfend]

You seem to forget that it's not faction-based PvP game. War will be over resources and territory.
Good players get renown for doing good things and evil players for evil things, this way good player stealing would shift towards evils side.
Well, Good and Evil are factions. What else would they be? Alignments? Still sort of a faction imho, especially since you choose the faction/alignment whatever for your whole tribe.

Also, war over resources and territory is not possible. As soon as a resource is claimed by tribal territory, its save forever (until Tribal Wars which won't arrive until 6-9 months from now which is a really long time for a MMO).

Good players getting reputation for doing good things is fine and I think stealing from Evil aligned players is a good deed. The same as it is an evil thing for Evil players to steal from Good. Besides, it needs to be balanced. Currently, Good players can respawn everywhere, Evil players only at totem. But Evil players can kill anyone outside tribal territory. If Evil players could steal from Good players territory but Good players would not be able to steal from Evil, Evil players would have a big advantage.

[naughty]

Were is the WAR over ressources when you have a safe soon ? Tbh i think you didn't understand what the Op was posting

hehe tought the same :p

[yoori]

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/32-Conflict-Death-Consequences-and-Decisions

If you don't like safezones idea join after prelude, when we'll be ready to welcome you properly.

[yoori]

Resources aren't safe(not the ones in bins). You can steal them then you are marked as a thief and you can be attacked without alignment consequences for defenders. the only thing you can't do is make a party and raid good/neutral players who can't(it's supposed to be twitch-based after all) or don't want to fight before they can set up defences.

[FabricSoftener]

Resources aren't safe(not the ones in bins). You can steal them then you are marked as a thief and you can be attacked without alignment consequences for defenders. the only thing you can't do is make a party and raid good/neutral players who can't(it's supposed to be twitch-based after all) or don't want to fight before they can set up defences.

Just so I understand and not make a mistake. I can steal from peoples woodpiles outside of their village without becoming marked correct?

[Jadzia]

The OP basically says that tribes should be able to choose if they want their tribe zone to be safe or not. I really like the idea, the more options we get the better the game will be. I do believe that everyone has the right to choose his/her playstyle, and with the OP's idea the ones who want more PvP can choose evil or good, the ones who want peace can choose neutral.

On a side note in my understanding neutral was inbetween good and evil, not a one who stays out of fights but a one who do both good and evil. So it would be more natural to me to give the protection option for good tribes and keep the neutrals/evils unsafe, but it doesn't really matter how we call it.

[JCatano]

The OP basically says that tribes should be able to choose if they want their tribe zone to be safe or not. I really like the idea, the more options we get the better the game will be. I do believe that everyone has the right to choose his/her playstyle, and with the OP's idea the ones who want more PvP can choose evil or good, the ones who want peace can choose neutral.

On a side note in my understanding neutral was inbetween good and evil, not a one who stays out of fights but a one who do both good and evil. So it would be more natural to me to give the protection option for good tribes and keep the neutrals/evils unsafe, but it doesn't really matter how we call it.

We went over this long ago. If you want to be PvP-safe, then you should not have access to things that people will start conflict over. You also shouldn't be able to trade with anyone who hasn't been Neutral for a long period of time. You cannot have 2 separate games playing off of each other in a seamless map. It just won't work, especially considering the game is supposed to be open-PvP.

[Jadzia]

We went over this long ago. If you want to be PvP-safe, then you should not have access to things that people will start conflict over. You also shouldn't be able to trade with anyone who hasn't been Neutral for a long period of time. You cannot have 2 separate games playing off of each other in a seamless map. It just won't work, especially considering the game is supposed to be open-PvP.

Its actually the other way around, lol, you didn't get it. Good and neutral tribe zones are safe zones during Prelude. Its kind of a forced safety for ones who may not want it. The OP suggested a way how tribes could choose NOT to have safe areas without being evil. Whats wrong with it ? If someone don't want to be safe he has the right not to be.

[yoori]

Leaving poeple choice if they want their tribe to be a safe zone is ok. Allowing to steal from bins is ok, but only if we'll get lockpicking skill, which we might get.

Good tribes have restrictions too we can't steal, we can't kill anyone for loot without affecting our alignment. If our alignment drops too much we will be removed from tribe by game mechnics.

There are diffrences between alignments, but they aren't a main reason for PvP.

[JCatano]

Jadzia:


Everybody who does not want to take part in this kind of action and rather gather and craft some stuff and build houses, terraform the area and such should pick neutral. Neutral players would have a safe zone on their claim on which neither Evil nor Good aligned players could hurt them. Also stealing from Neutral tribes territory should not be possible. They are truly Neutral, but that also means they cannot attack/kill Good or Evil aligned players or steal from their territory without alignment hits. After all, they are Neutral.


The OP basically says that tribes should be able to choose if they want their tribe zone to be safe or not. I really like the idea, the more options we get the better the game will be. I do believe that everyone has the right to choose his/her playstyle, and with the OP's idea the ones who want more PvP can choose evil or good, the ones who want peace can choose neutral.

On a side note in my understanding neutral was inbetween good and evil, not a one who stays out of fights but a one who do both good and evil. So it would be more natural to me to give the protection option for good tribes and keep the neutrals/evils unsafe, but it doesn't really matter how we call it.

"Opposite"? That doesn't even make sense considering the context of what I stated.

Again, we went over this in a thread long ago.

There are so many problems that pop up with regard to meaningful gameplay, having an influence on the gameword, and things of that nature when you have untouchable Neutrals running around on the same map.

[Jadzia]

JCatano, I really don't get you...are you agreeing with the OP or not ?

[JCatano]

JCatano, I really don't get you...are you agreeing with the OP or not ?

"There are so many problems that pop up with regard to meaningful gameplay, having an influence on the gameword, and things of that nature when you have untouchable Neutrals running around on the same map." - Me

---

It's obvious where I stand.

[dfend]

Resources aren't safe(not the ones in bins). You can steal them then you are marked as a thief and you can be attacked without alignment consequences for defenders. the only thing you can't do is make a party and raid good/neutral players who can't(it's supposed to be twitch-based after all) or don't want to fight before they can set up defences.
Stealing resources, being marked as thief ... are we playing the same game? Nothing of that is currently in. So as the game is, they are save which is why it needs changing or it will be very boring for a large number of the playerbase after a couple weeks. I think most who like PvP would not make it until Tribal Wars (unless it arrives way sooner)


Good tribes have restrictions too we can't steal, we can't kill anyone for loot without affecting our alignment. If our alignment drops too much we will be removed from tribe by game mechnics.
How do you know you cannot steal as a Good player without alignment hits? My suggestion is that Good players can steal from Evil players and get Good alignment for that. Also, Good players can kill Evil players for loot. Even on the Evils player territory if you whish to. Oh and you will also get Good alignment for that.

And if you dont want anybody to steal your stuff out of your bins and dont want anybody to be able to hurt you on your tribes territory (until Tribal Wars perhaps), go Neutral.


There are so many problems that pop up with regard to meaningful gameplay, having an influence on the gameword, and things of that nature when you have untouchable Neutrals running around on the same map.
In the system I suggest, Neutral players are not untouchable. Only on their own territory. Which I think is balanced since they are not allowed to attack/steal from anybody without getting alignment hits, in which case they would soon not be Neutral anymore. Do you see other problems there? Maybe we can find a solution for that too.

[Jadzia]

"There are so many problems that pop up with regard to meaningful gameplay, having an influence on the gameword, and things of that nature when you have untouchable Neutrals running around on the same map." - Me

---

It's obvious where I stand.

Yup, you didn't read the OP :p He didn't suggest anything about neutrals, they would stay as they are now, he suggested things about good tribes. Neutrals would only be safe in tribe zones, as it is already implemented.

[JCatano]

In the system I suggest, Neutral players are not untouchable. Only on their own territory. Which I think is balanced since they are not allowed to attack/steal from anybody without getting alignment hits, in which case they would soon not be Neutral anymore. Do you see other problems there? Maybe we can find a solution for that too.

Neutral alts claiming land around the enemies of the main character.

Neutrals (alt or real) supplying resources and gear.

Neutrals used as "shields" in their tribal area if collision detection is implemented.

Neutral areas used as an exploit to get away from PvP if combat is disabled within safe tribal areas. (I don't think Jooky would be that clueless, though.)

I'm sure there are a few other situations. Good, Neutral, and Evil tribal areas should all be at risk. Don't underestimate the exploitive ability of gamers.

[JCatano]

Yup, you didn't read the OP :p He didn't suggest anything about neutrals, they would stay as they are now, he suggested things about good tribes. Neutrals would only be safe in tribe zones, as it is already implemented.

I understood exactly what he said, which is why I commented on Neutrals.

And, he did comment on Neutrals:



Everybody who does not want to take part in this kind of action and rather gather and craft some stuff and build houses, terraform the area and such should pick neutral. Neutral players would have a safe zone on their claim on which neither Evil nor Good aligned players could hurt them. Also stealing from Neutral tribes territory should not be possible. They are truly Neutral, but that also means they cannot attack/kill Good or Evil aligned players or steal from their territory without alignment hits. After all, they are Neutral.

[Jadzia]

I've never thought that if I agree with a post which suggest more PvP and less safe zones during Prelude you would disagree with me. Wow :)

[JCatano]

I've never thought that if I agree with a post which suggest more PvP and less safe zones during Prelude you would disagree with me. Wow :)

This has absolutely nothing to do with that, although Neutrals being untouchable in their area isn't "more PvP" when talking about after Prelude.

The main issue is how it can be exploited and cheapen the metagame and overall game itself.

[Hummel139]

Neutral alts claiming land around the enemies of the main character.

Neutrals (alt or real) supplying resources and gear.

Neutrals used as "shields" in their tribal area if collision detection is implemented.

Neutral areas used as an exploit to get away from PvP if combat is disabled within safe tribal areas. (I don't think Jooky would be that clueless, though.)

I'm sure there are a few other situations. Good, Neutral, and Evil tribal areas should all be at risk. Don't underestimate the exploitive ability of gamers.

u still don´t get it

[dfend]

Well, where to start. Okay, first things first.


Neutral alts claiming land around the enemies of the main character.For having an alt you would need to pay another 40$ and pay 15$ per month. I believe some people will do that but honestly, not the majority of players and certainly not just to claim so much land around an enemy tribal area that he cant get out. In which case you would need way more than one account anyway. Also, there is a forced distance between tribal territories.


Neutrals (alt or real) supplying resources and gear. Yes that is possible. Its called allies and has to do with politics. Politics are awesome in a sandbox/Open-PvP game. And all the gear can be looted in PvP anyway. But of course, when the Neutrals leave their territory to supply someone, they risk getting killed because they are only safe on their own territory.


Neutrals used as "shields" in their tribal area if collision detection is implemented.What? Like the defensive line in a football game? Seriously?


Neutral areas used as an exploit to get away from PvP if combat is disabled within safe tribal areas. (I don't think Jooky would be that clueless, though.)No, he would not. And neither am I. Tribe territory of Neutral players are only safe zones for Neutral players of that tribe. Not for everybody!


I'm sure there are a few other situations. Good, Neutral, and Evil tribal areas should all be at risk. Don't underestimate the exploitive ability of gamers.I would like that but I can understand that not everybody who plays Xsyon wants PvP all the time right from the start. So players should be able to go Neutral and avoid PvP (until Tribal Wars?) in their own territory. In theory, completely if they never leave their own territory.

[JCatano]

u still don´t get it

Instead of mirroring Tasos with the ability of being vague, why don't you explain what I don't get about using Neutrals in exploit situations just like blue shields in DF and TEF'ers in SWG.

[yoori]

How do you know you cannot steal as a Good player without alignment hits? My suggestion is that Good players can steal from Evil players and get Good alignment for that. Also, Good players can kill Evil players for loot. Even on their territory if you whish to. Oh and you will also get Good alignment for that.

And if you dont want anybody to steal your stuff out of your bins and dont want anybody to be able to hurt you on your tribes territory (until Tribal Wars perhaps), go Neutral.

Every atempt to gather grass , junk, cut trees on other trirbes territory will mark you as a thief. And will or at least should affect your alignmnet even on evil territory.

Good and neutral players can kill evil player but evil players can kill both.

Quote from Jooky
"When tribes are formed an overall tribe alignment is chosen. Players in a good or neutral tribe will automatically become outcasts if they ‘gank’ a good or neutral player of a non enemy tribe."
"Players from an evil tribe are free to loot and pillage and will gain reputation within their own tribe for doing so, but they will also be vulnerable to attacks from all players who will be able to attack evil players without negative consequences. Players in good or neutral tribes will be allowed to put bounty quests on known evil players. In essence, if a tribe chooses to be evil they become the ‘monsters’ of the world."

That's the difference evil tribes are evil and good tribes are good.

[Hummel139]

dfend 4 president ! ! ! !

[JCatano]

dfend:

- Many people in SWG had 2+ accounts. I know some people in DF with 5+. EVE has a whole lot with multiple accounts. I had two in DAoC, and so did at half of the playerbase when the game started to dwindle population-wise. It was a normal occurrence to see 20-30 buff bots at the frontier gatekeeps. Anyway, they don't have to be alt accounts. Forced distance doesn't mean anything, either (it's not even very far). It still chokes areas.

- Neutrals do not have to leave if being supplied by non-neutrals. Also, depending on how large their tribe is, they may have plenty of resources within, or at least very near, the safety border. Politics won't affect them, because you suggested something where they cannot be affected.

- Go play Darkfall, and you'll learn what a shield is. This is a twitch based game, and if Neutrals are safe from attack and collision is implemented, it doesn't take a genius to see how they can be used when two people are trying to fight. If there are any ex-SWG players here, they will remember Temporary Enemy Flag exploits, and that game didn't even have character collision.

[dfend]

Some people will have 2+ accounts. I dont see much of a problem there tho.

Neutrals do not have to leave if being supplied by non-neutrals.Yes, people who are getting supplied in their tribal area do not have to leave their tribal area. Of course. They can get supplied by other Neutrals too. And yes, it will be possible to never leave your tribal area as Neutral and be invincible until Tribal Wars arrive.


Also, depending on how large their tribe is, they may have plenty of resources within, or at least very near, the safety border.Yes they will. Everybody has.


Politics won't affect them, because you suggested something where they cannot be affected.If they colaborate with Good or Evil tribes, maybe even in a somewhat exploitive way, I'm sure hell will break lose for them when Tribal Wars arrives.


Go play Darkfall, and you'll learn what a shield is. This is a twitch based game, and if Neutrals are safe from attack and collision is implemented, it doesn't take a genius to see how they can be used when two people are trying to fight.I played Darkfall. And Neutrals are not safe from attack. Only on their territory. If you choose to fight on Neutral territory, knowing that those Neutrals will support the Good/Evil players you are fighting, then that is your own fault. Anywhere else, Neutrals will be nothing more than a common meat shield. A very vulnerable one.

[Niburu]

ONLY ON THERE TERRITOY

[woachaos]

dfend:

- Many people in SWG had 2+ accounts. I know some people in DF with 5+. EVE has a whole lot with multiple accounts. I had two in DAoC, and so did at half of the playerbase when the game started to dwindle population-wise. It was a normal occurrence to see 20-30 buff bots at the frontier gatekeeps. Anyway, they don't have to be alt accounts. Forced distance doesn't mean anything, either (it's not even very far). It still chokes areas.

- Neutrals do not have to leave if being supplied by non-neutrals. Also, depending on how large their tribe is, they may have plenty of resources within, or at least very near, the safety border. Politics won't affect them, because you suggested something where they cannot be affected.

- Go play Darkfall, and you'll learn what a shield is. This is a twitch based game, and if Neutrals are safe from attack and collision is implemented, it doesn't take a genius to see how they can be used when two people are trying to fight. If there are any ex-SWG players here, they will remember Temporary Enemy Flag exploits, and that game didn't even have character collision.



You still don't get it. Neutrals are untouchable ONLY when they are in their own claim. So yes, a neutral might block you if you fight another player -within- the neutrals claim.. But why should he do that, when he could kill both you and the evil player. (They are both in his claim) You dont sound like someone who has played Darkfall btw. Meetshields srsly ? You are from NEW ? And the multiple account problem isnt really related to the suggestions that were made. I understand you have your concerns but you havnt stated even one legal arguement yet. (Yes, I read your stuff..)
Greetings
WoA

[JCatano]

dfend -

I'm not looking 6-9 months down the road, which you obviously are. That's 6+ months of crappy, exploitive gameplay.

As far as your last quote, having the enemy jump in and out of a Neutral's borders to possibly take advantage of shielding isn't good gaming at all. Telling someone it would be their fault for trying to PvP inside of the area isn't necessarily a good fix. It would just lead to people jumping in and out of the area with some Neutrals running around trying to be dolts.

---

woachaos -

Been playing DF since the first day of release. GPS will teach you how to blue shield.

Go back and read... The Neutral tribe area is exactly what I'm talking about. You assume the Neutral would attack both people with regard to the OP's suggestion. Anyone jumping into their area would be doing so for an obvious reason (friendly with them).

I'll buy 3-4 accounts and throw up Neutral tribes around your claim, and we can all be happy. Right? :)

[Niburu]

defend -

I'm not looking 6-9 months down the road, which you obviously are. That's 6+ months of crappy, exploitive gameplay.

As far as your last quote, having the enemy jump in and out of a Neutral's borders to possibly take advantage of shielding isn't good gaming at all. Telling someone it would be their fault for trying to PvP inside of the area isn't necessarily a good fix. It would just lead to people jumping in and out of the area with some Neutrals running around trying to be dolts.

---

woachaos -

Been playing DF since the first day of release. GPS will teach you how to blue shield.

Go back and read... The Neutral tribe area is exactly what I'm talking about. You assume the Neutral would attack both people with regard to the OP's suggestion. Anyone jumping into their area would be doing so for an obvious reason (friendly with them).

I'll buy 3-4 accounts and throw up Neutral tribes around your claim, and we can all be happy. Right? :)

Ok so we have safe zones in every tribe zone now.....lol


And yes you can buy 3-4 account and place them around your tribe but the neutral player is only SAFE on his territory. So you have 3-4 accounts were every account is only safe on his territory....great

[Jadzia]

The OP suggested his idea for the Prelude. Only for that. Not any later. I can't believe I still reply to you...lol.

[JCatano]

Ok so we have safe zones in every tribe zone now.....lol


And yes you can buy 3-4 account and place them around your tribe but the neutral player is only SAFE on his territory. So you have 3-4 accounts were every account is only safe on his territory....great

I don't think you're looking at the entire scope of the issue. There are metagame situations that will affect everything. Dfend commented on a few and didn't necessarily disagree.

It's one thing to say that you're OK with the situations this can cause, but it's an entirely different thing to say:

"That won't ever happen!"

[JCatano]

The OP suggested his idea for the Prelude. Only for that. Not any later. I can't believe I still reply to you...lol.

I know he did. Do you even read entire threads?

Who said this a few posts above this one:

"I'm not looking 6-9 months down the road, which you obviously are. That's 6+ months of crappy, exploitive gameplay."

[dfend]

So, basicaly you think Neutral players will gang up on Evil/Good players within the Neutral players own safezone to block them. Or you make 3-4 accounts and do that yourself? You gonna control 3-5 clients simultaniously? You have friends who will control the chars for you?

Fine, so I would avoid that neutral territory. Which I'm gonna do anyway since I cant PvP the Neutrals. Why would I even go to them? Me, as an Evil player will go to the Good players territory and PvP there. Or out in the open. And you cant compare Darkfall Shielding (relogging to gain an invulnerable shield for a certain time anywhere in the world) with having a very area restricted invulnerability in an open world game.

But yes, you could use the Neutrals to block other players on the Neutrals own territory. In fact, you can even kill those players because they cannot attack Neutrals on the Neutrals own territory. Until Tribal Wars that is. Which is exactly how the whole game currently is. And in order to change that, to make it a little more appealing to people who like PvP (Good/Evil) while still having the exact same game rules/mechanics like now for people who do not want PvP all the time (Neutral) I suggested the changes I pointed out in the first post.

There are no exploits with the Neutrals possible that are not already possible as the Neutrals use the exact same mechanics and ruleset like every tribe right now.

[JCatano]

One person doesn't have to control the characters... Nobody has to control them for "me". Some people are just friendly towards one another.

I'm not talking about relog shielding. I was referring to blue shielding against people who rather not lose alignment. Similar ordeal.

Saying how the game currently is doesn't mean you should suggest keeping a bad mechanic since it's only going to be in for 6 months.

[yoori]

I'm gonna add just one more thing before I leave this thread alone. This game was never meant to be about PvP, from what I've read and heard. Jooky has a plan to balance PvP and other aspects of the game and I seriously doubt that he will change it unless balance shifts one way or another. If all you care for is PvP this game is not for you.

[Niburu]

I'm gonna add just one more thing before I leave this thread alone. This game was never meant to be about PvP, from what I've read and heard. Jooky has a plan to balance PvP and other aspects of the game and I seriously doubt that he will change it unless balance shifts one way or another. If all you care for is PvP this game is not for you.

The question is for what are you crafting than and building up your home, for what is weaponcraft and armor ingame, you comment makes seriously no sense ? You need conflicts, conflicts are solved with PVP. The whole world is about PVP, eat or beeing eaten. I think the Dev's don't want meaningless gank squads running around he want a reason for PVP other that to only kill others.

[naughty]

I'm gonna add just one more thing before I leave this thread alone. This game was never meant to be about PvP, from what I've read and heard. Jooky has a plan to balance PvP and other aspects of the game and I seriously doubt that he will change it unless balance shifts one way or another. If all you care for is PvP this game is not for you.

hey yoori, what is in your opinion "balanced pvp"? 6-9 months carebearhaven in a world with so many safezones? thats not pvp. thats hello kitty online. in this actual state is pvp and the alignmentsystem useless.

[yoori]

You seriously made me do this(post again I mean). There will be lots of meanigful PvP but it won't be as simple as good vs. evil, there's no need for that. Just give it some time I'm sure you'll find a way to kill me and make it meaningful :)

[Niburu]

You seriously made me do this(post again I mean). There will be lots of meanigful PvP but it won't be as simple as good vs. evil, there's no need for that. Just give it some time I'm sure you'll find a way to kill me and make it meaningful :)

That is exactly not the case since every zone is a protection zone now. Andn ot everyone want to play evil only. i think there are also good players who wanne PVP

[yoori]

You won't let me stop do you? If you want to be attacked from start you can choose evil, being evil you can raid other evil tribes. That should keep you entertained for Prelude.

But back to being serious, we start with empty world we have to set up economy, find out how different resources affect quality of items what's valuable and what's not. These things will take time and will take even longer if "carebears" are constantly killed in raids. I want global conficts, but I don't want them to be just about good and evil, I need more depth in politics. This game has chance to be for everyone strategist, crafter and hardcore PvP'er, let's not ruin this simplifying this.

[Niburu]

This game has chance to be for everyone strategist, crafter and hardcore PvP'er, let's not ruin this simplifying this.

Exactly thats what i want

[Vandali]

If players are expecting a game world thats as lawless as darkfall then they are barking up the wrong tree and i know theres DF players in this thread that are wanting the FFA arena, but it's not going to happen.

It's clear the man in charge wants a game world that dissuades mindless killing by punishing murderer's with severe consequences. It's actually refreshing to see, it's realism in a game that tries to mimic a post-pocalyptic scenario where survivors are pretty much dazed and have no clue to their future.

So rather than allowing players to set about killing one another just for the hell of it, i'm sure there are those that remembers DF's launch where your biggest enemy was your own race due to the shitty alignment system that isn't any better to this day, the man instead has given players protection in their area's, and have also given players the option to murder, but with severe consequences, which is how it should be in a game like Xsyon, which has a primary goal of rebuilding and not instant warring.

In time as already stated there will be bigger conflicts as more options are added for PvP, patience is the key here, the world will evolve as it needs to, i'm sure dev's know this more than anyone.

[esudar]

i think its really funny that you call that realism because it isnt.

what are the consequences? that you can be attacked without consequences? ^^ amazing
that would actually make me go evil not because i want to kill people but because i want to get you people to do pvp.

[Vandali]

i think its really funny that you call that realism because it isnt.

what are the consequences? that you can be attacked without consequences? ^^ amazing
that would actually make me go evil not because i want to kill people but because i want to get you people to do pvp.

There you go, you have the option too do that Vodas, welcome to a sandbox.

[naughty]

If players are expecting a game world thats as lawless as darkfall then they are barking up the wrong tree and i know theres DF players in this thread that are wanting the FFA arena, but it's not going to happen.

It's clear the man in charge wants a game world that dissuades mindless killing by punishing murderer's with severe consequences. It's actually refreshing to see, it's realism in a game that tries to mimic a post-pocalyptic scenario where survivors are pretty much dazed and have no clue to their future.

So rather than allowing players to set about killing one another just for the hell of it, i'm sure there are those that remembers DF's launch where your biggest enemy was your own race due to the shitty alignment system that isn't any better to this day, the man instead has given players protection in their area's, and have also given players the option to murderer, but with severe consequences, which is how it should be in a game like Xsyon, which has a primary goal of rebuilding and not instant warring.

In time as already stated there will be bigger conflicts as more options are added for PvP, patience is the key here, the world will evolve as it needs to, i'm sure dev's know this more than anyone.

nobody wants to gank/grief the people without consequences. read again what the OP wrote...

[naughty]

double post

[esudar]

i really like people that want to hide and minimize player interactions ... in a sandbox ..... not

what a waste of potential

[Niburu]

If players are expecting a game world thats as lawless as darkfall then they are barking up the wrong tree and i know theres DF players in this thread that are wanting the FFA arena, but it's not going to happen.

It's clear the man in charge wants a game world that dissuades mindless killing by punishing murderer's with severe consequences. It's actually refreshing to see, it's realism in a game that tries to mimic a post-pocalyptic scenario where survivors are pretty much dazed and have no clue to their future.

So rather than allowing players to set about killing one another just for the hell of it, i'm sure there are those that remembers DF's launch where your biggest enemy was your own race due to the shitty alignment system that isn't any better to this day, the man instead has given players protection in their area's, and have also given players the option to murder, but with severe consequences, which is how it should be in a game like Xsyon, which has a primary goal of rebuilding and not instant warring.

In time as already stated there will be bigger conflicts as more options are added for PvP, patience is the key here, the world will evolve as it needs to, i'm sure dev's know this more than anyone.

what the OP wrote means. Players who want it safe will create a neutral tribe and gain protection on there area. Thats how it is now for Good/Neutral players. With adding the option that a good player is vulnurable on his territory to evil players you ADD an option and a reason behind good/neutral/evil. Players who want to play this as a real sandbox and no protection because of gaem restrictions can choose good or evil and the rest who don't want this can create a neutral tribe.


The point behind this is that without PVP this game gets boring for most players. We don't want it that this game gets boring because it is a real sandbox. I can't think of any other game like this. PvP in a game creates conflicts and in a full loot game conflicts need a constant supply--->crafters. Other than in DF we have a stats/skill cap which will lead to the point were combat oriented player will max there combat skills while crafters will spend there point in crafting that means booth need each other to play there game

[Jadzia]

It would be even easier to add an option to good/neutral tribes to turn their safe zone off. They would start as safe when placing the totem, but they could turn safety option off. It would be a final decision or perhaps something they can change once in a month. Turning safety off should require the agreement of 3 tribe leaders, the first 3 in the command line ( if the tribe has more than 3 members of course) to avoid problems with hacked accounts.

[esudar]

artificial safe zones and rules limiting freedom and interaction are far more themepark elements than sandbox elements.
we know how you lux guys play df lol

id like this to be a real sandbox please with no gamebreaking invisible barriers.
the suggestions in this thread is a good start

[BigCountry]

id like this to be a real sandbox please with no gamebreaking invisible barriers.
the suggestions in this thread is a good start

i agree

[Vandali]

What's being said here is that pvp should revolve around good vs evil and be as simple as that.
But from what i can glean from the current setup, is that good will indeed be good and it will take discipline to be good with the restrictions on how they may act without repercussions. Where as evil have much more freedom in their behavior, but there are penalties to choosing the outlaw way of life and this is exactly how it should be.

There will be conflicts of many kinds in the future, not just the good ol' pigeon hole setup of good vs evil.
The current setup allows for complete freedom in pvp just by choosing to be evil aligned, all i can say is wait to see how the devs decide to develope conflicts because important additions such as religion have yet to be introduced, but in the meantime pop you head out of the box and Vodas, its good to see your still keeping up the RP as the village idiot. :)

[Ikisis]

Safe mode shouldnt even be in the game, you should Hire Merc's if your a Trade Community. Hired Protection is a High Immersion and Profitable way of playing, adding a Safety button is just asking for Unfair Advantage's Killing Immersion.
(Don't even tell me 98.9% of all the tribes will be hiding in Safe with No pvp unless it a bunch of carebear's in bone raiding a Evil village because they know the Evil cant return the favor and attack back because they got's safety's :-B)

Down with the Idea, you wanna be safe Pay Coin!!!!

Hire Solder's, Good Vs Evil should be about that, not who can run back to Tribe safety land before the bad man get's us.

[gremrod]

Safe mode shouldnt even be in the game, you should Hire Merc's if your a Trade Community. Hired Protection is a High Immersion and Profitable way of playing, adding a Safety button is just asking for Unfair Advantage's Killing Immersion.
(Don't even tell me 98.9% of all the tribes will be hiding in Safe with No pvp unless it a bunch of carebear's in bone raiding a Evil village because they know the Evil cant return the favor and attack back because they got's safety's :-B)

Down with the Idea, you wanna be safe Pay Coin!!!!

Hire Solder's, Good Vs Evil should be about that, not who can run back to Tribe safety land before the bad man get's us.

I would have to agree. No safe zones make sense to be. About the only safe spot should be the new character spawn locations. Of course these would need to be limited on the area and only for those characters that spawn in new to the game and let it last maybe for 24 hours or less.

[Jadzia]

The game is coming out on 1st of March and 2k+ people bought it by knowing that good/neutral tribe areas will be safe and that no town sieges during Prelude. Jooky won't change this so its really pointless to argue over it. There is a slim chance that he may implement a system where tribes who do want to can turn their safety off. If you guys don't come up with good and implementable ideas about this things will stay as they are now, where good/neutral tribes can't switch off safety even if they want to.

[Jadzia]

So according to you every person who bought the game wants safe zones? You're way off base. I'd say the majority of the people who bought the game see the potential for a great pvp game with meaningful territory/conquest mechanics.
No. I said they bought the game with these conditions and knowing these conditions.
But let's just get the option to turn safety off, we will see how many good/neutral tribes will choose that.

[Jadzia]

That won't work. Say your tribe secures a spot near some of the most scare resources in the game. No one else has access to these resources. Now, you turn your little safety toggle on and all of a sudden you have a monopoly of all of the most rare resource in the game, thus making your tribe the richest in the game. Do you not see a problem here?

I don't. There are no scarce resources in the game. Even if there were that is where diplomatic comes to play. I've played Atitd ( it do have very rare resources), player were able to set up buildings and monopolize them. It made the diplomatic and political metagame much more interesting. Problems can not only be solved by force.If you are able to wipe out another tribe just because you don't like they have a resource you don't, that would kill every small tribe in game and would only encourage huge zerg tribes. Xsyon would become an empty world very soon.

[yoori]

But...but.. .but... the small tribes could use diplomacy to get help from other friendly tribes to stop them from taking the resources. derp. There needs to be some sort of meaningful territory control or it's going to be a real boring world out there.

I'm pretty sure if small tribe (good) had strategic resources, big good tribes would wait untill evil tribe takes them over and start war with evil tribe to get them for them selves.

[Jadzia]

I'm pretty sure if small tribe (good) had strategic resources, big good tribes would wait untill evil tribe takes them over and start war with evil tribe to get them for them selves.

Exactly. The game would end up with 2-3 huge tribes with approximately the same power, who would never attack each other since they couldn't win. Perhaps 2 of them would make an ally and wipe the 3d one out...at this point I would return to the game since it became one huge safe zone lol.

[yoori]

Sounds like fun. So really, the so-called good tribes are actually evil?

There is no good and evil when it comes to power, infuence and territory control. the difference is that evil tribes can kill anyone and be at war with everyone but can be attacked by anyone. Good tribes can fight only with evil tribes. If you ask me Evil tribes are in much better position when it comes to war and conquest.

[yoori]

War will come with the end of Prelude, if you don't like it come back when Prelude will end.

[Xx1327]

safe zones for one particular group of players would kill the game.

being good, evil, or neutral should have both benefits and limitations that don't directly interfere with game play.

if you give neutral and good tribes safe zones then evil tribes will become fodder for everyone, unless you balanced this out with say evil tribes being able to kill players in half the time that it takes other alignments.

alignment should:
distinguish player-groups
give perks that add both "individuality" to said group and help the player succeed over another in close, toe to toe, situations different for each group
the opposite of perks, small constraints, that while affecting game play it isn't a game changer

lemme get some examples for those still needing help understanding

Perks
good:small boost to defense when not attacking for awhile directly proportional to alignment(true protectors)
neutral:faster speeds on roads directly proportional to neutrality(traders)
evil:gains attack bonus when either killing multiple things or just attacking enough at a single time and of course directly proportional to alignment(rampage)

Disadvantages
good:fairly limited by alignment when doing pvp, can't kill so many players in a time period
neutral:doesn't have alignment based magic to specialize in, can only use spells available to all groups
evil:NPCs much more aggressive towards them

being neutral really is the easiest group the be apart of but the hardest to specialize in
to be good and evil would require players to actually give up things to do other things

good players are restricted by a "code of honor" and become more defenders than anything but are welcomed by most and lead an easier life
evil players don't follow someones rules they do what they want so they have more freedoms, but are shunned by most and have to work for survival more

just an fyi i am a bit biased towards evil alignment, we should have players representing each alignment get together with jooky and discuss what we want.


TL;DR: don't change game mechanics, balance is key

[naughty]

i like your ideas Xx1327