Friends and safe zones

[Tandarie]

I think if you are a good aligned tribe and you go to visit another good aligned tribe you should be safe in their safezone. As long as the leader of that tribe has marked you as a friend. what do you think?

[JCatano]

Planning on linking a long chain of good tribes together across the map?

[Tandarie]

No Im a homesteader. When I travel across hostile grounds to trade a old saw blade with a fellow homesteader I would sure like it if I dont get killed by someone else while making the trade.

I guess tribes in all their holiness forget Homesteaders have to trade to survive. We didn't get the all inclusive package on this trip.

[Shukano]

I believe in preliminary safe zones. But even I have to disagree here.
We need the element of danger when leaving your tribal area. Its pretty much the only content we have atm lol.
Besides, if you are in a friendly tribe's area, most Pkers will not be able to tell if you are from another tribe or not anyway...

[JCatano]

No Im a homesteader. When I travel across hostile grounds to trade a old saw blade with a fellow homesteader I would sure like it if I dont get killed by someone else while making the trade.

But... Others will.

[wormofsorts]

That is the most game killing thing i have heard anyone say yet...LETS JUST MAKE THE WHOLE WORLD A SAFE ZONE!~then we will all be bored in a month and quit!

[Armand]

That is the most game killing thing i have heard anyone say yet...LETS JUST MAKE THE WHOLE WORLD A SAFE ZONE!~then we will all be bored in a month and quit!

Pretty much this.

Safe zones are a crutch we're stuck with until proper siege and defense mechanics are implemented. I think everyone ought to want them gone asap.

[Tandarie]

That is the most game killing thing i have heard anyone say yet...LETS JUST MAKE THE WHOLE WORLD A SAFE ZONE!~then we will all be bored in a month and quit!


Drama queen please.. you can't be friends with everyone.

actually .... I dont really care about tribes. I only care about homesteaders.. so could we could maybe make and exception to us!

[Jadzia]

Since homestead areas are small and solo players can't protect their guests on their land this should be an option for homesteads.

[Garek]

I highly disagree, we shouldnt allow safezones anywhere. Its just not realistic and makes the game much more boring and less dangerous.

[wormofsorts]

im sorry this is retarded.so your trying to tell me that now 1 person could have 10 safe zones in the game?Goodluck with that! ill say it again that is the most game killing mechanic i have ever read on these forums...IF you want protection and cant stomach playing a mans game mabye you shouldnt try to solo it and then ask for concessions to be made to suit your play style!Grow a pair!

[mrcalhou]

I highly disagree, we shouldnt allow safezones anywhere. Its just not realistic and makes the game much more boring and less dangerous.

I disagree with you. Safezones are fine. What they shouldn't allow is letting players completely control where those safezones happen to be. I'd like to see about 40% of the map be safezones with building and terraforming limited to tribe areas and the other 60% of the map FFA-PvP with pretty much unrestricted building and terraforming.

Pop Quiz: Which MMO used to have unrestricted FFA PVP and realized that it was hurting subscriptions so the game's developers decided to put extreme consequences for PvP in some parts of the game's map? Hint: It's not currently owned by EA and is currently pulling in around $4,500,000 a month from subscription fees.

[thurgond]

There is no need for this as in most cases the current safe zone mechanic will take care of "good" players. If you are being chased by an "evil" player and manage to reach a good tribe's land, generally you will be safe. Only a fool would follow you onto land where he could and probably would be attacked with impunity. (Plenty of fools around now, but nature will weed them out pretty fast.)

When gates are implemented, if a tribe's leader wants to and can give you a key, then you can enter their lands and lock the gate behind you. If keys are tribe only, then you had better plan to go the long way around.

Ravelli

[blackzilla]

I highly disagree, we shouldnt allow safezones anywhere. Its just not realistic and makes the game much more boring and less dangerous.

How are safe zones unrealistic? They exist in today's society and date back to the begining of time. There would be safe zones in a post apocolyptic setting as well. You wouldn't walk into a military base and take out a crack navy seal without some serious planning and willing to die in the act... you are the one that first started comparing this game to real life not I remember that.

Also, is there a way to have a non tribe member but friend be immune to your attacks if you pvp with them in groups or is it friendly fire all the time?

[unclean666]

No thats bad safe zones already need to be taken back some not more of them.
If you ask me the only safe zone should be your house anything else is free game.
And im a solo crafter.

[mrcalhou]

No thats bad safe zones already need to be taken back some not more of them.
If you ask me the only safe zone should be your house anything else is free game.
And im a solo crafter.

Why are safezones bad?

[unclean666]

Dident mean All safezones just having to much safezones.
Like i said i think safezones should be only in your house and the rest is up to you.like tame animals to guard and building up your area for someone trying to get in to kill you.

do you think the white house is just a safezone? No the built it with defences and protections thats the way i would like to see it instead of just fuck it this is a safezone.

[kaisergod]

How are safe zones unrealistic? They exist in today's society and date back to the begining of time. There would be safe zones in a post apocolyptic setting as well. You wouldn't walk into a military base and take out a crack navy seal without some serious planning and willing to die in the act... you are the one that first started comparing this game to real life not I remember that.

Also, is there a way to have a non tribe member but friend be immune to your attacks if you pvp with them in groups or is it friendly fire all the time?

Thing is, there isnt some magical forcefield around that navy seal preventing him from being touched while he walks around killing people on his base. You CAN attack them, but that is a decision you make knowing there are consequences. In a game with Safezones, there is no decision to be made, no weighing consequences, etc you are simply unable to do anything due to some magical barrier that says "This person cant even be touched while theyre in here".

[mrcalhou]

Stuff like that sounds really good in theory, but it doesn't work that well in practice. In real-life there are severe consequences. Like death or years in prison. In-game there aren't those consequences. The Eve-online system of having the NPC police come and destroy the aggressor wouldn't work that well either because this isn't a target-based combat system. So finding a comprimise would be the best solution. PvP-types, like myself, do not need the whole map to PvP because it drives off A LOT of players. I personally wouldn't mind playing a game that has no safe zones--the reason I don't still play Darkfall is because of the lack of depth with finding resources and crafting and because the movement system was awkward as hell for NPCs and players.

But by having safezones for players to play in, then suddenly people become more interested in the game. Call them carebears if you want, but their money is just as good as anyone elses. And by having some safezones and some non-safezones, the game becomes open to many different types of play-styles. And that is never a bad thing for a "sandbox." The PvP players would still have PvP. That would not be taken away.

All the devs would have to do is put some common resources and mobs in the safe areas and then put different stuff in the PvP areas. Now PvP is not only a viable playstyle, but a NEEDED playstyle. The crafters are going to need to trade for those resources, and in some cases they might venture out on their own to look for them.

[blackzilla]

Thing is, there isnt some magical forcefield around that navy seal preventing him from being touched while he walks around killing people on his base. You CAN attack them, but that is a decision you make knowing there are consequences. In a game with Safezones, there is no decision to be made, no weighing consequences, etc you are simply unable to do anything due to some magical barrier that says "This person cant even be touched while theyre in here".

It's okay to play videogames....

[kaisergod]

It's okay to play videogames....

um.... youre the one who was going on about how safezones exist in reality just like they do in the game. i pointed out that they dont. not sure what your point is supposed to be here other than being a useless troll

[Aethaeryn]

Thing is, there isnt some magical forcefield around that navy seal preventing him from being touched while he walks around killing people on his base. You CAN attack them, but that is a decision you make knowing there are consequences. In a game with Safezones, there is no decision to be made, no weighing consequences, etc you are simply unable to do anything due to some magical barrier that says "This person cant even be touched while theyre in here".

The seal also doesn't log out and go to work all day somewhere else leaving the place empty. Games are not realistic and at times we need unrealistic things added to take the place of what might happen in a more realistic setting. For example. . you could not go into the base.. shoot he navy seal and log out behind a tree.

[ColonelTEE3]

Lets just make the entire server a safe zone. Lets avoid any risk of anyone ever losing anything, getting their feelings hurt, losing pixels, fighting when they weren't expecting it, or experiencing any dynamic game play ever.

[mrcalhou]

Lets just make the entire server a safe zone. Lets avoid any risk of anyone ever losing anything, getting their feelings hurt, losing pixels, fighting when they weren't expecting it, or experiencing any dynamic game play ever.

That would be just as bad, if not worse, than making the entire server open pvp anywhere and everywhere.

I know that your post wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but was rather your way of expressing distaste at the idea of any sort of safezone. Still, I think the "all-or-nothing" crowd is extremely short-sighted whether it's always pvp or never pvp. The game can be balanced for both types, and that would be the best solution for all players.

[Haunt]

I think if you are a good aligned tribe and you go to visit another good aligned tribe you should be safe in their safezone. As long as the leader of that tribe has marked you as a friend. what do you think?

H to the E to the L to the L NO

[ColonelTEE3]

That would be just as bad, if not worse, than making the entire server open pvp anywhere and everywhere.

I know that your post wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but was rather your way of expressing distaste at the idea of any sort of safezone. Still, I think the "all-or-nothing" crowd is extremely short-sighted whether it's always pvp or never pvp. The game can be balanced for both types, and that would be the best solution for all players.

Extremism is fun.

[Garek]

Thanks to you guys the game won't be what the voices of reason are wanting

[mrcalhou]

Thanks to you guys the game won't be what the voices of reason are wanting

?

[Bridger]

Stuff like that sounds really good in theory, but it doesn't work that well in practice. In real-life there are severe consequences. Like death or years in prison. In-game there aren't those consequences. The Eve-online system of having the NPC police come and destroy the aggressor wouldn't work that well either because this isn't a target-based combat system. So finding a comprimise would be the best solution. PvP-types, like myself, do not need the whole map to PvP because it drives off A LOT of players. I personally wouldn't mind playing a game that has no safe zones--the reason I don't still play Darkfall is because of the lack of depth with finding resources and crafting and because the movement system was awkward as hell for NPCs and players.

But by having safezones for players to play in, then suddenly people become more interested in the game. Call them carebears if you want, but their money is just as good as anyone elses. And by having some safezones and some non-safezones, the game becomes open to many different types of play-styles. And that is never a bad thing for a "sandbox." The PvP players would still have PvP. That would not be taken away.

All the devs would have to do is put some common resources and mobs in the safe areas and then put different stuff in the PvP areas. Now PvP is not only a viable playstyle, but a NEEDED playstyle. The crafters are going to need to trade for those resources, and in some cases they might venture out on their own to look for them.

/signed. I can't wait for Xsyon to mature to this point.

[maelwydd]

Stuff like that sounds really good in theory, but it doesn't work that well in practice. In real-life there are severe consequences. Like death or years in prison. In-game there aren't those consequences. The Eve-online system of having the NPC police come and destroy the aggressor wouldn't work that well either because this isn't a target-based combat system. So finding a comprimise would be the best solution. PvP-types, like myself, do not need the whole map to PvP because it drives off A LOT of players. I personally wouldn't mind playing a game that has no safe zones--the reason I don't still play Darkfall is because of the lack of depth with finding resources and crafting and because the movement system was awkward as hell for NPCs and players.

But by having safezones for players to play in, then suddenly people become more interested in the game. Call them carebears if you want, but their money is just as good as anyone elses. And by having some safezones and some non-safezones, the game becomes open to many different types of play-styles. And that is never a bad thing for a "sandbox." The PvP players would still have PvP. That would not be taken away.

All the devs would have to do is put some common resources and mobs in the safe areas and then put different stuff in the PvP areas. Now PvP is not only a viable playstyle, but a NEEDED playstyle. The crafters are going to need to trade for those resources, and in some cases they might venture out on their own to look for them.

Perfectly stated. Nothing more needs to be said as this sums up exactly the right balance between realism/gameplay and PvP/non PvP that is required to ensure the game thrives.

[jumpshot]

Thanks to you guys the game won't be what the voices of reason are wanting

I hope you aren't implying that voices of reason on actually ON the internet?

Anyway, I vote against OP