safe zones poll

[paranoia]

I have two questions for You. Please answer with YES or NO.

1. Should safe zones (tribal safe zones) be removed?
2. If You think there should be no tribal safe zones - should there be a wipe after this change?

My answers:
1. YES
2. YES

[robofriven]

We get it, you don't like safe zones. Do we really need another "poll" to ask about this? There is already another one up that is resoundingly for safe zones.

[Saorlan]

NO, No just because we have enough polls about this already.

Really need tighter moderation on this forum!

[Jadzia]

There is a real poll about this, 75% voted on safe zones to stay. Try to find it.

[paranoia]

We get it, you don't like safe zones. Do we really need another "poll" to ask about this? There is already another one up that is resoundingly for safe zones.

Hm, i like them in starting areas. :P But just cant understand why there are safe zones outside starting areas in a sandbox game. What were devs thinking?
Ah, and sorry about another thread about safe zones. But the reason for this post was not a concept of safe zones, but rather consequences, we are all aware of now. There's only time needed to do anything you want - no challenge.

[Jadzia]

Hm, i like them in starting areas. :P But just cant understand why there are safe zones outside starting areas in a sandbox game. What were devs thinking?
Ah, and sorry about another thread about safe zones. But the reason for this post was not a concept of safe zones, but rather consequences, we are all aware of now. There's only time needed to do anything you want - no challenge.
PvP and safe zones have nothing to do with sandbox definition. Atitd is a sandbox and it has no PvP at all.

The devs were thinking to create a game which can be played by any kind of players. The ones who like to PvP can do so, the ones who don't can live their lives in peace. Why did you buy the game though you must have known it has safe zones ?

[KeithStone]

There is a real poll about this, 75% voted on safe zones to stay. Try to find it.

only about 20% of the people who play this game use the forums- the only way to get a real count is to do a survey by email.

All that shows is that the majority of the forum users want safe zones- i can go either way personally.

[Trenchfoot]

For there to be siege warfare in any way other than a mockery of it, safe zones must be removed.

However, you MUST also allow players to deny access to the areas they influence. Otherwise remove walls and the like because they are simply decorations. I can understand why safe zones are currently in the game. It's necessary for the devs to move forward with the improvement of the game in these early stages.

I suspect once gates are established, and /unstuck is overhauled many peoples opinions will change. I think this question would best be asked after they implement area restrictions via player built structures. Until that is done, safe zones MUST stay in.

And when/if they are removed, a player should be able to stay in their enclosed space without any fear of anyone getting in short of an army with siege equipment. Or maybe a burglar with some enormously high lock picking skills. But see now I've said too much, I'm getting ahead of myself.

[KeithStone]

PvP and safe zones have nothing to do with sandbox definition. Atitd is a sandbox and it has no PvP at all.

The devs were thinking to create a game which can be played by any kind of players. The ones who like to PvP can do so, the ones who don't can live their lives in peace. Why did you buy the game though you must have known it has safe zones ?

you should read the official faq's - it states that there will be no safe zones during prelude and that's all it says.

However, joordi has stated in his announcments that tribes will be able to opt out of tribal warfare/siegeing, but he never say's anything about not having safe zones after prelude in those announcements.

I think that at some point we will have the ability to lock people out of our cities so there will be no point in having a mechanism in place that doesn't allow attacking on tribal territory.

[Andius]

1. No. I think there should be areas with safe-zones and areas without safe-zones as explained in this post: http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/5864-Rare-resources-and-inner-outer-territories

2. No. I don't even see how a server wipe relates to safe-zone/no safe-zones. Please explain.


Hm, i like them in starting areas. :P But just cant understand why there are safe zones outside starting areas in a sandbox game. What were devs thinking?
Ah, and sorry about another thread about safe zones. But the reason for this post was not a concept of safe zones, but rather consequences, we are all aware of now. There's only time needed to do anything you want - no challenge.

As far as I understand what is going on. We are in the prelude of the game. Helping build up the political climate and characters we'll have going into the real game. Its confirmed they will be releasing new territory, in-fact the most recent updates have discussed that they are working on them right now.

I at least get the impression that what is the entire map right now IS the starter areas. These new territories being released may what you are waiting for.

[Jadzia]

you should read the official faq's - it states that there will be no safe zones during prelude and that's all it says.

However, joordi has stated in his announcments that tribes will be able to opt out of tribal warfare/siegeing, but he never say's anything about not having safe zones after prelude in those announcements.

I think that at some point we will have the ability to lock people out of our cities so there will be no point in having a mechanism in place that doesn't allow attacking on tribal territory.

Jordi did say that tribes will be able to keep their safe zone:

What I imagine is:
- Tribes choosing to become warring on non-warring, not as an on / off switch but as a permanent or difficult to reverse decision, likely based on tribal actions.
- Warring tribes would be able to conquer and raid others, but they will also become susceptible to war. Non warring tribes would keep their area safe, but don’t gain the ability to raid or conquer other tribes.

About the poll, the OP started his thread on this forum, so he is obviously interested in the opinion of the forum users. None of these polls are official even a tiny little bit, if Jordi ever wants to get to know his customers' opinion he needs to make a poll in game or in email, as he already did once. Personally I would be much happier if that poll showed 50%-50% about safe zones, in that case we would have bigger chance to get 2 separated servers and thats the only long term solution imo. I'm fine with the current setup, but some of the PvP oriented players are not and they keep QQing, so they should get their server if they wish so.

[wolfmoonstrike]

Jordi did say that tribes will be able to keep their safe zone:


About the poll, the OP started his thread on this forum, so he is obviously interested in the opinion of the forum users. None of these polls are official even a tiny little bit, if Jordi ever wants to get to know his customers' opinion he needs to make a poll in game or in email, as he already did once. Personally I would be much happier if that poll showed 50%-50% about safe zones, in that case we would have bigger chance to get 2 separated servers and thats the only long term solution imo. I'm fine with the current setup, but some of the PvP oriented players are not and they keep QQing, so they should get their server if they wish so.

No! Two servers should never be thought of as a solution...

IN a sandbox we the players are the content, if you separate any type of player out of the the player base you will end up with a lack luster game no matter what. Also could you imagine the headache for the devs running what would end up being two different games? And if they weren't two different games(Different rules= different game) then what would be the point of two servers? You can't split it the servers, Jad. IF you do, you lose your monsters and others lose their knights and even more lose their prey/merchants/ and other various jobs.

Honestly safe zones is the last thing that should be on people's mind at the moment. We don't even have a proper combat system yet, most of the features aren't turned on, and to top it all off lag/fps troubles.

When we have what we need to even have proper and meaningful PvP that is when I'll care about safezones. Until then its a moot point at least for me.

Oh and last note on two servers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o19CaOSuD8
Thank Jcatano for that bit of humor :p

[orious13]

Jordi did say that tribes will be able to keep their safe zone:




remaining safe doesn't have to mean safe zones. I still doubt you'll have safe zones after prelude unless you maybe opt as a starting city.

[Jadzia]

No! Two servers should never be thought of as a solution...

IN a sandbox we the players are the content, if you separate any type of player out of the the player base you will end up with a lack luster game no matter what. Also could you imagine the headache for the devs running what would end up being two different games? And if they weren't two different games(Different rules= different game) then what would be the point of two servers? You can't split it the servers, Jad. IF you do, you lose your monsters and others lose their knights and even more lose their prey/merchants/ and other various jobs.

Honestly safe zones is the last thing that should be on people's mind at the moment. We don't even have a proper combat system yet, most of the features aren't turned on, and to top it all off lag/fps troubles.

When we have what we need to even have proper and meaningful PvP that is when I'll care about safezones. Until then its a moot point at least for me.


I see your point, but the problem is that players insist to have fun :) If war-oriented players don't get what they want, they will leave. If peace-oriented players are forced into a war-type game, they will leave. You will lose the knights or the monsters anyway. Thats why I'm saying 2 servers would be good...to keep the players in the game. The current setup and what the devs plan after Prelude is a good compromise imo, still players keep QQing. These QQing ones will leave soon if they don't get their warring game...so why not to give them on a separated server ? Otherwise they leave. You can say that these ones who can't stand the current setup is a minority and they are never happy with anything, so why ruin the game because of them...thats a point too :)

@orious13 : as long as tribe areas are safe I really don't care that what mechanics keep them safe, mysterious safe zones or walls and gates or NPC guards or whatever. They will be safe, that what counts.

[wolfmoonstrike]

I see your point, but the problem is that players insist to have fun :) If war-oriented players don't get what they want, they will leave. If peace-oriented players are forced into a war-type game, they will leave. You will lose the knights or the monsters anyway. Thats why I'm saying 2 servers would be good...to keep the players in the game. The current setup and what the devs plan after Prelude is a good compromise imo, still players keep QQing. These QQing ones will leave soon if they don't get their warring game...so why not to give them on a separated server ? Otherwise they leave. You can say that these ones who can't stand the current setup is a minority and they are never happy with anything, so why ruin the game because of them...thats a point too :)


I hate to use this tired rebuttal since I personally can't stand the game (Time-based skilling w/o manual skilling? yuck...) but Eve has it right. It's not always feasible to compare the two but in this case I think it is. After the meat is put on w/ the potatoes we currently have those that left will return. Anyway nothing can be solved if those that like to PvP or PvE leave anyway. One thing I've noticed about Jordi is he does listen for the most part....though at times his mind is like the wind (not sure if that is good or bad yet but we'll see). Plus as long as the loyal few stay behind I'm sure the game will grow; Eve hopefully isn't a fluke.

Honestly I think what they should do(by they I mean the devs) is buy players out of their forts/cities. Then turn those cities into places that new characters can spawn. Or even possibly turn all or most of the current area into a safe zone/high security zone after the prelude. Which would make those who like to war or want a more dangerous lifestyle can stray away from the lake.

The world got seriously messed up after the whole doomsday thing, who knows what awaits us in the green mist. I'm still hoping for a place with screwed up gravity lol, maybe a chance to explore some bunkers or if luck has it explore area 51 and find some cool tech that survived. Ok went off on a tangent.

TL;DR two server= bad; hopefully a compromise can be reached; adventure/omgwtfbbq is that!

[Jadzia]

I agree, an Eve style system is the best solution, with a huge safe zone-huge PvP zone and incentives to go to the PvP zone. Wish Xsyon turns into that way, thats the perfect solution to provide fun to both type of players without frustration. But this is something again that most of the warring-type players hate.

[joexxxz]

I have a suggestion how to make it better.
let say the person moves in to the tribe area. The counter starts countdown from 30 mins. When the counter reaches 0, the players save zone removed. Now he/she can be attacked. Once the person moves out of tribe area. The other counter starts countdown from 15 min. the other counter is to keep track time outside the tribe area. Once the counter goes 0, it will add 30 mins for the tribe area counter. Now the tribe area counter is above 0, this means when the person goes back to tribe area, the area will be safe zone again.
That way players wont spend all the time on tribe area, and if they do, they are open for PVP.


For there to be siege warfare in any way other than a mockery of it, safe zones must be removed.

However, you MUST also allow players to deny access to the areas they influence. Otherwise remove walls and the like because they are simply decorations. I can understand why safe zones are currently in the game. It's necessary for the devs to move forward with the improvement of the game in these early stages.

I suspect once gates are established, and /unstuck is overhauled many peoples opinions will change. I think this question would best be asked after they implement area restrictions via player built structures. Until that is done, safe zones MUST stay in.

And when/if they are removed, a player should be able to stay in their enclosed space without any fear of anyone getting in short of an army with siege equipment. Or maybe a burglar with some enormously high lock picking skills. But see now I've said too much, I'm getting ahead of myself.

THank you thank you very much. This tribe area thing needs to be looked in by the devs again.



EDIT: One more thought.
Let say, the evil player came to someone's tribe area. and that evil player spends about 3 min on that tribe area without leaving the tribe area. Now for that evil player the tribe area opens up for PVP. Its your fault that you didnt killed him or asked him to leave within that time frame.
Once the evil player leaves the tribe area, the counter is reset in 3 min.

Everyone is happy now :)


Player A outside the someone's tribe area. Counter=3min
Player A moves into the someones tribe area. Counter=3 and decreasing
Player A moves out tribe area. Counter=3min again
Player A moves back to tribe area. Counter decreasing
Player A stays on tribe area. counter decreasing, reached 0
Player A now can attack that tribe members.
Player A, scared, runs out of tribe area. Counter(b) counts upto 3mins.
When counter(b) reached 3mins , player A counter(a) resets back to 3min, Player A, no longer can attack members on tribe area, counter(b)=0;

[Trenchfoot]

Folks, I don't think some of you know what you're really suggesting.

I'll restate that just to make it clear. For the time being (until other features are implemented/tweaked) we really do NEED safe zones.

But to keep safe zones in once everything is in place literally changes the premise of the game itself.

'Welcome to Xsyon, the harsh, brutal, untamed landscape. A post-apocalyptic world where those who are still scraping out a meager existence among the rubble are forced to band together in the day to day struggle to survive. Except over there. Oh and over there, and that one place too looks pretty unaffected.... In fact, most places are safe now. We've pushed those off into two or three locations.'

You see how ridiculous this is? You're not adding features by promoting safe zones, you're taking them away. In fact you're literally carving them out of the game.

And I'll tell you why we hate it. We hate it because we've had it up to here with developers who have an incredible vision and then cave in. If carving out an existence in a post-apocalyptic wasteland is too challenging for you, well you know the rest.

I'll restate once more just to make it clear. For the time being (until other features are implemented/tweaked) we really do NEED safe zones. But if you're not preparing for the day when they're removed, you're just being shortsighted.

EDIT: The pole should read.. 'Should post-apocalyptia begin when you log in? Or should it begin at the edge of your property?'. aka 'Why build walls to keep something out that can't get in anyway?'.

[Jadzia]

Trenchfoot, you know that safe zones won't be removed, they will only be optional ?

[joexxxz]

Trenchfoot, you know that safe zones won't be removed, they will only be optional ?

Lol you can play with dolls if u want :)
U dont really know what u are suggestining.
There is 5% of ppl like u and the rest u know what :)
The game have to have challenge. So far u always suggest things for the worst. Im sorry if my message is mean. I dont mean no harm.

[Trenchfoot]

hehe joe

The only way for non-pvp and pvp to be equal, is for them to be equally miserable.

[joexxxz]

Good point. So what do u (Trenchfoot) think about my suggestions in previous posts???
That will satisfy all, the pvp and non-pvp players.
Cuz if i came to your tribe area, and u are safe for 3 mins, and you are not doing anything to kill me, then you should pay for that.... simple as that.

[Jadzia]

Lol you can play with dolls if u want :)
U dont really know what u are suggestining.
There is 5% of ppl like u and the rest u know what :)
The game have to have challenge. So far u always suggest things for the worst. Im sorry if my message is mean. I dont mean no harm.

Exactly what did I suggest ? I only said what the devs said lol.

[joexxxz]

Well let me tell you something. In the begining, the tribe area was open. But Shinra members started to cry about some ganger taking their stuff. So they asked for a temporary solution to prevent this while the game is being tested. I do remember that event really good ;)

So thats when the new patch came out with permissions.

[Jadzia]

Well let me tell you something. In the begining, the tribe area was open. But Shinra members started to cry about some ganger taking their stuff. So they asked for a temporary solution to prevent this while the game is being tested. I do remember that event really good ;)

So thats when the new patch came out with permissions.

Lol. This is the silliest thing I've read here. Tribe areas have always been planned as safe zones at the beginning, it has nothing to do with Shinra or whatever tribe, safe zones was announced back in March 2010.

[Trenchfoot]

@joexxxz

I think you can't satisfy non-pvp and pvp alike without both becoming mediocre at best. I think the developer should stick with the premise.

Why build walls to keep something out that can't get in anyway?

EDIT: I think that's what some don't understand. That choosing both is in essence choosing neither. It's like saying we can turn right and left at the same time. Which way at the stoplight ahead left or right? Both.

[joexxxz]

Lol. This is the silliest thing I've read here. Tribe areas have always been planned as safe zones at the beginning, it has nothing to do with Shinra or whatever tribe, safe zones was announced back in March 2010.

It was never planned in the beggining. Can u find me a post from xsyon sayin this. Nope. It was mentioned that while in prelude it will be, but not after prelude.

Please check my suggestion - >http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/5982-Idea-for-SAFE-ZONES?p=71296&viewfull=1#post71296

[maelwydd]

It was never planned in the beggining. Can u find me a post from xsyon sayin this. Nope. It was mentioned that while in prelude it will be, but not after prelude.

Please check my suggestion - >http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/5982-Idea-for-SAFE-ZONES?p=71296&viewfull=1#post71296

That is why in a recent update they stated they were looking at tribes having the option to remain peaceful or war-like. Those that want war can have it...but with others who also want war. Peaceful tribes are limited in what they do in terms of expansion but essentially keep their safe zone.

Pretty good compromise really.

[joexxxz]

No its not the best idea. I will personally want safety. And i would select the option to be safe if it comes to that. And i bet only the largest tribes will want to be war-like tribes. But small ones, i dont think so. We are here in the same boat, so we need to be treated the same.

[Jadzia]

It was never planned in the beggining. Can u find me a post from xsyon sayin this. Nope. It was mentioned that while in prelude it will be, but not after prelude.

Please check my suggestion - >http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/5982-Idea-for-SAFE-ZONES?p=71296&viewfull=1#post71296

Yes...this is what I said. Tribe zones was planned to be safe at the beginning aka during Prelude or early Prelude, and this is not something that got implemented because of SHINRA, lol.

Your suggestion is awful imo.

[joexxxz]

@Jadzia Im sorry, but you dont know what you are talking about ;)

What it is so afwul about???

[Trenchfoot]

Yes, let's all opt out of the post-apoc era. Screw building the world out of it. We'll just bypass that altogether. So wherever I plant my totem, the post-apoc era ends immediately.

How do you escape the consequences of a post-apoc world? It's easy, plant a totem.

Added after 20 minutes:

What this discussion is really about is FFA. And FFA is like baking crackers.

One lump of leaven, leavens the whole. You can't mix yeast into your dough and expect only 50% of the dough to rise.

Same with FFA. Any compromise you make to FFA makes it well..... NOT FFA. There is no balance to be struck here. Either the game will be FFA or it won't.

You wonder why so many pvp'rs grief? Many are just sadistic and enjoy your frustration, no question.

But what many don't realize is that tons of griefers are just people who want an FFA game and they're tired of trying games that always always always seem to cave in on this. In a sense they see themselves as doing a community service. they're fighting for something bigger than just loot, they're fighting for the game itself.

Added to this is another dark secret about pvp players most non-pvp players don't realize. And that's the fact that there are MANY of us who pvp who play the good guys. Who are good to our neighbors. Who help protect the weak and innocent. But by eliminating FFA you rob of us that opportunity as well. It's no wonder so many switch over to the dark side, because it's virtually the only place we can make a stand for FFA. We are in a sense forced to fight in-game for the right to play it (all asshats aside).

They don't hate so-called carebears because they can't get to your loot. They hate so-called carebears because they threaten the very essence of the game by pushing for a FFS (free for some) game.

Now if you want to argue for some mechanism to keep new players safe so they can at least have a chance to get into the game, isn't that planned already as tribal starting points? But in the same token, the very premise of this game is that you must band together or your chances of survival are slim to none.

So that when you argue for a FFS game, what you're really arguing for is solo play, and thereby the very premise the game was built on is MEANINGLESS.

Added after 1 49 minutes:

You want balance? Here's the balance.

Make the game FFA (eventually, when it's ready for it). Then the non-pvprs can solve all of their gripes by:

A. Making allies quickly instead of isolating themselves.
B. Providing a useful service or product.
and most importantly
C. Joining a tribe that defends their land and protects their own.

It's a fairly simple solution.

[Chavoda]

@Jadzia Im sorry, but you dont know what you are talking about ;)

What it is so afwul about???


Joexxx, stop posting, your either make a troll reputation for yourself or are regarded ..Ahem ..well not in a nice way. Read the faq's read the feature list, and then when you know about as much as Jadzia ..or me.. then start discussing things.


@Jadzia Im sorry, but you dont know what you are talking about ;)

What it is so afwul about???


Joexxx, stop posting, your either make a troll reputation for yourself or are regarded ..Ahem ..well not in a nice way. Read the faq's read the feature list, and then when you know about as much as Jadzia ..or me.. then start discussing things.

[Jadzia]

I agree Trenchfoot, the discussion is about FFA PvP. Many players who didn't read enough about the game came here thinking that Xsyon is an FFA PvP game. Now they realized that they were wrong, and they try to change the game, crying about everything. When the devs said that this is not a PvP focused game, when the players said the same they were like 'hah ! this game has open PvP, don't tell me its not PvP focused !'. They lived and still live in denial, thats why they are frustrated. Its about time to accept that PvP in Xsyon is an option, not the focus, not the driving force. That means that other game mechanics won't be altered to make PvP more free and to let less freedom to other type of players.

PvP is possible. Tribe wars will be possible by time. But you have to understand that the developers decided long time ago that they won't force their playerbase into activities they don't like. Thats why the tribe areas will remain safe after Prelude if the owner wish it, and thats why warfare will be opt-out. You can fight the ones who are willing to fight too, but can't the ones who want to live in peace. Yes, Xsyon is not FFA PvP. It has open PvP but easy to run away from fights, there are safe zones, opt-out warfare and limited looting. This is the setup, accept it or leave....or ask for an FFA PvP server. You have no right and no opportunity to force your own playstyle to others.

[Trenchfoot]

Now they realized that they were wrong, and they try to change the game, crying about everything.

hehehe You're such a sweetheart Jadz.


Its about time to accept that PvP in Xsyon is an option, not the focus, not the driving force.

How does promoting the dissolution of safe zones in favor of player made structures AS safe zones automatically make pvp the driving force?


You have no right and no opportunity to force your own playstyle to others.

You're so cute I just want to pinch you.

[Jadzia]

hehehe You're such a sweetheart Jadz.



How does promoting the dissolution of safe zones in favor of player made structures AS safe zones automatically make pvp the driving force?



You're so cute I just want to pinch you.

Aw its nice to see you like me so much :)

And if structures provide the same level of safety than safe zones then it really is the same, isn't it ? Safe zone doesn't have to be a magical barrier, walls and gates can work just as good.

[Trenchfoot]

And if structures provide the same level of safety than safe zones then it really is the same, isn't it ? Safe zone doesn't have to be a magical banner, walls and gates can work just as good.

Almost my point, with a couple of caveats.

1. No one short of an army with siege equip can get in. Siege equip could take enormous resources and time to produce. It could be more like a real siege where it takes them several days to breach the walls, not to mention time to drive them away or call for help. Masons/Architects on the other side could easily repair the walls making it even more difficult to get inside. A tribe with many skilled masons could exhaust a siege army, and a large siege army could exhaust a town with few masons.

2. Decay. Decay may be a problem if the walls crumble too fast. Players shouldn't be expected to defend their safe zone by being logged in 24/7 just to repair walls so no one can get in. They haven't turned on decay and QL yet so I don't have much to go on. But if 1 year RL = 9 years in game, you'd think a well blt stone wall would last at least that long. Giving ample time to maintain and upkeep your safe zone.

3. Burglars. I wouldn't be disappointed if they never implement what I'm about to say. It just seems logical to me that if you have locks you have them for a reason. Perhaps a burglar with certain skills could gain entry into the safe zone. Maybe he can't unlock it for all of his pals but just for himself, requiring the whole gang to be lock pickers. Of course the lock pick skill would have to be implemented in such a way where you'd really have to specialize in it to get anywhere. Just an idea on this one. I cold go either way.


One last thing. I propose these things not so I can do them to other players, but because I am in favor of having them done to ME.

[Jadzia]

Almost my point, with a couple of caveats.

1. No one short of an army with siege equip can get in. It could be more like a real siege where it takes them several days to breach the walls. Masons/Architects on the other side could easily repair the walls making it even more difficult to get inside. A tribe with many skilled masons could exhaust a siege army, and a large siege army could exhaust a town with few masons.

2. Decay. Decay may be a problem if the walls crumble too fast. Players shouldn't be expected to defend their safe zone by being logged in 24/7 just to repair walls so no one can get in. They haven't turned on decay and QL yet so I don't have much to go on. But if 1 year RL = 9 years in game, you'd think a well blt stone wall would last at least that long. Giving ample time to maintain and upkeep your safe zone.

3. Burglars. I wouldn't be disappointed if they never implement what I'm about to say. It just seems logical to me that if you have locks you have them for a reason. Perhaps a burglar with certain skills could gain entry into the safe zone. Maybe he can't unlock it for all of his pals but just for himself, requiring the whole gang to be lock pickers. Of course the lock pick skill would have to be implemented in such a way where you'd really have to specialize in it to get anywhere. Just an idea on this one. I cold go either way.


One last thing. I propose these things not so I can do them to other players, but because I am in favor of having them done to ME.

Nice ideas. And I like your last sentence....thats why its good it will be optional :) You can have your fun, while others who don't find it fun can opt-out.

Still I can see 1 big advantage on the magical barrier safe zone. Player structures can provide the same safety (since opening up to sieges is optional) but would cost some social aspects of the game. If players can be attacked in their home city then they simply won't let anyone come in, only players they know. This would make trading/questing really hard.

[Trenchfoot]

You can have your fun, while others who don't find it fun can opt-out.

Unless everyone opts out. And here's the problem I have with this. When you give people the option for pvp to be meanlingless, pvp becomes meaningless. And I admit that's a broad statement and probably only partially applies here.

I guess I should be asking how big of a land mass will tribes be able to make the 'non-pvp' section? How long will it take before those tribes (who can't be conquered through pvp) eat the entire landscape, relegating all pvp to a small area dubbed 'the pvp zone'? Will there be mechanisms in place to allow pvp areas to grow? The non-pvp areas will obviously be allowed to grow (you can't stop them obviously, they're non-pvp). How do we of the pvp areas protect from an invader (non-pvp zones) that we're not allowed to fight?

These are the things that concern me most. My intent isn't to take anything away from anyone. I just want to know if pvp areas will have the same right to the map that non-pvp areas do. Or in other words, how do we keep non-pvp from pushing pvp off the map? If you can resolve this for me, I have no qualms about letting others opt out.


Still I can see 1 big advantage on the magical barrier safe zone. Player structures can provide the same safety (since opening up to sieges is optional) but would cost some social aspects of the game. If players can be attacked in their home city then they simply won't let anyone come in, only players they know. This would make trading/questing really hard.

Good point that needs to be addressed. I don't have an answer for this one. Maybe some kiosk type structure you can place outside your gatehouse that gives access to quests? In the same regard, who doesn't want storefronts where they can put items up for sale at a vendor? Ok maybe that's wanting too much atm...

[Jadzia]

Here is the answer for your (valid) concern: Some expansion zones being open to more conquest without safe zones

This is from the Update Archive thread. There will be zones where safe play won't be an option, so non-PvP can't push PvP off the map.

And everyone opt-outs but you...I'm sure you don't have to be worried about that. You are not the only one who wants sieges and PvP, so I bet you will find enemies to fight. And if there is no one...that means all of the playerbase want safe play so why would the game cater to one single person...but this is more like a joke, both of us know it won't happen :)

[Trenchfoot]

OK I think I may be changing my mind somewhat as I understand more.

Will two warring factions be able to fight one another in non-pvp safe zones of a third tribe?

[Jadzia]

OK I think I may be changing my mind somewhat as I understand more.

Will two warring factions be able to fight one another in non-pvp safe zones of a third tribe?

I'm sure they will be, they already can as far as I know. A safe zone is only safe for the owner tribe's members, anyone else can fight on that land.

[Trenchfoot]

Starting to sound better than I thought.

What's to keep a pvp tribe from finding a non-pvp tribe, plopping down next to them, and preying on any non-pvp'rs that wander out of their safe zone?

[Jadzia]

Starting to sound better than I thought.

What's to keep a pvp tribe from finding a non-pvp tribe, plopping down next to them, and preying on any non-pvp'rs that wander out of their safe zone?

I'm glad you start to like the system :)

And the answer is nothing, that can be done right now and I guess will always be possible. Its important to find good neighbours.

[maelwydd]

Starting to sound better than I thought.

What's to keep a pvp tribe from finding a non-pvp tribe, plopping down next to them, and preying on any non-pvp'rs that wander out of their safe zone?

Nothing really (that I can think of). A player who is in a peaceful tribe still needs to be careful when they leave their tribal lands as normal unrestricted pvp still exists outside the safety of their home.

[Trenchfoot]

Can the non-pvp tribe then retaliate against the pvp tribe in a way that cannot be done to them? So that essentially, a non-pvp tribe decides who settles next to them because they're invincible on their own land and pvp tribes aren't?

And if you say 'Well the pvp tribe wants to pvp don't they?', I say sure they do, but fighting an indestructible enemy is hardly competitive.

This only works if the players who opt out cannot attack other tribes on the other tribes land either. If we can get around that, I'll be sold.

[Jadzia]

Can the non-pvp tribe then retaliate against the pvp tribe in a way that cannot be done to them? So that essentially, a non-pvp tribe decides who settles next to them because they're invincible on their own land and pvp tribes aren't?

And if you say 'Well the pvp tribe wants to pvp don't they?', I say sure they do, but fighting an indestructible enemy is hardly competitive.

This only works if the players who opt out cannot attack other tribes on the other tribes land either. If we can get around that, I'll be sold.

From the update thread again : Non warring tribes would keep their area safe, but don’t gain the ability to raid or conquer other tribes.

So no, no unfair advantage to the non-warring tribes.
And being non-warring won't be a switch, it will somehow based on the tribe's actions. So if they keep bugging the warring tribe they might lose their non-warring status eventually.

[Trenchfoot]

OK I'm convinced. This doesn't sound unreasonable.

[Jadzia]

OK I'm convinced. This doesn't sound unreasonable.

Yay :) Thanks for being reasonable and honest.

[Trenchfoot]

Well I'm still resistant. :P

I do have to admit this doesn't sound unreasonable in theory. It just might work if you think of the non-pvp population as part of the scenery. I can also see opportunities for pvp to work together with non-pvp. On the other hand I suspect this will cause 'alt non pvp' tribes to pop up as well (think that through).

Through past experience I would tend to say this mix of systems would never work. So I'm still highly skeptical, but lacking a solid argument (you've addressed everything I can think that's a major issue) or evidence, the only thing left for me to do is try it out and see if it works like they say it will.

And of course I still want an FFA that has terraforming, crafting, and worldbuilding. For me pvp is the icing on that cake. It's what ultimately gives those non-pvp things value. That and the fact that I'm at home, safe, now. Which is why I enjoy being 'in constant threat of danger' in an MMO. It gives your accomplishments weight and value. Besides there's nothing more engaging than doing battle with another human being. AI simply can't replicate it. If it were practical I'd say let the payers log in and play as the mobs if they choose to. How exciting would it be if the bears were as spontaneous and unpredictable as human beings? Maybe even hire some out of work child actors to play some NPCs?

And you're right these are all just my preferences. I can't tell other people what to like. But I'll still be waiting for that seemingly pie in the sky game. One in which it's safe where the players make/keep it safe, and where they don't make/keep it safe it isn't.

[Jadzia]

Actually during beta someone suggested that the company should give the opportunity to create trial accounts, and these accounts could only create animal characters. So a trial account could play as a bear, and if he is killed he had to recreate a new animal :)

[Trenchfoot]

I meant as a temporary thing without animal character creation. You're burned out on your toon, so you log in and hit the bear button (instead of the character) and spawn in as a bear in a random location. You wouldn't have coord, so you don't know where you are (preventing bear farming). Perhaps if you wander out of a certain area the game disconnects you and replaces you with an AI bear. I don't know. Like I said, I don't think it's practical. Would make hunting a hell of a lot more fun. Risk is the sauce that makes victory taste sweeter.

[paranoia]

Jadzia, i think we know what your opinion is. Why you have to answer that many times telling the same thing over and over again is beyond me. It looks to me like You are the one trying to force something. And I dont get why you have to insult others (I cry because I suggest something?). Eh..

I think we need challenge. I need it. That's why I asked about save zones. And I think removing safe zones will be a good move immersion wise. I think numbers of some guilds are enough to secure tribe areas (if you don't want to PvP just join one of this big tribes), we don't need safe zones for it.

[Trenchfoot]

I think we need challenge. I need it. That's why I asked about save zones. And I think removing safe zones will be a good move immersion wise. I think numbers of some guilds are enough to secure tribe areas (if you don't want to PvP just join one of this big tribes), we don't need safe zones for it.

I agree paranoia.

I'm willing to give safe zones a try (as described elsewhere), but only because it looks like I have to.

I also think the devs are leading people on by not putting their foot down and drawing some boundaries. Or at least saying 'We don't know yet.'. It's disingenuous for them to allow this to continue. The devs know they are receiving money from both groups right now and probably don't want that to end until it has to.

Because if all post-apoc world really means is 'a world building simulator where the scenery LOOKS post-apoc', and they already KNOW that, and they don't define that, they're misleading people.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they just don't know yet. But this is a very HOT topic because it will decide for a load of people who stays and who quits because they can get it (whichever 'it' that is) anywhere.

I'll tell you devs right now, if you just want to make money, and make the most of it, go with PVE. Just cut to the chase and make a sandbox theme park. Which is not so incidentally something I can get anywhere.

I came here because I thought Xsyon had something UNIQUE going on. And that's really the question here. Is Xsyon going to be unique?

The system that colonel suggested in another thread doesn't sound unreasonable. Which is different than 'Sounds reasonable' mind you. I'm willing to give it a try if that's what the devs feel they must do. The idea that a tribes actions could place them in the theater is a good one. I just suspect the game will then revolve around trying to get non-pvp tribes into the theater.

Stick to the premise of the game! You cannot allow players to 'take their part of the map and go home.'.

[Jadzia]

Jadzia, i think we know what your opinion is. Why you have to answer that many times telling the same thing over and over again is beyond me. It looks to me like You are the one trying to force something. And I dont get why you have to insult others (I cry because I suggest something?). Eh..

I think we need challenge. I need it. That's why I asked about save zones. And I think removing safe zones will be a good move immersion wise. I think numbers of some guilds are enough to secure tribe areas (if you don't want to PvP just join one of this big tribes), we don't need safe zones for it.

I don't insult players, thats not my style. I've got an huge amount of insults here but never insulted back. There are a lot of people who cry on this boards, but where did I say you were one of them ?

I post when I see that players are not aware of some features. This happens very often, seems people don't read official announcements. Thats ok since those are archived and why would they read 1 month old posts if they weren't here when it originally was posted. Or when I see that a suggestion is trying to change the game in a way that would ruin it imo. You have the right to write posts about removing safe zones, just as I have the right to write posts about not removing them.