Safe Zone/Free Zone ala Tribal Creeds

[Trenchfoot]

Safe Zone/Free Zone ala Pacifist/Militant Tribal Creeds

Separation of Zone of Safety from Zone of Influence:

ZoI = Zone of Influence: The area you can build on grows and shrinks by each member in your tribe (this remains as is and unaffected throughout this post).
ZoS = Zone of Safety: The area that pacifists are safe from attack grows and shrinks by each pacifist/militant in your tribe.


PLAYER TAGS

1. PACIFISTS:
a. Players start as pacifists.
b. Each pacifist in the tribe adds 1 size to the ZoS(zone of safety), up to the max which is the ZoI(zone of influence).

2. MILITANT:
a. When a player kills another player, he/she becomes militant.
a1. Cannot become militant from knocking another player unconscious, allowing a modicum of self-defense.
b. Each militant in the tribe removes 1 size from ZoS(zone of safety).


HOW THIS RELATES TO TRIBES a.k.a. TRIBAL CREEDS

When a tribe leader plants a totem, he/she would choose a tribal creed:

1. PACIFIST CREED:
a. Only a pacifist may choose a pacifist creed.
b. Full ZoS(zone of safety) in effect (Militants and Pacifists alike).
c. Structures outside ZoS(zone of safety) are vulnerable.
d. Totem is invulnerable inside ZoS(zone of safety).
e. A pacifist creed will become a moderate creed if too many tribe members become militant.


2. MODERATE CREED (mixed)
a. Anyone may choose a mixed creed.
b. ZoS(zone of safety) in effect for Pacifists ONLY, Militants are fair game.
c. Structures outside ZoS(zone of safety) are vulnerable.
d. Totem is invulnerable inside ZoS(zone of safety).
e. A moderate creed will become a militant creed if most of the tribe members become militant.
f. A moderate creed will revert to a pacifist creed if most of the tribe members become pacifist.


3. MILITANT CREED
a. Only a militant may choose a militant creed.
b. NO ZoS (pacifists provide 0 size to ZoS).
c. Structures are vulnerable.
d. Totem is vulnerable.
e. A militant creed will revert to a moderate creed if too many tribe members become pacifists.


*Tribe leaders may adjust their creed by exile of pacifists/militants from their tribes. Or by establishing tribal policy as a preventative measure. Thereby pushing/keeping their creed towards their desired play-style.


BREAKDOWN

Pacifist Creed Tribes (no pvp): Can attack but can't be attacked in their ZoS(zone of safety). Structures can only be attacked if they fall outside the ZoS (-1 ZoS size per militant). With no militants in the tribe, the size of the ZoS is max (covers their entire build-able area). PRO: Safety, CON: Must remain pacifists, non-retaliatory.

Moderate Creed Tribes (half and half): Pacifists and militants can attack but only militants can be attacked in their ZoS(zone of safety). Structures can only be attacked if they fall outside the ZoS (+1 ZoS size per pacifist). PRO: Pacifists have a safe zone, CON: A portion of their build-able area is always exposed to pvp area.

Militant Creed Tribes (heavy pvp): FFA, all the way. PRO: The full experience of a post-apoc world. CON: The full experience of a post-apoc world.


PROBLEMS

a. How does one get back a pacifist tag once they have become a militant? I left this out because I just don't know. I just know it shouldn't be too easy short of re-rolling a toon. Perhaps they could tie this in with the religion system somehow?

b. some might notice this subtly flows towards creating pvp players, and.... it does. Which is why I mentioned the problem above about getting your pacifist tag back. Though I suspect if you really want no part of pvp, you'll just refrain from killing anyone.

c. Add to this rotating resources. ie. Resources are finite and when exhausted they move to a new place. This can be done for select resources that need it to avoid the monopoly syndrome.

A lot of this is simply an alteration of some good ideas from ColonelTEE3. Thanks for the inspiration.

I've tried to stick to the things that the developers have said 'lately'. I'm not a game dev no so don't ask me that. I'll let you who are more knowledgeable hash out the mechanics of all this. I tried to make it very general where the numbers are involved, using terms like 'most' and 'too many', '1 size', etc. instead of defining them explicitly.

Poke holes in it guys. Adjust, re-adjust, alter/dismiss at will.

[joexxxz]

LOVE YOUR IDEA. GOOD JOB. SOME BALANCE THERE I, SEE !!!! ;)

[Trenchfoot]

With this system, the only hurdle for non-pvp players becomes one of a struggle to keep from being drawn in to the conflict of a broken world.

[xyberviri]

Basically non pvpers have to let people kill them and loot there corpse when outside there safe zone.....

At least they wont fight back.

how ever you do realize that, almost, everything you just mention will be in game eventually when they turn on Raiding. Just though i would mention it.

[Trenchfoot]

Basically non pvpers have to let people kill them and loot there corpse when outside there safe zone.....

How is that different from the way it already is? Also see the problem section about getting your pacifist tag back.

[Jadzia]

The system you described is very similar to the good/neutral/evil alignment system they plan to add, yours is a bit overcomplicated imo and less fair. But if you add that pacifists can fight for self-defense (aka they don't attack first) and can kill players on their tribe land (to avoid some griefing tactics) without alignment hit then I like it.

[Trenchfoot]

The system you described is very similar to the good/neutral/evil alignment system they plan to add, yours is a bit overcomplicated imo and less fair.

Yeah I noticed that while thinking things out. As far as complicated, I don't believe I'm capable of overly complicated. hehe


But if you add that pacifists can fight for self-defense (aka they don't attack first) and can kill players on their tribe land (to avoid some griefing tactics) without alignment hit then I like it.

Of course you would. But then how do you keep the pvp players from always setting up pacifist tribes so they can join the confict without consequences? If you really want to take your part of the map and go home, you should have to give SOMETHING up. This is also why I mentoned the tag being reversable somehow. Maybe when they add religion a priest or shaman would have the ability through skills to reverse the tag on the basis of repentence. It would be a good RP touch.

[Jadzia]

Of course you would. But then how do you keep the pvp players from always setting up pacifist tribes so they can join the confict without consequences?

How could they join the conflict if they can't attack first ?

[Trenchfoot]

How could they join the conflict if they can't attack first ?

I'm not sure I follow you. Anyone can attack first. Or last or whatever. But if you're going to have a no-pvp ideology, don't you think you should stick to it or suffer the consequences? Or is it just that you want a safe zone advantage with all the benefits of joining the conflict?

With this system, a non-pvp tribes pvp actions become almost purely diplomatic instead of physical. Non-pvp tribes don't want to fight. I say OK, so they can't fight without consequences. So that the trade off for safety is simply doing what you want to do (which is not fight). Right? What better trade off than to do what you want to do, in exchange for safety? If non-pvp is really what you want to do. Is it? Or is that something non-pvp proponents are simply hiding behind?

[Jadzia]

I'm not sure I follow you.

Hmm I meant that pacifists players should be able to fight for self-defense. As in if they are attacked then they can fight back without alignment hit. So they can't join a conflict, since they are only observers there, no one is attacking them. They can only join by risking of losing their pacifist alignment.

[xyberviri]

also the alignment system that is on the current totem will play into that, so if your a good tribe and you pk then you will get kicked from your own tribe if you kill to many people.

[Trenchfoot]

They can fight for self-defense. But 'fighting' (whcih is what you people said you don't want to do) comes at a cost. And any soldier will tell you, that taking another human life, be it in justified self-defense or not, changes you.


also the alignment system that is on the current totem will play into that, so if your a good tribe and you pk then you will get kicked from your own tribe if you kill to many people.

I left this seperate from good and evil alignments. Maybe these could be tied together. However, I don't agree that PKing in and of itself is an act of evil necessarily. As Jadz said (a militant) can justly defend themselves through violence. Which is not an evil thing. A pacifist simply doesn't believe in solving their problems (even when attacked) through violence.

[Jadzia]

I'm not sure I follow you. Anyone can attack first. Or last or whatever. But if you're going to have a no-pvp ideology, don't you think you should stick to it or suffer the consequences? Or is it just that you want a safe zone advantage with all the benefits of joining the conflict?

With this system, a non-pvp tribes pvp actions become almost purely diplomatic instead of physical. Non-pvp tribes don't want to fight. I say OK, so they can't fight without consequences. So that the trade off for safety is simply doing what you want to do (which is not fight). Right? What better trade off than to do what you want to do, in exchange for safety? If non-pvp is really what you want to do. Is it? Or is that something non-pvp proponents are simply hiding behind?

I hope you stopped editing it or otherwise my answer may seems inappropriate :)
I still can't see how a pacifist player could join a conflict without consequences if he can only fight for self-defense. Explain it please.

[Trenchfoot]

Hmm I meant that pacifists players should be able to fight for self-defense.

But pacifists don't believe in fighting, militants do.

[Jadzia]

But pacifists don't believe in fighting, militants do.

Pacifists believe in self-defense but don't believe in aggression.

[Trenchfoot]

Pacifists believe in self-defense but don't believe in aggression.

That's splitting hairs really. And, pacifist tribes CAN defend themselves. If they don't want to jeapordize their safe zone though, all they have to do is not kill, stay in their safe zone where they 'can't' be attacked and ignore the pvp world around them.

This also opens the opportunity for sibling tribes. ie. A pacifist tribe allies with a militant tribe and the militant tribe does all their fighting for them. Great for mercs, offshoots of original tribes, etc.

And you're ignoring the part where I said players should have a way to get their pacifist tag back. Why isn't anyone focusing on that? Because that's your solution. Then a priest/shaman could become an integral part of pacifist societies. Militant tribes may find value in that as well, to know that if they need to find a priest/shaman their best bet is to look to a pacifist tribe because they'll probably always have one.

Added after 40 minutes:

Johnny is a young member of a pacifist tribe. After many years of the elders explaining to Johnny that the world was no longer a safe place for us peaceful folk, Johnny's curiosity gets the better of him. And one day Johnny wanders off to explore this dangerous world. While he's out he encounters a couple of bandits who attack Johnny. Johnny now has a decision to make. He can either run back to the safety of his tribe, or he can stand and fight and break tribe taboo. Johnny decides to stand and fight, and he kills one of the bandits and the other one runs off.

Upon returning to the tribe he is confronted by the chieftain and the elders. 'It was brave what you did son, but you must understand that your actions put our tribe in jeopardy.'. They allow Johnny to stay, after all they really like Johnny.


GAMEPLAY: At this point as a tribe leader I have to make a decision. In this scenario I like Johnny. So I decide to keep him on, and we all agree to just keep quiet about the edge of our ZoI being vulnerable. No one really knows but us and for anyone to find out they have to poke and prod.

3 days later, a group of bandits show up at the towns gates, and they're breaking through the walls.

GAMEPLAY: Another tough decision as a tribal leader. If I turn Johnny loose at this point, we loose territory. If I recruit another pacifist member, I can disband Johnny and save the town. Another option would be to have Johnny, 3 days earlier, head to the local priest/shaman and be absolved, thereby returning him to his pacifist tag, which prevents all of this from happening in the first place.

Let's say I decide to stick by Johnny, and send word out to try in hopes of recruiting another pacifist player (maybe we're a starting zone and we get new players all the time). We can still build in our ZoI, we are loosing walls on the outside of our ZoS.

Now let's say no recruits come, but I'm still sticking by Johnny. Worst case scenario the bandits break through the wall right into our ZoS and at that point all you have to do is not do anything. They can't hurt you, you can slaughter them if you want to (which would draw you further into the conflict and is probably a bad idea for a pacifist tribe who wants to remain pacifist).

Tribe Size: 22 Members
Zone of Influence: Size 22
Zone of Safety: Size 21 (now that Johnny has turned, leaving only your outermost walls exposed)

Another option would be to adjust the variables here. For example maybe you want to change the equation from 1 militant = -1 ZoS size to something like 2 militants = -1 ZoS size, thereby giving you some leeway. As long as it can't easily be exploited.

In addition, with a handful of skilled masons you can keep them from breaching the wall easily. And they can't attack the masons until they breach the walls, allowing you to hold them off for as long as you want all things considered.

[Jadzia]

You should elaborate how one can get back the pacifist tag after a fight. How long does it take ? Just go to a priest and its done ? In this case it doesn't count much. If it takes longer then it raises a lot of problem. In case of a solo player what happens with his territory meanwhile ? What if someone is out exploring, gets attacked, defends himself so loses the pacifist tag and homestead protection. By the time he gets home his camp will be destroyed ?

In your example Johnny should have gone to the priest before their camp got attacked :)

If you takes away the ability form pacifist players to defend themselves (without consequences) saying that they don't want to fight anyway, then you have to give them the ability to flee from any attack, since this is their real choice. No matter the enemy's speed, no matter if the victim carries something heavy.

I understand your idea, but I can't really see the point of it, I mean the point of pacifist players not being able to defend themselves without an alignment hit. Your other points are fine, I just don't understand why is this good or necessary.

I thought that the goal of your suggestion was to have more PvP in game, without harming the peaceful players, and without giving an unfair advantage to pacifists.

If a pacifist can defend himself without losing his tag he may fight in case he is attacked. I guess a fight is more fun to a PvP player than a victim who is running away and never stops to fight back. How does it enhance PvP if you reduce the number of possible fights ? And believe me, a pacifist player will never risk losing his safe zone for a bit of fight. Actually if he is a solo player or a member of a small tribe he can't even afford to lose it, since he won't be able to stand a siege of a bigger tribe.

If a pacifist player do fight back that makes PvP more fun ( I guess). A combat timer should be implemented so in case he did decide to engage in PvP he wouldn't be able to run back to safety for some minutes.

You mentioned that if a pacific player could defend himself that could be exploited but I didn't see how and you didn't explain it :)

Don't get me wrong, I never PvP, so I wouldn't miss it. I just don't understand why is it good to reduce the number of potential fights.

[Trenchfoot]

You should elaborate how one can get back the pacifist tag after a fight. How long does it take ? Just go to a priest and its done?

I stated I didn't know how. I only stated that I agreed you should be able to, and that it shouldn't be something players can turn on or off at will. Suggestions are welcome.


In case of a solo player what happens with his territory meanwhile ? What if someone is out exploring, gets attacked, defends himself so loses the pacifist tag and homestead protection. By the time he gets home his camp will be destroyed ?

Possibly. Although, he could have just run away. Like they do now. Already. And that's the point. Most non-pvp players aren't generally confined to their safe zones. They're confined to the area around it. All they would have to do is to not travel too far into the wilderness. Which, not so indecently, they do already.

Are you saying solo players should have no risk or reason to band together? That they can just take their part of the game, go home, and only have risk on their own terms (which is the opposite of risk btw). And if so, why are they in a tribal MMO? I remember reading somewhere a dev said that joining a tribe should be preferable and that soloing should be extremely difficult (I'm paraphrasing of course). Should the solo player/solo group be able to escape the pressure of the necessity to work with other players? And if so, why should anyone ever work together, and why should tribes work with other tribes? Why should there ever be a reason for a non-pvp tribe to work with another tribe?

A pacifist tribe could easily set up an arrangement with a moderate or militant tribe saying, (recruit pacifists for us, and we'll send you our militants). You don't need game mechanics to solve every problem.


In your example Johnny should have gone to the priest before their camp got attacked

I stated as much, I just stated it after the fact.


If you takes away the ability form pacifist players to defend themselves

They have the ability, all they have to do is make a stand on one principle or the other. Does leaving it to the player to choose seem unfavorable to you?


(without consequences)

This is the part we disagree on. And here's why. Pacifist players wander on to militant enemy ground and waits for them to attack and then kills one of them in so-called 'self defense', then runs back to their safe zone next door. Would you say that's a fair advantage? How do you propose we get around that?


I just don't understand why is it good to reduce the number of potential fights.

No more than the potential for pvp tribes to fight over the right to associate/trade with/protect/attack non-pvp tribes.

Players shouldn't be able to totally isolate themselves and in essence steal their own portion of the game that nothing can effect, from the rest of us.

[Jadzia]

They have the ability, all they have to do is make a stand on one principle or the other. Does leaving it to the player to choose seem unfavorable to you?

No. As long as you grant the ability to run away from fights hence having a real choice, I'm fine with it.

This is the part we disagree on. And here's why. Pacifist players wander on to militant enemy ground and waits for them to attack and then kills one of them in so-called 'self defense', then runs back to their safe zone next door. Would you say that's a fair advantage? How do you propose we get around that?

As I said, a combat timer should be implemented. Once a player engaged in a fight, his safe zone shouldn't protect him for some minutes. Thus can't run back to safety.

No more than the potential for pvp tribes to fight over the right to associate/trade with/protect/attack non-pvp tribes.

I don't understand this sentence, please elaborate.

Players shouldn't be able to totally isolate themselves and in essence steal their own portion of the game that nothing can effect, from the rest of us. Why ?

A solo players are always under the pressure to work with others. Its the big tribes who are totally self-sufficient so actually nothing force them to work with others.

[Trenchfoot]

The idea here is that non-pvp players should not be allowed to be a risk to other players, unless they take on some risk themselves. This system doesn't take any capability away from non-pvp players. It simply allows them to avoid risk, by never becoming a risk to others.

It also encourages non-pvp players to develop their own kind of non-combatant pvp. One that requires very little risk, and is almost purely diplomatic.

[Jadzia]

The idea here is that non-pvp players should not be allowed to be a risk to other players, unless they take on some risk themselves. This system doesn't take any capability away from non-pvp players. It simply allows them to avoid risk, by never becoming a risk to others.


A pacifist player is never a risk to other players unless he is attacked. In that case if the pacifist player engage in combat then he does take the risk of being killed and looted just like a pvp-player. With a combat timer he wouldn't be able to take advantage of his safe zone, so that would be a fair fight. I see absolutely no reason for that part of your suggestion and no advantages to anyone, its only a pointless limitation. Other parts are fine.

[Trenchfoot]

so that would be a fair fight.

Should all fights in the game be fair fights? Or just the ones you're involved in?


I see absolutely no reason for that part of your suggestion and no advantages to anyone

The advantage is this:

Two players meet out in the open, outside of either of their territories. One payer kills the other for whatever reason. The player who was killed goes back to his tribe and says 'Hey so and so killed me let's go get em.'. They form a war party and after some snooping around they find that player X belongs to a tribe with a safe zone. They can't retaliate and hold a tribe responsible for the actions of their members. The idea being that if you're going to represent your tribe in the open world, your actions in the open world should effect your tribe. So that if a tribe decides that killing one of their members is an act of war, whether in self defense or not, they should be able to retaliate.

That's the disadvantage. You're stealing our post-apoc world away from us.

I think the only problem you really have is with the game itself. You just don't want to play in a post-apoc world. You want to remove all of the elements that MAKES it a post-apoc world and replace it with a world building sim.

[Jadzia]

Should all fights in the game be fair fights? Or just the ones you're involved in?

The advantage is this:

Two players meet out in the open, outside of either of their territories. One payer kills the other for whatever reason. The player who was killed goes back to his tribe and says 'Hey so and so killed me let's go get em.'. They form a war party and after some snooping around they find that player X belongs to a tribe with a safe zone. They can't retaliate and hold a tribe responsible for the actions of their members. The idea being that if you're going to represent your tribe in the open world, your actions in the open world should effect your tribe. So that if a tribe decides that killing one of their members is an act of war, whether in self defense or not, they should be able to retaliate.

That's the disadvantage. You're stealing our post-apoc world away from us.

I think the only problem you really have is with the game itself. You just don't want to play in a post-apoc world. You want to remove all of the elements that MAKES it a post-apoc world and replace it with a world building sim.

I think we can agree in disagreeing. I think that self-defense shouldn't have any consequences alignment-wise, you think it should. Its up to the devs to decide.

And I have no problem with the game's current setup. Its you who want to change it. Seems the developers' definition of a post-apoc world is different from yours. I prefer their version, thats why I play their game, not yours.

[Trenchfoot]

When some tribes can be held accountable for their actions, by the player base, and others can't. There's a real problem there.

Then to say 'It's your choice if you want to be held accountable by the player base.', makes pvp a non-issue. So that tribal warfare cannot exist in an environment where one tribe is held accountable and another CAN'T be held accountable. If you have a better way around this, by all means....


I think we can agree in disagreeing.

This we can agree on.

[Jadzia]

When some tribes can be held accountable for their actions, by the player base, and others can't. There's a real problem there.

Then to say 'It's your choice if you want to be held accountable by the player base.', makes pvp a non-issue. So that tribal warfare cannot exist in an environment where one tribe is held accountable and another CAN'T be held accountable. If you have a better way around this, by all means....


No one should be held accountable for self-defense. It never happened in any society, people are free to defend themselves in case of an attack without consequences. If you don't want him to fight back, then don't attack. Calling your whole tribe on him because he managed to kill you though you were the one who attacked him first would be very cheap and ridiculous. There should not be any way around this.

Every player should be held accountable if he attacked first.

I leave it here now, I'm sure we can't convince each other.

[joexxxz]

What is the problem here. You guys saying that if im fighting for self defense, then i should be accountable for this? In real world if someone smacks me in a face, do i have the right to kill that person, or if someone tryied to kill me, do i have the right to kill that person first?

[fatboy21007]

trench, ur good dude, but this is idea is fubar. you are basicaly saying those who dont wanna pvp cant defend themselves without loosing their safe zone. and if you wanna keep it you gotta let people grief ya. THis is somthing Dev's dont want happening. it was a nice thought. but those who do not want to pvp much but get ganker alot should have a right to defend themselves uneffected. Ie they dont attack untill they are attacked. You need to move to more populated areas. Pretty sure ud change ur perspective ^^

[joexxxz]

There is 2 things to do in this game, pvp and craft. If you dont want pvp, then you have to craft. If you dont want to craft, then you have to pvp. If i want pvp, i dont get free crafting. If you want crafting, you dont get no-pvp. Some people say, if im a crafter then i have to have protection from pvp.
What if im a pvper , can i get a protection from crafting, get anything i want?? lol

[Jadzia]

There is 2 things to do in this game, pvp and craft. If you dont want pvp, then you have to craft. If you dont want to craft, then you have to pvp. If i want pvp, i dont get free crafting. If you want crafting, you dont get no-pvp. Some people say, if im a crafter then i have to have protection from pvp.
What if im a pvper , can i get a protection from crafting, get anything i want?? lol

Of course, if you are a PvPer, no one will force you to craft. You can get everything you want, you can buy it or loot it. No one will EVER force you to craft.

[Trenchfoot]

No one should be held accountable for self-defense.

So an evil tribe shouldn't have the option to hold a tribe accountable for killing one of their guys, defense or not? Sounds like you're imposing justice and fair play (good) on the evil players.

@fatboy

I'm not necessarily for any of these mechanics. I'm for the principle of player choice behind them. Change the mechanics of it however you like. As long as it's player freedom. I will admit I would prefer something different than what's proposed here. But what's proposed here does expose the motives for what people really do want. If nothing else it demonstrates my original belief. That a choice for both, is a choice for neither.

[Jadzia]

So an evil tribe shouldn't have the option to hold a tribe accountable for killing one of their guys, defense or not? Sounds like you're imposing justice and fair play (good) on the evil players.


Yes. And the alignment system the devs plan to implement is much more strict. In their plan a good tribe can chase and kill evil players everywhere without an alignment hit, the good tribe can keep their safe zone, while an evil tribe area wouldn't be safe. They want consequences for being evil, and no consequences for being good. A good player can't attack a good/neutral one without an alignment hit. This is what they plan and hopefully implement soon.

[joexxxz]

Of course, if you are a PvPer, no one will force you to craft. You can get everything you want, you can buy it or loot it. No one will EVER force you to craft.

I wasnt talking about this. If you are a crafter and you want safe zone. If iam a pvper i dont want a safe zone.
Same. Same, Same. And ofcourse im both,.
So why would you think that you should get what you want, and i should not get what i want.
And dont say, DEVs said this and that.
2. Im only asking for balance, those people who want safe zones, they want to disbalance this game. Thats all.
So who wins here, lol??? And dont say "i do", i mean you . ;)

[Jadzia]

I wasnt talking about this. If you are a crafter and you want safe zone. If iam a pvper i dont want a safe zone.
Same. Same, Same. And ofcourse im both,.
So why would you think that you should get what you want, and i should not get what i want.
And dont say, DEVs said this and that.

If you are a PvPer you should have an option to turn the safety of your zone off. If you are a crafter you should have the option to keep safety on. Freedom of choice.

Edit: and of course I say what the devs said. Thats why I bought this game and thats why I'm still here, because I like what they said and what they plan. If I didn't like the setup I wouldn't have bought the game.

[joexxxz]

If you are a PvPer you should have an option to turn the safety of your zone off. If you are a crafter you should have the option to keep safety on. Freedom of choice.

If im a PvPer I should NOT have the option to turn the safety zone on/off.
If im a non-PvPer I should NOT have the option to turn the safety zone on/off.
Sandbox means less restrictions and more creativeness.

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
Work for your freadom and you will get it, but DONT hard wired it.

Like i said, right now you can be free, there is no gates in the game yet,
or there is; ;)
THERE IS GATES IN THE GAME LOL.

[Trenchfoot]

So let me see if I have this right?

Good = Cannot be retaliated against or be destroyed.
Neutral = ?Does neutral get a safe zone too?
Evil = Can be retaliated against and be destroyed.

If this is true, unless there's more to it than this, I can see right where this game is headed.

[Jadzia]

So let me see if I have this right?

Good = Cannot be retaliated against or be destroyed.
Neutral = ?Does neutral get a safe zone too?
Evil = Can be retaliated against and be destroyed.

If this is true, unless there's more to it than this, I can see right where this game is headed.

The alignment system was announced for the Prelude. I don't know how it will work with the warfare system, but both good and evil tribes can choose to be warring tribe and in that case their area can be sieged.

Good = Can be killed anywhere outside of their safe zone. Can only kill evil players without alignment hit.
Neutral = same as good for now, differences will only be seen when religion is implemented.
Evil = Can be killed anywhere, can kill anyone.

[Trenchfoot]

but both good and evil tribes can choose to be warring tribe and in that case their area can be sieged.

So like a staged re-enactment. No one really risks anything because they agreed to it. And since nothing forces them to agree to it, they only do when they're completely prepared. That's a charade.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe the devs already have something planned but not disclosed that makes this work. But just from this, it doesn't look like anything I haven't already seen before.

[orious13]

I have mixed feelings.

Something to add to this would be the following because I also don't get why pacifists can't fight back without a problem in self-defense, but killing is a different story. In the US you can actually get off with no punishment from killing someone in self-defense. It's harder in some states than it is in others. Frankly with your current system pacifists DO have more risk since the tiny safe zone can go away or decrease and/or if encountering another militant on 99% of the map, you can either run or die. Most of the time you'll probably die if you have less fort/run/agi. Actually you might die all of the time if you're a crafter spec and can't hide. Pacifist monks do/did know how to fight back.

If you make it so pacifists cannot be looted (since they aren't a risk and can't attack back), that won't work either because then people won't care bout dying (spies running free into your town etc.).


So what one can do is the following:

1) A pacifist can attack back in self defense after being attacked, but if they kill the target, they cannot loot the target. If they loot the target, they are militant... that is just by clicking the loot button not actually be taking anything off of the target. This also goes for fish/gathering/foraging/scavenging on non-ally territory as that is an act of aggression.

2) A pacifist can attack back in self-defense after being attacked, but if they succeed in taking the aggressor down to 0% health, the aggressor gets incapacitated for xx amount of seconds before the last hit is landed or a kill/murder button is pressed, allowing the pacifist to run away or risk becoming militant. Keep in mind out of combat is supposed to be faster than in combat; however, many pvpers have 90 agi vs a lot less for many crafters, which makes that not work as well. You also can't forage/gather/scav/fish here either.

Both ways are exploitable I guess and need tweaking.

[joexxxz]

So let me see if I have this right?

Good = Cannot be retaliated against or be destroyed.
Neutral = ?Does neutral get a safe zone too?
Evil = Can be retaliated against and be destroyed.

If this is true, unless there's more to it than this, I can see right where this game is headed.

Great point. There is gonna be 1 good tribe, and 1 evil tribe. The evil tribe just gonna be a boxing pillow. lol

[Trenchfoot]

@joexxxz

You're quick.


1) A pacifist can attack back in self defense after being attacked, but if they kill the target, they cannot loot the target. If they loot the target, they are militant... that is just by clicking the loot button not actually be taking anything off of the target. This also goes for fish/gathering/foraging/scavenging on non-ally territory as that is an act of aggression.

That's not an altogether bad idea.

EDIT: Neutral = This is my alt. hehe

[fatboy21007]

if im not mistaken the reason Evil can be a boxing pillow is cuz they will be the only ones who can really ffa full loot. and everything they do doesnt effect them. However everything a good and nuetral tribe does can effect them and actually turn their alignment into evil. Which i can see alot of balance their. I mean good tribes i dont think can full loots ya and nuetral i think i heard can only loot 1 item. However they havent said much about nuetral. but wat i gathered so far is Nuetral will be a more *crafter friendly* alighnment as they choose to stay out of the wars n remain safe or jump into them and turn into evil or good. Ethier way None of us can say forsure how the alighnment system will work. So all in good time we shall find out. Atm all ideas that are poping up mean nothing when you havent seen the dev's full plans ethier. and so far seems like they are intent and making this game in their vision. which for the most part is a good thing. as no offence to any of ya, but us players are the reasons games die. we moan and wine n devs make stuff are way...but in the end they game ends up failing and pop leaves, cuz of boredem. So lets try the dev's vision this time around. And remember all the other games liek this wat happend when dev's took all major game mechanics ideas that players gave and used them. Im for wanting to see wat the dev's do. So far id say their doin a great job :-)

[Trenchfoot]

Thank you all for your input.

I'm convinced.

[wolfmoonstrike]

First I'd like to say love this idea. I think it has a nice blend of risk vs reward. In a perfect world people would have only a certain amount of militants that can do the dirty work needed. They can be your goto guys w/o risking the rest of the tribe. I also agree that pacifist should take a alignment hit for killing.

I have mixed feelings.

Something to add to this would be the following because I also don't get why pacifists can't fight back without a problem in self-defense, but killing is a different story. In the US you can actually get off with no punishment from killing someone in self-defense. It's harder in some states than it is in others. Frankly with your current system pacifists DO have more risk since the tiny safe zone can go away or decrease and/or if encountering another militant on 99% of the map, you can either run or die. Most of the time you'll probably die if you have less fort/run/agi. Actually you might die all of the time if you're a crafter spec and can't hide. Pacifist monks do/did know how to fight back.

If you make it so pacifists cannot be looted (since they aren't a risk and can't attack back), that won't work either because then people won't care bout dying (spies running free into your town etc.).


So what one can do is the following:

1) A pacifist can attack back in self defense after being attacked, but if they kill the target, they cannot loot the target. If they loot the target, they are militant... that is just by clicking the loot button not actually be taking anything off of the target. This also goes for fish/gathering/foraging/scavenging on non-ally territory as that is an act of aggression.

2) A pacifist can attack back in self-defense after being attacked, but if they succeed in taking the aggressor down to 0% health, the aggressor gets incapacitated for xx amount of seconds before the last hit is landed or a kill/murder button is pressed, allowing the pacifist to run away or risk becoming militant. Keep in mind out of combat is supposed to be faster than in combat; however, many pvpers have 90 agi vs a lot less for many crafters, which makes that not work as well. You also can't forage/gather/scav/fish here either.

Both ways are exploitable I guess and need tweaking.

I like number 2 out of what you said. I was playing MnB this last week due to my internet being out lol and I wouldn't mind seeing knock outs possible instead of kills. So like for the pacifist tribes out there, they could carry blunt weapons so they knock out somebody instead of killing them. Being KOed means you get knocked to the ground and can't get back up until the usual timer dings. You can be killed and/or looted while KOed. But if a pacifist tries to loot anymore than one thing he should become militant (the pacifist did win I think he deserves some reward) and if he tries too loot something too big the KOed person revives right away. IE body armor.

[Trenchfoot]

So like for the pacifist tribes out there, they could carry blunt weapons so they knock out somebody instead of killing them.

Great idea! I play the hell out of MnB and this never occurred to me. Way to be on your toes.

It's really not about game mechanics at all, it's about ideologies. What people have a problem with so much is competition. And they won't accept any idea that forces them to compete.

I'm still convinced that this game either has to become 'old hat' to please the non-competitive crowd, or it has to try something new and please the 5th gen crowd. Either way you loose a crowd. And the only way around that is two servers. One where you can be free, and one where the game plays itself for you.

[wolfmoonstrike]

Great idea! I play the hell out of MnB and this never occurred to me. Way to be on your toes.

It's really not about game mechanics at all, it's about ideologies. What people have a problem with so much is competition. And they won't accept any idea that forces them to compete.

I'm still convinced that this game either has to become 'old hat' to please the non-competitive crowd, or it has to try something new and please the 5th gen crowd. Either way you loose a crowd. And the only way around that is two servers. One where you can be free, and one where the game plays itself for you.

I will forever be against 2 servers but that is beside the point. No matter the decision there will be consequences both that are intended and those that aren't and even those that are completely unforeseen. I think your idea goes a long way of providing balance and still allowing people to play the way the want within the lore and within a PA world. Honestly once they add religion this could seriously fit into lore and thus RP styles.

Your goddess is a peaceful one so any transgressions against her desires means the less willing she is to protect you. Or something like that lol.

[Trenchfoot]

play the way the want within the lore and within a PA world.

Excellent point.

I came to this game for the premise. Not for pvp, not for a world building sim, but to experience the challenge of making my way (by my own merits) in a post-apoc world. Everything that takes away from that, makes me not want to play it that much more.

EDIT: Added your idea to the op wolfmoon. ty

[findangle]

PVP isn't about Tom and Jerry fights over and over again for no purpose other than loots and bragging rights..

PVP is a social control mechanism. its the difference between "if i do this.. i'll anger them and they'll come after me." and "yeah it's kind of a mean thing to do but what can they do about it?"

The idea that non-pvp'ers can elect out of the consequences of their social and political actions and not have a damaging effect on the rest of the game is simply non-pvp oriented players misunderstanding the purpose of a pvp system.

The question then becomes "what system takes over as a social control for those players that can no longer be policed by the community?"

Then of course there are the obvious issues where once you put in a safe place to craft you will see large cities full of safety crafters making weapons and armor and etc, for their homeless hobo pvp characters..

I only see one way to make safe zone's viable without breaking the overall game or providing inherently exploitable mechanics.. you must remove the safe players ability to affect the world. If you simply remove the ability for safe players to build/terra, trade or speak then it could be done relatively harmlessly.

With as much freedom as players are given in these games the player base HAS to have a tool they can use to police behavior.

An argument you hear against this is similar to the argument against public smoking bans.. it is similarly flawed. the argument is essentially that if you provide a choice, the pvp players will go pvp amongst themselves and the non pvp's will stay home and craft and everyone is happy. it usually also tries to imply that anyone who disagrees is just a noob ganker anyway and therefore has no valid opinion. The thing they don't understand is that people don't pvp because it's fun to lose crap.. people pvp because they want to beat other players. those people use ANY advantage allowed by game mechanics. if they can hide their entire production force under a no-pvp blanket they will. this means that the only pvp you can find is between two characters that have nothing to lose cause they left it all back home on their safety character.




Traditionally what you see in an MMO is this idea that your stronger pvp players are supposed to protect your weaker craft minded players. this in practice doesn't really work. it's a really boring job for a pvp type player to stand guard for hours on end.. since the players pay to play and not the other way around there is really no good way to put together coordinate 24/7 watch groups.

The problem as i see it isn't that there is too much pvp.. its that the pvp is a little too narrow. the risk of a combat oriented pvp type player attacking another similar player is obvious. they could kill you and take your stuff. whats the risk of attacking a crafter? there should be one.


Long winded post i agree but the journey is meant to put your mind in a state that is receptive to this question:

How do you make a combat oriented player look at a crafting oriented player and say "is it worth the retaliation?"

some random reasonably creative thoughts:

Spawn an NPC raiding party from the crafters village to raid the attackers village. make this attack force tough enough that the attackers village gets sick of it and either ejects the killer or makes him stop.

Have "the gods" "frown" upon the killer making them easy prey to any other combat type character.


The value of the freedom to kill anyone is more than the pve-crafter minded folks understand or admit. but to turn paying customers into sitting ducks because they chose a perfectly valid play style will kill the community. you must find a way to allow this pvp to happen while at the same time providing a steep enough consequence that it rarely actually happens.

"behave or be annihilated" is why pvp exists in games like this.. it's what separates it from counterstrike and unreal tournament. as long as you keep everyone making social choices based on potential player reprisal it works. the minute some people are able to ignore that in their decision making process you will have problems.




(Note: i'm not yet a player of xsyon.. waiting for payday to replenish my gaming budget.. but i've played wurm, darkfall and HnH WAY too much and have studied the social cultures of these games. while the exact features and implementations change from game to game the player motivations and social behaviors do not. people will play to win. if you provide safety to people who do not wish to compete that safety will be used to provide a tactical edge to those who do.)

[MrDDT]

findangle,

Good post.

As I might not agree fully with all of it, the overall thoughts are what I believe to be tree.
PVE, and PVPer can live in a world together is a great idea, and it can work.

[Trenchfoot]

Yes great post. And a good question.


How do you make a combat oriented player look at a crafting oriented player and say "is it worth the retaliation?"

If we could point to one thing I think we would. I think it really does have to be a tapestry to perform well. I don't know if I like the idea of pocket armies. But here's what I would say:

1. Make high/master level crafting highly valued, and low level crafting a time sink hassle that keeps repeating itself endlessly. So that pvp players will 'need' at least one of each type of crafter just to survive. Otherwise they should be relinquished to pvping in between making new shoes and clothes and whatever other day to day necessities which will eat up a lot of their 'pvp' time, because the low level crap they make is darn near useless (keeps wearing out or breaking every few uses). In other words, if you want to be a successful pvp player, you can't do it on your own. Not only should you need superior numbers of warriors in combat, but you should also need superior numbers of crafters to supply you.

2. Make the maintenance of high/master level crafting impossible to maintain unless you focus solely on it. Again, if you want to pvp, you need to get your 'time' to do so from crafters. Otherwise you should be caught up in day to day survival for the most part. Several crafters under your wing so to speak, should give you an enormous edge in combat. Both in terms of gear and logistics.

3. Allow players to form their own nations/alliances, with the ability to retaliate. ie. If one of you attacks one of us, you pass along the right for all of us to attack any of you (and your crafters). Also through this mechanism players would be able to establish their own ideals, laws, and customs. A warring nation that recruits and actively protects crafters (a crafters haven) should be a nation to be feared on the battlefield far and above those who do not.

4. Let solo play be highly undesirable. Like the difference between central air and a fan in the window in the 90 degree heat. If people want to isolate themselves from the politics and alliances of the world, they should lead a meager existence. Likewise people should gravitate to comfort, provision, and safety in numbers in a post-apoc world. In general, dedicated crafters should be drawn to large safe tribes and learn not to put themselves in danger by wandering too far from the safety of their tribe/alliance/nation. It makes sense to me that in a post-apoc world you're either a wolf or a sheep. And if you're a sheep you're either subject to the wolves or you get yourself a sheep dog. Crafters should seek pvprs just as much as pvp should seek crafters. It should be an extremely symbiotic relationship.

[Jadzia]

Trenchfoot, so you basically suggest crafters to:

1. be forced to join a huge tribe
2. stay at home in like 90% of their time.

I can tell you these options won't attract many crafters to play the game.



Spawn an NPC raiding party from the crafters village to raid the attackers village. make this attack force tough enough that the attackers village gets sick of it and either ejects the killer or makes him stop.

Have "the gods" "frown" upon the killer making them easy prey to any other combat type character.

I like these ideas.

[MrDDT]

3. Allow players to form their own nations/alliances, with the ability to retaliate. ie. If one of you attacks one of us, you pass along the right for all of us to attack any of you (and your crafters). Also through this mechanism players would be able to establish their own ideals, laws, and customs. A warring nation that recruits and actively protects crafters (a crafters haven) should be a nation to be feared on the battlefield far and above those who do not.


I agree with #1, #2, and #4.

#3 however, I don't agree with.
First off why would a tribe have to have crafters in them to be powerful on the battlefield? Couldn't you say, buy the best weapons and armor?

I sorta agree with protecting crafters (really I think you should protect the "Good" or "Innocent") with systems that want to make it so you dont attack these people over people that are looking for PVP. But really I don't see the need to have the idea that the strongest tribes on the battlefield will be ones supported with good crafters in their clans. Trade and Politics play a huge role here, I would think it wouldn't matter where the good weapons/armor/city building/labor comes from as long as its there.

I think the key is that you should allow people to play how they want, while still allowing them to mesh. Innocents that are mostly safe from warring, and evils is key to keeping the system working. This will need to have punishments for attacking innocents, Goods, and non aggressive type of people. It will need to have safe areas for newer players. It will also need to entertain people that want to play in that fashion. Now on the other hand, it will need to need to reward risky play, and the people that want to PVP. Evil actions should be bad in game but possible to do.

Xsyon once said he wants most people to be good or neutral with only a few evil. Well that means evil needs to be punished greatly to keep it suppressed. I agree with that, and I think its best for the game to do that.

Now back to the crafters (innocent non pvpers). If they made it so that killing these innocents, would punish the attacker greatly but still allow them to do it. I think that would be the key. Like the other guy said. "Is it worth it". Kinda like Darkfall now. "Do I want to take the kill count", if the guy just killed a Dragon and is running off with the loot, you betcha. But if its just a random player killing goblins, Im going to walk on by.

[Trenchfoot]

Trenchfoot, so you basically suggest crafters to:

1. be forced to join a huge tribe
2. stay at home in like 90% of their time.

In answer to number one I would say 'yes'. But I would also add not just crafters. A solo pvpr should make just as easy prey. In fact 'everyone' should highly favor safety in numbers.

As for two, again, this goes for everyone. And I would add with the ability to form nations and alliances, 'at home' as you say could cover an enormous area.

@DDT


don't see the need to have the idea that the strongest tribes on the battlefield will be ones supported with good crafters in their clans.

Not what I said. The point is that it should give a highly desirable edge.

EDIT: Also combat ability should be a commodity just like any other craft. The ability to pvp should be just as much of a provision to be bought, sold, traded as any other craft.

[findangle]

interesting ideas.. i agree with a lot of it.

some problems i see though:

1: having to convince the pvp junkies to sit around town and babysit the crafters may get boring and frustrating unless having crafters attracts pvp. having to be escorted by combat players everywhere while your going about your business hasn't really worked in eve or darkfall. it works ok in wurm i guess but in that case you literally cannot survive otherwise. I suppose this could work given the right incentive.

2: unfortunately at this point in darkfall that doesn't happen ddt.. at this point if it moves its dead. not many people care about blue or red anymore. i suppose this is because the only bad part about being red these days is you can't go into starter cities. which sort of points to incentive i guess.



I think this thread is very much on the right path. provide proper incentive for the playerbase to protect their own. an invulnerable flag will be abused by the folks playing to crush. and while i'm all in favor of playing to crush, I think eve, darkfall, wurm and HnH have shown us that when the meek get crushed continuously they go play wow and the game falls apart.


hope to see you all in there soon. this community is looking very promising.


2:

[Trenchfoot]

1: having to convince the pvp junkies to sit around town and babysit the crafters may get boring and frustrating unless having crafters attracts pvp. having to be escorted by combat players everywhere while your going about your business hasn't really worked in eve or darkfall. it works ok in wurm i guess but in that case you literally cannot survive otherwise. I suppose this could work given the right incentive.

I don't think they should have to babysit. All the pvpr would have to do is patrol, presence, and physically own their territory. Which they should do anyway if they intend to claim an area as theirs. Crafters or no crafters. For the pvprs it would be a matter of territory control, not an escort job. Unless of course they wanted to, or are hired to do just that.

Add to that the ability to build outposts, forts, trading posts, etc. And the pvprs will be a commodity for their presence in the land, not necessarily a presence at the side of every crafter. As a crafter could run to a nearby fort where they know a military presence resides. The crafters will learn where the highest activity of the pvprs in their tribe are and revolve around those areas. Then it becomes a cooperative form of teamwork by all parties performing their best skill assets normally, instead of a babysitting job.

@Jadz

I find it funny when the non-pvp crowd thinks pvprs should need crafters, but crafters shouldn't need pvprs. If crafters shouldn't ever need pvprs for safety, then pvprs should likewise never need crafters to supply them. And where does that leave us?

[Jadzia]

I find it funny when the non-pvp crowd thinks pvprs should need crafters, but crafters shouldn't need pvprs. If crafters shouldn't ever need pvprs for safety, then pvprs should likewise never need crafters to supply them. And where does that leave us?
PvPers need crafters....are you sure ? PvPers need crafted goods, but they can get it by looting as well. A PvPer is never forced to have a good relationship with a crafter if he can get what he wants by force. But even if I agree with you that a PvPer need a crafter, how does that work ? The PvPer needs something, he goes to the crafter and buys it. Takes like 5 minutes. With your suggestion a crafter would need a PvPer to guard him....all the time. Thats boring and isn't good or fun to any of them, and limits crafters big time.

@findangle:
Absolutely agree with #1. Nothing is more boring to a PvP player than to sit around for hours and watch his gatherer friend to collect some resources. If that happens at rare resource hubs thats a different question...in such a place an attack wouldn't be a rare case but something which almost always happens. To have a friend guarding you would make sense there.

[Trenchfoot]

PvPers need crafters....are you sure ?

They should. It's a matter of 'should any profession be worth anything to anyone else?'. You agree that your chosen specialty should be necessary to those who don't perform the same role correct?


PvPers need crafted goods, but they can get it by looting as well. A PvPer is never forced to have a good relationship with a crafter if he can get what he wants by force.

Sure if the pvpr wants to be poor and live like a bandit in the hills and eat pourage and live in a lean to. Are you suggesting a crafter would carry around high level gear that a pvpr could use profitably? Then if you say 'Well they'll just form raiding parties to supply themselves on loot alone.'. I say fine. This is where nations/alliances/groups of tribes can become involved and we'll see how long they're able to keep that going. Every time you try to make this profitable you make more enemies, which makes it viable only in the short term.


But even if I agree with you that a PvPer need a crafter, how does that work ? The PvPer needs something, he goes to the crafter and buys it. Takes like 5 minutes.

Pvprs don't just need crafted goods, they need better crafted goods. There's a difference between sustaining yourself by visiting the crafter 8 times a day and having one under your wing who gets you the 'good stuff' in exchange for the safety and provision to pursue their craft.

This not only applies to gear, but to food, housing, clothing, and generally everything you don't have time to fool with 20 times a day if you want to pvp or craft for that matter. There should be a huge difference between fishing to feed yourself several times a day and a hot meal prepared by skilled cooks that holds you over for a much longer period. The cooks who in turn got their food from the farmers, the farmers who wore out their tools, the tool makers who need clothes, the tailors who need housing to be comfortable enough to produce high quality goods from the architects. All these things need to fit together and rely upon one another for a chosen profession to be valuable. In short, if you're lacking a dedicated professional, your society should suffer the consequences of that lack (including pvp).


With your suggestion a crafter would need a PvPer to guard him....all the time. Thats boring and isn't good or fun to any of them, and limits crafters big time.

Not all the time. But the pvpr would need to provide an active presence in their territory. If I am a raider and I know the pvprs of a tribe are highly active in an area, it would give me pause to consider the profit vs. loss of raiding that area. And on the level of warfare, pvprs who try to supply their war efforts thru loot, should make a considerably easier target than a tribe who has in house professionals. This would also create more effort involved in warfare. ie. To wage war, not only do we need an attack force but we need a defense force at the same time to protect our supply.

So yes, people should be 'forced' to work together in exchange for a higher rate of success/comfort/time to pursue your chosen profession. This should go for everyone and for everything you're not. Master craftsmanship should generally take place where people work together to provide the things that give professions (pvp included) the time to pursue their craft exclusively. So I'm not just talking about pvpr vs. crafter needs. I'm talking about the needs of all professions as a whole, to desire what they lack. Whether it's warriors or cooks.

EDIT: Name one profession that should not need any other professions in order to better their own profession. It's a matter of gaining more time to be the best at what you are by working together with others who aren't what you are.

[MrDDT]

PvPers need crafters....are you sure ? PvPers need crafted goods, but they can get it by looting as well. A PvPer is never forced to have a good relationship with a crafter if he can get what he wants by force. But even if I agree with you that a PvPer need a crafter, how does that work ? The PvPer needs something, he goes to the crafter and buys it. Takes like 5 minutes. With your suggestion a crafter would need a PvPer to guard him....all the time. Thats boring and isn't good or fun to any of them, and limits crafters big time.

PVPers need to build good relations with crafters (Good PVPers at least) because most good PVPers have special high end needs for gear.
I look at Darkfall, and I would almost never find the gear I want off another player. First off the players at my level would likely die rarely, and if they did die it would likely be split between many people. As thats how I normally die to many people.

That's not even counting the fact that its used gear. As a good PVPer you want top end gear, in top shape. Which either makes you have an alt for crafting your high end needs, a great contact with a crafter, or a great crafter in your guild/tribe.

This isnt even counting the fact what if they need crafters repair walls during battles? Or maybe make sieges on the fly at other battles.


I agree with Trenchfoot. Its not about standing around "guarding" a player. Its controlling your area. You are out hunting, or PVPing and you are protecting the crafter. Sure you are not 10FT from them standing watch, but if the call for help goes up, you are dropping what you are doing to protect your village and weaker members. That's how protection works. Also you protect by showing force. I were a PVPer protecting, I would kill others and they would know "Dont mess with that tribe, they have good players" etc.


I also look forward to the day of trading merchant road type of stuff. Say as a crafter you get an order from a tribe 2 or 3 zones away for swords and armor. Well they nor you can just easy get the good to them. You will need protection or an export agreement with an exporter tribe, who will need to either have their own protection or use your tribes (or the buyers tribes) for protection.
Sure right now this isnt in, because of the "Respawn" with all your items issue. But I expect that to change.


Ive played many games, and PVPers need good crafters. Most of the time the problem is that crafters tend not to need PVPers due to safe zones and such. Darkfall and EVE are ones where it shows otherwise.

[Jadzia]

Not all the time. But the pvpr would need to provide an active presence in their territory. If I am a raider and I know the pvprs of a tribe are highly active in an area, it would give me pause to consider the profit vs. loss of raiding that area. And on the level of warfare, pvprs who try to supply their war efforts thru loot, should make a considerably easier target than a tribe who has in house professionals. This would also create more effort involved in warfare. ie. To wage war, not only do we need an attack force but we need a defense force at the same time to protect our supply.

So yes, people should be 'forced' to work together in exchange for a higher rate of success/comfort/time to pursue your chosen profession. This should go for everyone and for everything you're not. Master craftsmanship should generally take place where people work together to provide the things that give professions (pvp included) the time to pursue their craft exclusively. So I'm not just talking about pvpr vs. crafter needs. I'm talking about the needs of all professions as a whole, to desire what they lack. Whether it's warriors or cooks.

EDIT: Name one profession that should not need any other professions in order to better their own profession. It's a matter of gaining more time to be the best at what you are by working together with others who aren't what you are.
I understand your point, Trench. This could even work in a game with high population, would never work with a low pop one. But is it good if it works ?

What I meant was that this system doesn't create a good gameplay, but a boring one. Especially for the PvPers. What you described is how real life works...police or military roam around and patrol an area, scares the criminals away thus the area stays kind of safe. But in real life the policemen don't want to fight...their goal is to avoid it. In Xsyon PvPers do want to fight, their goal is not to scare away the opponent simply by their presence.

Let's see the options:
1. a tribe can't protect their crafters, they are not strong enough: the crafters will leave the game or join a bigger tribe, the tribe falls apart.

2. a tribe is big enough to protect their area: they will grow, new players will join who have left their smaller tribe due to their failed attempt to protect them. They strongly patrol their area so no PvPer in his right mind would attack... there is no fight, or very rare. Crafters craft in peace and enjoy the game, PvPers are bored out of their mind.

So we would end up with 2-3 huge tribe controlling the whole land, they wouldn't attack each others (why would they, they have everything they need) so PvP is kind of eliminated. This system is good for crafters but makes no sense PvP-wise.

Why not to get a coded mechanic which makes the boring job for us (patrolling and guarding), and gives the opportunity the PvPers to find good fights beside trading routes or resource hubs ? Why would they stay at home for patrol where attacks hardly happens and they only waste their time roaming around doing nothing, while their luckier tribemates are out finding someone to kill ?

[MrDDT]

I understand your point, Trench. This could even work in a game with high population, would never work with a low pop one. But is it good if it works ?

What I meant was that this system doesn't create a good gameplay, but a boring one. Especially for the PvPers. What you described is how real life works...police or military roam around and patrol an area, scares the criminals away thus the area stays kind of safe. But in real life the policemen don't want to fight...their goal is to avoid it. In Xsyon PvPers do want to fight, their goal is not to scare away the opponent simply by their presence.

Let's see the options:
1. a tribe can't protect their crafters, they are not strong enough: the crafters will leave the game or join a bigger tribe, the tribe falls apart.

2. a tribe is big enough to protect their area: they will grow, new players will join who have left their smaller tribe due to their failed attempt to protect them. They strongly patrol their area so no PvPer in his right mind would attack... there is no fight, or very rare. Crafters craft in peace and enjoy the game, PvPers are bored out of their mind.

So we would end up with 2-3 huge tribe controlling the whole land, they wouldn't attack each others (why would they, they have everything they need) so PvP is kind of eliminated. This system is good for crafters but makes no sense PvP-wise.

Why not to get a coded mechanic which makes the boring job for us (patrolling and guarding), and gives the opportunity the PvPers to find good fights beside trading routes or resource hubs ? Why would they stay at home for patrol where attacks hardly happens and they only waste their time roaming around doing nothing, while their luckier tribemates are out finding someone to kill ?


I think you are only seeing part of the system.

You make all valid points. However, I believe there still should be some safe areas for people. I think even Trench said there should be. Just they should be limited on what they can make as far as high quality goes, and maybe special rare items.

I think also there should be systems in place to limit how effective "large" tribes are. Thus you will want to cull your fat off. Meaning like cost resources per member to upkeep totem while in war status, or in some areas. Or maybe like base it on active members.
Also I do not believe in the "more people = bigger area" I think more active people should = bigger area.
Im a firm believer of making the totem cost in resources. Now it doesnt have to be as in like trees, or whatever. It could be simply praying at the totem. More prayers = larger area etc. But right now we have totems that are max size even with a bunch of inactive accounts in them.

[Edit]
Also you think PVPers will be bored, but thats when trouble starts.
Things like wars, and raids, and going out and picking fights. Also when the troops get restless fights break out internally. This will cause these groups to break up and cause more strife.

[Jadzia]

I think you are only seeing part of the system.

You make all valid points. However, I believe there still should be some safe areas for people. I think even Trench said there should be. Just they should be limited on what they can make as far as high quality goes, and maybe special rare items.

I think also there should be systems in place to limit how effective "large" tribes are. Thus you will want to cull your fat off. Meaning like cost resources per member to upkeep totem while in war status, or in some areas. Or maybe like base it on active members.
Also I do not believe in the "more people = bigger area" I think more active people should = bigger area.
Im a firm believer of making the totem cost in resources. Now it doesnt have to be as in like trees, or whatever. It could be simply praying at the totem. More prayers = larger area etc. But right now we have totems that are max size even with a bunch of inactive accounts in them.

[Edit]
Also you think PVPers will be bored, but thats when trouble starts.
Things like wars, and raids, and going out and picking fights. Also when the troops get restless fights break out internally. This will cause these groups to break up and cause more strife.
That wouldn't solve the problem with 2-3 huge tribes. They would be huge because of active players, not inactive ones.

What you said about bored PvPers may be right. Its not likely though, since the game would end up with some equally strong big tribes, and they wouldn't risk to attack each others, there would be too big risk of losing. Remember, smaller tribes or soloers already left the game in this scenario or joined one of the big tribes. But even if some go out to find a fight still many of them would have to stay at home to protect the crafters...while the lucky ones who are not on duty are out having fun. Why not to have a coded mechanic which makes the boring job for us ?

And again, a system like this only works if the game has a high population. But its impossible to reach high pop with a system like this if the initial population is low.

I don't know even one game with full loot open PvP where this system (players policing everything and they are the only ones who protect non-PvPers) works. All the games who tried this have a very low population and declining, or died already. Is there a game with this system which is flourishing ?

[MrDDT]

That wouldn't solve the problem with 2-3 huge tribes. They would be huge because of active players, not inactive ones.

What you said about bored PvPers may be right. Its not likely though, since the game would end up with some equally strong big tribes, and they wouldn't risk to attack each others, there would be too big risk of losing. Remember, smaller tribes or soloers already left the game in this scenario or joined one of the big tribes. But even if some go out to find a fight still many of them would have to stay at home to protect the crafters...while the lucky ones who are not on duty are out having fun. Why not to have a coded mechanic which makes the boring job for us ?

And again, a system like this only works if the game has a high population. But its impossible to reach high pop with a system like this if the initial population is low.


I dont see why you think 2 big guilds wouldnt attack each other. Also if there were only 2 big guilds (which Ive never ever seen happen in any FFA PVP game) then they are very likely to break up due to no combat. Many PVPers in those guilds would be pissed of not being able to fight.

What you are saying is something that doesnt happen, never has happened and wont happen. To many smaller factions break off and want to start their own.

Also Im glad they would be active ones (first I dont agree with this), but if I were in a guild having to pay resources and time for many other members, over time I would get upset and make a small group of people that I know that really work. Bigger a guild gets the more resources it takes to keep that up, the more they will also have some people that dont pull even weight.

It happens in DFO all the time and the only resource that is needed there is portal shards. People get tired of using them on people that are almost dead weight.




I don't know even one game with full loot open PvP where this system (players policing everything and they are the only ones who protect non-PvPers) works. All the games who tried this have a very low population and declining, or died already. Is there a game with this system which is flourishing ?


EVE, UO, Darkfall. Just to name a few.


How about this, name some carebear games like you are talking about with only 5 devs without low population and declining or died already? Please. Thanks.

Again focus, there should be safe areas, there should be rewards for building and defending outside these areas, and there should be reasons and things to fight over.
I have no idea what you are talking about but clearly you dont think like a PVPer.
What you are saying is "bored" for PVPers are their wet dreams.

[xyberviri]

I don't know even one game with full loot open PvP where this system (players policing everything and they are the only ones who protect non-PvPers) works. All the games who tried this have a very low population and declining, or died already. Is there a game with this system which is flourishing ?

Personally i think the Gaming community as a whole is to blame for this, to be honest Gamers now a days have it WAAAAAAAYYYY too easy, i remember when RPG games were hard, hell Pen and Paper RPG games were Harder than anything out there, im geting sick and tired of the lovey dovey everything is politically correct land of carebear mmo's.

Your kids get in trouble for call other kids names, they get in trouble for beating some one up, you get in trouble for not respecting some one and keeping your mouth shut, yes certain things should be off limits like people with disabilities, but if some one thinks your a dumbass they should not get in trouble because they voiced there oppinion, you should be able to just ignore them or kick there ass.

but back in the old days all this stuff was normal, heck it was right of passage.

the world is too lovey dovey pc dont call me names because everyone is my equal and were all one earth love the mother tree crap.



TLDR: Gamers need to grow up, were becoming a society of wimps that need a good old ass beating to toughen us up.

Added after 7 minutes:

DAMIT would you two stop edit posting your old posts
:p

[Jadzia]

EVE, UO, Darkfall. Just to name a few.
These are very bad answers for my question. UO has Trammel, and they started it with a good reason. Eve has Concord, the perfect example for a coded NPC mechanic to protect non-PvPers.
Darkfall as a flourishing game ? Lol really :)


How about this, name some carebear games like you are talking about with only 5 devs without low population and declining or died already? Please. Thanks.
Huh ? Did I say you can only name games with 5 devs ? And no need to get that defensive. I was really courious if there is even 1 game out there which works well with this system. I don't know even one, and seems you don't know one either.

I can name a lot of 'carebear' game which is flourishing, but this is not the point.

@xyberviri: a lot more players play MMOs now than in the good old days :) And these people got used to be treated with respect and politeness, and they don't want to bear with jerks in their free time :)
And I didn't edit my pots, check it. This forum acts really weird...it shows posts even before they are submitted. I've seen this many times lol...its really odd.

[MrDDT]

These are very bad answers for my question. UO has Trammel, and they started it with a good reason. Eve has Concord, the perfect example for a coded NPC mechanic to protect non-PvPers.
Darkfall as a flourishing game ? Lol really :)


Huh ? Did I say you can only name games with 5 devs ? And no need to get that defensive. I was really courious if there is even 1 game out there which works well with this system. I don't know even one, and seems you don't know one either.

I can name a lot of 'carebear' game which is flourishing, but this is not the point.

@xyberviri: a lot more players play MMOs now than in the good old days :) And these people got used to be treated with respect and politeness, and they don't want to bear with jerks in their free time :)
And I didn't edit my pots, check it. This forum acts really weird...it shows posts even before they are submitted. I've seen this many times lol...its really odd.



Yes UO has trammel. Im missing your point. Im saying have safe zones in this game too.
Eve has concord. Again read what I said. Xsyon should have safe areas.
Darkfall yes its flourshing. Its not WOW but the pop is going up not down. It has way way more than Xsyon, both servers are active they dont release numbers every month so I cant tell you.

All 3 of those have "safe" areas. Just as I believe Xsyon should have.
I dont think it has to have special towers or guards that zap you in 1 hit, but I think there should be something like them.
Notice also ALL these of those I listed. They have rare resources that you CANT get in the safe areas? Its for a reason. Just wanted to point that out.

I didnt say you said that to name games with only 5 devs. Im telling you name some. Answer the question like I answered yours. You acting like because of this PVP system is why Xsyon doesnt have the player amount or something. When it has nothing to do with it.

I can name many PVP games that are flourishing. Whats your point?

I want Xsyon to have a system like Eve's or UO, or even Darkfall's. Not where you can place a safe totem anywhere. I want limited rare resources in these areas far away from safety. I want places to fight over, and control.

[Trenchfoot]

@DDT

I fully support safe zones for the time being (we all know why), but in the future I would like to see them removed for the most part, except as an introductory mechanism for new players. ie. The noob towns that never expand, doesn't grow or change or provide any substantial profit and is there for the sole purpose of learning the game before you commit to the risks of establishing yourself in the 'real' world.

@xyber

Exactly. I want something new. Something that is a real challenge that engages and requires you to 'pay your dues'. But you're right no one pays dues anymore.

@Jadz

You're right this wouldn't work with a very low pop. But it could be glorious with a full house. Rich with decisions to create.

Also, if the game is good enough, it should engage you to think beyond the math. How certain the odds are that I may die against the odds that I reap profits is only a part of why people decide to fight or not. I may fight on the principle alone, with all disregard for the odds. In the end you may get my stuff and my corpse, but you'll not secure my compliance. People will defend their beliefs, both passively and aggressively.

[Jadzia]

DDT, whats wrong with you ? You can't stand any conversation about someone's idea if it is not yours ? I was commenting on Trench's idea. You commented on my post, in my reply I was still talking about the system Trench described. He never mentioned safe zones, and I know he doesn't want them.

I asked you to list games like that have a system he described and are flourishing.

I don't know even one game with full loot open PvP where this system (players policing everything and they are the only ones who protect non-PvPers) works.

You listed Eve and UO and Darkfall. Then you said you know UO has Trammel and Eve has Concord. I really wonder if you even read my posts before you reply lol. I doubt it.


You acting like because of this PVP system is why Xsyon doesnt have the player amount or something. When it has nothing to do with it.
Where did I say that ? I was talking about the system Trench suggested...its not the one Xsyon has, and not the one Xsyon plans. I said games with player policing system have low population...not Xsyon.

About games. I usually have no idea how many devs develop a game. I know though that RuneScape was created by 2 brothers, and the game became really popular when they announced the new RuneScape back in 2005. Now they have a much bigger team but the start was small. I still don't understand though that what game mechanic has to do with developers numbers ?

@Trenchfoot:
We agree that your system could work with high population, but not with a low one. But how to reach that high population then ? Since the system doesn't work with few players the playerbase won't grow...

[Trenchfoot]

We agree that your system could work with high population, but not with a low one. But how to reach that high population then ? Since the system doesn't work with few players the playerbase won't grow...

That's not what I meant. I wasn't saying the system wouldn't work in low pop because of the system. I was agreeing that the game needs lots of players. Doesn't matter what system you put in, the game will always need lots of players or it's going to flop anyway.

The very week they put in a good working combat system you'll have subscribers. Add siege warfare and watch the population triple overnight. That part's a no brainer. I can't count all the people I know personally who are waiting for this game to be something new and not the same old thing, on my fingers and toes.

EDIT: I should mention I still have all my fingers and toes.

[Jadzia]

That's not what I meant. I wasn't saying the system wouldn't work in low pop because of the system. I was agreeing that the game needs lots of players. Doesn't matter what system you put in, the game will always need lots of players or it's going to flop anyway.

The very week they put in a good working combat system you'll have subscribers. Add siege warfare and watch the population triple overnight. That part's a no brainer. I can't count all the people I know personally who are waiting for this game to be something new and not the same old thing, on my fingers and toes.

EDIT: I should mention I still have all my fingers and toes.
Lol on the last sentence :p

Doesn't Darkfall work in the same way ? Working combat system (I don't know how good it is), siege warfare, player policing the servers. The population is low.

What I meant that you said in your system PvPers should protect crafters, instead of some coded mechanism. This can only work if there are a lot of players, who can provide 24/7 safety to non-PvPers. Otherwise non-PvPers would leave the game by time.
I still prefer findangle's suggestion, it would work much better imo.

And welcome, findangle, nice to see you bought the game, hope you will enjoy it :)

[MrDDT]

Lol on the last sentence :p

Doesn't Darkfall work in the same way ? Working combat system (I don't know how good it is), siege warfare, player policing the servers. The population is low.

What I meant that you said in your system PvPers should protect crafters, instead of some coded mechanism. This can only work if there are a lot of players, who can provide 24/7 safety to non-PvPers. Otherwise non-PvPers would leave the game by time.
I still prefer findangle's suggestion, it would work much better imo.

And welcome, findangle, nice to see you bought the game, hope you will enjoy it :)


Pop was low on DFO not because of the PVP system, because of the grind bugs and macroing/expoiting.

Dont fix FFA PVP to low pop. Yes I agree its not the highest %, but you dont have data to show that. Name one AAA+ game that has FFA PVP full loot?

[Trenchfoot]

What I meant that you said in your system PvPers should protect crafters, instead of some coded mechanism. This can only work if there are a lot of players, who can provide 24/7 safety to non-PvPers. Otherwise non-PvPers would leave the game by time.

The same can be said for everything (or should be). Safety is what pvprs provide. On the inverse I could also say that if there aren't enough players to be non-pvp dedicated crafters, pvp would be too much of a chore and they would leave.

My point is that pvprs should be a link in the chain of things everyone needs just like every other skill set. Basketeers provide baskets, weapon crafters provide weapons, farmers provide foodstuffs, tailors provide clothes, etc. And pvprs provide combat/safety. Non-pvp should need what pvp provides, just as much as pvp should need what non-pvp provides. It should be like every other desired service/goods.

[MrDDT]

The same can be said for everything (or should be). Safety is what pvprs provide. On the inverse I could also say that if there aren't enough players to be non-pvp dedicated crafters, pvp would be too much of a chore and they would leave.

My point is that pvprs should be a link in the chain of things everyone needs just like every other skill set. Basketeers provide baskets, weapon crafters provide weapons, farmers provide foodstuffs, tailors provide clothes, etc. And pvprs provide combat/safety. Non-pvp should need what pvp provides, just as much as pvp should need what non-pvp provides. It should be like every other desired service/goods.


I agree with this 100%.

Broken game isnt good for anyone.

Also like you said the chain is more than just 1 or 2 links.

[Jadzia]

Pop was low on DFO not because of the PVP system, because of the grind bugs and macroing/expoiting.

Thats what you say, and you may be partially right. But I know a lot of players (myself included) who hasn't even tried the game because of its PvP system. It has low PvP population because of bugs, and even lower non-PvP population because of the PvP system.



Dont fix FFA PVP to low pop. Yes I agree its not the highest %, but you dont have data to show that. Name one AAA+ game that has FFA PVP full loot?
There is a reason there is no AAA+ game with FFA PvP full loot. They wouldn't put so much money into a game which they know would only get a very niche playerbase.
UO started with that. They changed it. RuneScape started with that. They changed it.
Developers want players...and they don't come because the player policing system doesn't work, so they change it.

Even the creator of Lineage 2 (which has FFA PvP, thought with safety in towns and no full loot) changed his system in his new game. Archeage will have 2 PvE continents and 1 PvP one. Experience shows that if you want a game flourish you need coded protection.


My point is that pvprs should be a link in the chain of things everyone needs just like every other skill set. Basketeers provide baskets, weapon crafters provide weapons, farmers provide foodstuffs, tailors provide clothes, etc. And pvprs provide combat/safety. Non-pvp should need what pvp provides, just as much as pvp should need what non-pvp provides. It should be like every other desired service/goods.
I agree with that. PvPers should provide protection time by time, just like crafters provide crafted good when its needed. Not all the time. There should be rare resource hubs and some trade routes where players need to go if they want fast travel or nice amount of rare stuffs. In those cases they should hire a PvPer to protect them. But not all the time, not in every moment of the game. It can't work.

[Trenchfoot]

I agree with that. PvPers should provide protection time by time, just like crafters provide crafted good when its needed. Not all the time. There should be rare resource hubs and some trade routes where players need to go if they want fast travel or nice amount of rare stuffs. In those cases they should hire a PvPer to protect them. But not all the time, not in every moment of the game. It can't work.

The better they are the less you'll need them.

Also the FFA argument is a bad one. In a world of console games that by tradition are designed for you to win so that you get bored and go buy the next one, people have been trained to enjoy winning over genuine competition. Not to mention that FFA is generally an adult idea. Which tends to restrict its player base to a smaller age group as opposed to popular 'for all ages' titles. Just my opinion.

[MrDDT]

Thats what you say, and you may be partially right. But I know a lot of players (myself included) who hasn't even tried the game because of its PvP system. It has low PvP population because of bugs, and even lower non-PvP population because of the PvP system.


There is a reason there is no AAA+ game with FFA PvP full loot. They wouldn't put so much money into a game which they know would only get a very niche playerbase.
UO started with that. They changed it. RuneScape started with that. They changed it.
Developers want players...and they don't come because the player policing system doesn't work, so they change it.

Even the creator of Lineage 2 (which has FFA PvP, thought with safety in towns and no full loot) changed his system in his new game. Archeage will have 2 PvE continents and 1 PvP one. Experience shows that if you want a game flourish you need coded protection.


I agree with that. PvPers should provide protection time by time, just like crafters provide crafted good when its needed. Not all the time. There should be rare resource hubs and some trade routes where players need to go if they want fast travel or nice amount of rare stuffs. In those cases they should hire a PvPer to protect them. But not all the time, not in every moment of the game. It can't work.



You say it cant work, yet you talk about how Archeage is doing it. Very odd. Using your own data, it shows you yourself are wrong.

UO is still a FFA PVP full loot game.
I dont know about Runescape and I would never call it AAA+.

The reason no AAA+ does it, because of the balancing issue. Not because of the drive.
Its so much easier to make a game like Rift and WOW than it is to make a game like Xsyon.
Same can be said why no AAA+ game has yet to make a sandbox like Xsyon. Even if you throw PVP out the window where are the AAA+ games makers doing Sandboxes? You think its because of the lack of people wanting to play them? haha.

[Jadzia]

You say it cant work, yet you talk about how Archeage is doing it. Very odd. Using your own data, it shows you yourself are wrong.

Archeage is doing it ? Doing what ? It won't be an open world FFA full loot game. It will have safe zones and PvP zones, with coded protection.


The reason no AAA+ does it, because of the balancing issue. Not because of the drive.
Its so much easier to make a game like Rift and WOW than it is to make a game like Xsyon.
Same can be said why no AAA+ game has yet to make a sandbox like Xsyon. Even if you throw PVP out the window where are the AAA+ games makers doing Sandboxes? You think its because of the lack of people wanting to play them? haha.
This is again your opinion, not a fact, and my opinion is that you are wrong.

And now there is an AAA+ game-maker making a sandbox. I wish him good luck.

[MrDDT]

Archeage is doing it ? Doing what ? It won't be an open world FFA full loot game. It will have safe zones and PvP zones, with coded protection.

This is again your opinion, not a fact, and my opinion is that you are wrong.

And now there is an AAA+ game-maker making a sandbox. I wish him good luck.


So its going to have Safe zones? Wow nice. Did you read how they were doing it? I did.
They are going to have full loot, and it is going to be FFA. You should check it out. Its pretty cool ideas. (Multi servers)

Making a game like Rift or WOW is easier than a sandbox game. Thats a fact, not an opinion.

Blizzard already said it. You should read up on why they dont do a Sandbox game. They already said its not the drive its the balancing and other issues (FPS style combat is too hard for them).

[Jadzia]

So its going to have Safe zones? Wow nice. Did you read how they were doing it? I did.
They are going to have full loot, and it is going to be FFA. You should check it out. Its pretty cool ideas. (Multi servers)

Making a game like Rift or WOW is easier than a sandbox game. Thats a fact, not an opinion.

Blizzard already said it. You should read up on why they dont do a Sandbox game. They already said its not the drive its the balancing and other issues (FPS style combat is too hard for them).
Yes I read about it. It will have 2 safe continent, and 1 for open PvP. Very nice setup imo. They will start 2 or 3 different servers with different PvP setups. They haven't announced the looting system yet, it won't be full loot on the limited PvP servers for sure, perhaps on the unlimited PvP server, but there is no info on that yet.

If it was the balancing issue which keeps AAA companies back from creating FFA PvP games then they wouldn't create any PvP, since its supposed to be balanced no matter if its FFA or not.

[MrDDT]

If it was the balancing issue which keeps AAA companies back from creating FFA PvP games then they wouldn't create any PvP, since its supposed to be balanced no matter if its FFA or not.

Balancing PVP is hard always. But people get more upset when all their hard work is destroyed or items are gone because they died to an imbalanced PVP system.
If you lose nothing in PVP, then balance issues are a lot lesser of a concern.

Read up on why Blizzard didnt do it.

About that other MMO. They have said the looting system. You just might now know it.
Anyways the point is not to talk about another game. The key is what can work, and what is likely to work.

PVP full loot can work, it just needs its checks and balances. Good/Neut/Evil system Xsyon already laid out before is a good system. Just needs to be put in place, like so many other features.
Xsyon is having a lack of pop due to missing features, bugs, crashing, etc. I dont think its because of a full loot PVP system. (Last line is my opinion first one is fact)

[Jadzia]

PVP full loot can work, it just needs its checks and balances. Good/Neut/Evil system Xsyon already laid out before is a good system. Just needs to be put in place, like so many other features.
Xsyon is having a lack of pop due to missing features, bugs, crashing, etc. I dont think its because of a full loot PVP system. (Last line is my opinion first one is fact)
PvP full loot can work, I said a world without any coded protection and with ONLY player policing can't work.

No one said in this thread that Xsyon has low pop because of its PvP system. Actually no one talked about Xsyon's population but you :)

Please link where AA devs talked about the looting system, I'm really interested it. In every fansite all I read was that it won't be full loot, even partial loot isn't confirmed.

Edit: nvm the link, I found an interview. There won't be any looting, not even a partial one, no item drop on death.

[MrDDT]

PvP full loot can work, I said a world without any coded protection and with ONLY player policing can't work.

No one said in this thread that Xsyon has low pop because of its PvP system. Actually no one talked about Xsyon's population but you :)



My opinion is that I dont want only players policing the server. I want a system with good and evil, with some safe areas for protections for newbs and other non pvp types.

You inferred that PVP FFA is the reason why other games are low population and we are talking about this system applying to Xsyon. Thus you brought it up.
Im stating opinion and facts on why they are not the reason why Xsyon and other FFA PVP games are low POP.

I dont know any game at all ever that only has players policing the server. So Im not understanding your point on that either.

[Jadzia]

My opinion is that I dont want only players policing the server. I want a system with good and evil, with some safe areas for protections for newbs and other non pvp types.

Good. So you disagree with Trench.



You inferred that PVP FFA is the reason why other games are low population and we are talking about this system applying to Xsyon. Thus you brought it up.
Im stating opinion and facts on why they are not the reason why Xsyon and other FFA PVP games are low POP.

No. I said FFA PvP games where there is no coded protection only player policing the servers don't work and have low population. You keep missing this lol. FFA PvP games with coded protection can work, depends on the protection mechanism.


I dont know any game at all ever that only has players policing the server. So Im not understanding your point on that either.
Trench whole idea is about that...lol...if you don't understand the point why do you argue...

[MrDDT]

Good. So you disagree with Trench.


No. I said FFA PvP games where there is no coded protection only player policing the servers don't work and have low population. You keep missing this lol. FFA PvP games with coded protection can work, depends on the protection mechanism.

Trench whole idea is about that...lol...if you don't understand the point why do you argue...

You are trying to focus this only on one person and yet still trying to edge your opinions as fact in there.

You dont answer my questions when I ask, you dont give any real data that supports your ideas, and then you twist it into thinking it works for you.

PVPers, crafters, and PVEers can all live together. There just needs to be a system that supports each one.

Yes people can police their own to a point. No I dont think people should be in charge of policing people 100% of the time.

I disagree with Trench a LONG time ago. I said that. You should follow the thread. Then you started going off on how PVPers will be bored in 2 huge guilds because of having to protect crafters or some crap that has no support for it. Ive have no idea where you get that idea. What game shows that?

Then you go on and talk about FFA PVP full loot games and how they are all dying and low pop. Then I list games that have them.
Then you try to make it "Well I said 100% policed by people" which the only person talking about that is Trench (maybe he already said he would like safe areas for new people) and I already disagreed with.

I dont understand the point because you dont make logical sense. You jump from 1 point to another with out any reason or reading others posts about what they said. Then when asked direct questions you avoid them talking about how other games dont do it.

This isnt "other" games. Its Xsyon. We are here to talk about 1 game. Xsyon. If you dont like Xsyon, off good reasons on why it should be changed. Its called a thought process.


Having said all that. Im so glad you agree with me that FFA PVP games coded with some protections can work. Now lets work out the details on how to get protections done.

Ive yet to see any reason by you or anyone else why a system where you pretty much have EVE system (high protection, limited resources, lower mats etc) wont work.

Trench, I agree with most of your points but I dont believe its a good idea for people to police each other 100% of the time. There should have to be a system like Lineage 2/UO/Darkfall etc have where if you do bad things bad things happen to you.

[Trenchfoot]

Trench, I agree with most of your points but I dont believe its a good idea for people to police each other 100% of the time. There should have to be a system like Lineage 2/UO/Darkfall etc have where if you do bad things bad things happen to you.

Questions.

Should the protection mechanisms remove pvp from the chain of things people need?

If doing bad things produces a negative game mechanic, then shouldn't doing good things produce a positive game mechanic?

In other words, if good can become evil, but evil cannot become good you have a system that favors evil. One where good is allowed to be completely apathetic to evil actions. Good should BE good in substance, or it should be changed to read 'Not Evil Yet', instead of good. Good must be in direct opposition to evil. If good is allowed to take a rain check on the opposition of evil, I submit it isn't good at all.

When evil is the only thing to do outside of the norm, and good is a stationary 'take no action' alignment, evil is what everyone wants to do. You can sit at home and be 'good' and ignore all the evil around you, or you can become evil and join the action. Which sounds like more fun to you?

And please give an example of policing 100% of the time, as opposed to policing only some of the time? I know people police all the time (in fact it's required to accomplish certain things). I think police is a broad term, so I'm not certain I understand what you mean.

From my experience people police their interests and always have. If I want a resource, I police that resource. If someone attacks me or one of my allies, I police those enemies. If I desire a piece of territory, I police that territory. In short, if you oppose my interests, you WILL be policed.

Perhaps you mean someone that hands out justice for allied and un-allied, relationship or no relationship alike? To that I would say, where in terms of territory would that be needed? Inside someones tribal lands, or outside?

I don't think we disagree so much on good and evil as you might think. While I don't agree with a game mechanic that directly punishes evil, I do agree with a game mechanic that makes the evil actor and their tribe vulnerable to retaliation by the ones they wronged and perhaps their allies. The wronged parties should as easily gain the opportunity to counteract perhaps even at an advantage, but I still think the choice ultimately has to be up to the wronged parties to follow thru on that opportunity/advantage.

If evil wants to be evil, they should have good breathing down their neck.
If good wants to be good, they should likewise actively pursue the opposition of evil actions.

The question is how do you incentive-ize good to act out their goodness (assuming evil needs no real incentive), other than laying the consequences of their own apathy on their doorstep?

EDIT: The second pvp becomes a non-issue for some in the game, it becomes a non-issue for all. If I can team up or alt with someone who doesn't need pvp, that will be the safe base my pvp operates out of. Then if you want to pvp, you begin that process with a non-pvp alt or ally. This creates fighting for fighting sake. I agree that fighting for fighting sake (serial killers) should not be a sustainable/profitable option, and should generally lead to your eminent loss becoming a sinkhole that brings you further and further down until you just can't continue to do it and prosper.

I think the definition of evil should be limited to those actions which are necessarily evil. For example, paving over JPs I use or cutting down trees I 'believe' are mine is not necessarily evil. Cold blooded murder and theft are by necessity evil.

The problem is, if I retaliate for someone paving over the JPs I need to produce the only way I really can, which is to kill them, what does that make me? And how does the game take account for every little nuance that defines the line between truly evil and truly good? How would the game distinguish between someone who is defending their livelihood, and a serial killer?

EDIT EDIT: If the game could distinguish, I would say:

Flag the offender as a murderer or thief.

Flag the tribe of the offending party as hostile, ie. Murder or theft being an act of war. Therefore, the tribe should politically suffer the consequences of their members behavior.

When the good guys get a hold of them and kill them display a message to that effect to the tribes who were wronged. ie. 'Player X, The murderer of 'Player Y' has been avenged by 'Player Z'.

Increase the finality of death. ie. Dieing gives you a temporary stat reduction and lays you up for a week to take it easy and recover. Perhaps even if this 'type' of death (dieing because you were put to death as a murderer) could, if repeated too often lead to perma death. Like if the murderer doesn't take a week off to get his stats back up and keeps at it, he can dig himself into a hole until finally he has no stats and dies permanently.

Thieves should be able to avoid death/punishment by paying restitution. Same goes for the destruction of personal property. The idea being that you can restore your relationship by paying back what you stole or fixing what you broke.

Reward champions who right wrongs in some way, allowing them to become renowned protectors with maybe even some special abilities to that effect.

[MrDDT]

100% policing is where there is no system where it stops players from doing bad things, so its up to players to decide whats bad and good, and enforce it.
Ive never seen a game do this, so I cant give you a game to look at.

Things that are considered policing are say, someone loots your friend. Its up to the players to enforce the offender to stop doing that. You can enforce it when many actions as a player (as Im sure you are aware of).


I could lay out a huge good/neutral/evil system but Ive already done it once before.

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/32-Conflict-Death-Consequences-and-Decisions?p=223&viewfull=1#post223

Read this topic and understand the good and evil system. This how Xsyon plans to do it.
Ive posted many times in that topic.

Pretty much I believe there needs to be a good/neut/evil system, that the game uses that punishes Evil type of play enough that it keeps it limited to people that really want to play that type of player. I think most people should be a shade of good to neutral.

[Trenchfoot]

Right I'm not for 'no system'. I'm for a system which gives players a heavy incentive to stop other players from doing bad things, and a heavy consequence if they don't.

As long as the only 'bad things' you can attribute directly to evil are theft, destruction of personal property, and murder. All other 'bad things' should be 100% police-able by the player base. And the main reason the aforementioned 'bad things' need a 'system' to regulate them, is that death isn't final. If it was, you could easily police 100% because you would literally be putting a definite end to the players evil rampage.

Which I personally would love to see, but would be the first to admit that this isn't practical in terms of retaining subs.

My problem isn't that the game defines theft and murder as evil, my problem would be if it defined the defense of your interests as necessarily evil.

For example: A bandit attacks one of my neighbors and loots him, the neighbor informs me. On his way out of the area the bandit passes thru my area, so I retaliate and kill him and take the loot back. Should I then be labeled evil for my actions?

Or another example: Two nations labeled good want the same resource, yet their only recourse shouldn't be for one of them to turn evil to take that resource by force. Perhaps one claims divine right to the resource, or squatters rights. It should be a political/cultural/religious/idealism right and wrong, as opposed to a good and evil right and wrong.

See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying allow players to define right and wrong themselves morally speaking (theft, murder, etc.), but ideologically speaking players should have free reign.

EDIT: I would prefer to play in a world where tyrant chiefs and so-called 'evil' tribes could possibly swallow the world in oppression if we don't get off our backside and do something about it.

[MrDDT]

Right I'm not for 'no system'. I'm for a system which gives players a heavy incentive to stop other players from doing bad things, and a heavy consequence if they don't.

As long as the only 'bad things' you can attribute directly to evil are theft, destruction of personal property, and murder. All other 'bad things' should be 100% police-able by the player base. And the main reason the aforementioned 'bad things' need a 'system' to regulate them, is that death isn't final. If it was, you could easily police 100% because you would literally be putting a definite end to the players evil rampage.

Which I personally would love to see, but would be the first to admit that this isn't practical in terms of retaining subs.

My problem isn't that the game defines theft and murder as evil, my problem would be if it defined the defense of your interests as necessarily evil.

For example: A bandit attacks one of my neighbors and loots him, the neighbor informs me. On his way out of the area the bandit passes thru my area, so I retaliate and kill him and take the loot back. Should I then be labeled evil for my actions?

Or another example: Two nations labeled good want the same resource, yet their only recourse shouldn't be for one of them to turn evil to take that resource by force. Perhaps one claims divine right to the resource, or squatters rights. It should be a political/cultural/religious/idealism right and wrong, as opposed to a good and evil right and wrong.

See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying allow players to define right and wrong themselves morally speaking (theft, murder, etc.), but ideologically speaking players should have free reign.

I dont see how the punishment of being able to be killed, or looted, or stolen from is a punishment when Good players can have the same done to them.
It needs to be more of a punishment than that. Much more.
Plus also IMO safe areas should be in game.

[Trenchfoot]

If it needs to be more than that why not simply remove the ability to do it from the game? I mean, if everyone agrees something shouldn't be able to be performed and they want such as stiff penalty as to discourage it altogether why bother?

Or giving the benefit of the doubt, are you saying there's a way to allow the enemy to have his teeth and be a real opponent and still keep him from 'winning' so much?

Should I fear my enemy? Or should I be able to administer justice with little effort, or to hunt down evil as easily as a deer, never fearing for my safety? Or should I be able to sit at home, and call myself good, and be completely uninvolved because the game will take care of that for me? And then we're back to, why even have the ability to commit evil in the first place?

Also what about the perma death idea? You don't think that would weigh heavy on evil doers?

[Trenchfoot]

site double posted me

So I'll take advantage. I want to be worried my enemy will make my homeland a miserable place to live unless I get off my arse and do something about it.

[MrDDT]

If it needs to be more than that why not simply remove the ability to do it from the game? I mean, if everyone agrees something shouldn't be able to be performed and they want such as stiff penalty as to discourage it altogether why bother?

Or giving the benefit of the doubt, are you saying there's a way to allow the enemy to have his teeth and be a real opponent and still keep him from 'winning' so much?

Should I fear my enemy? Or should I be able to administer justice with little effort, or to hunt down evil as easily as a deer, never fearing for my safety? Or should I be able to sit at home, and call myself good, and be completely uninvolved because the game will take care of that for me? And then we're back to, why even have the ability to commit evil in the first place?

Also what about the perma death idea? You don't think that would weigh heavy on evil doers?


First off NO perma death. I dont agree with any system that allows that.

Discouraging people to do evil acts is normal. Whats to stop everyone from being evil (killing, looting etc) if there is no punishment? The only punishment you say is that other players might attack you? Well if you are good cant other players attack you?

Im not saying stop them from "winning", Im saying stop them from gaining as much as someone that has the hardship of doing something thats hard. (Being Good ie not looking after killing, not killing random people that dont attack you first etc).
Killing someone that doesnt attack you first is an evil act. Evil would be rewarded with loot, and fame (infamy). However, to discourge such actions they should be punished. Maybe like when they die instead of only having 30s to be looted they are able to be looted for 1min. Or a slower respawn timer. Or maybe change to lose more skills. Whatever.

I dont know where you get the idea that I think it should be easy to kill Evil. I dont think it should be any harder or easier to kill them. I think there should be punishments and rewards.

[Trenchfoot]

If you're saying, the potential loss from committing acts of evil (penalties) should match the potential loss of the victim of such actions (evils reward). I couldn't agree more.

What if someone attacks my neighbor? Should I be able to defend my neighbor without being labeled evil unjustly? In those chain of events, how would the game determine that I had rightly attacked first? How complex or blind should the system be?

It would need to be pretty complex imo. To the extent that it is blind to these nuances, it would mean that every time you place restrictions on evil you also tie the hands of good. I have a problem with that. I don't like when the game automates things I want to live out so to speak.

What about religious differences? If someone desecrates my sacred tribal burial mound, do I then have the right to carry out my traditions and beliefs, the whole time being established in myself that I am doing what is right by retaliating with lethal force to avenge my ancestors and give them peace? Or should that be considered evil by a blind system?

I would love to see something mind blowing-ly dynamic.

[MrDDT]

If you're saying, the potential loss from committing acts of evil (penalties) should match the potential loss of the victim of such actions (evils reward). I couldn't agree more.

What if someone attacks my neighbor? Should I be able to defend my neighbor without being labeled evil unjustly? In those chain of events, how would the game determine that I had rightly attacked first? How complex or blind should the system be?

It would need to be pretty complex imo. To the extent that it is blind to these nuances, it would mean that every time you place restrictions on evil you also tie the hands of good. I have a problem with that.


First off good people dont kill others. Unless its self defense, or defense of others.
So simple there, just put a timer of when an attacker can be killed. (UO, L2 many games have this blue grey red etc).
Good people dont loot the dead.
Good people dont deal with evils.


Those are just a few ways to "tie" the hands of good.

I dont believe penalties should match the potential loss. I think there should just be enough that curbs the want or drive to be evil.

[Trenchfoot]

First off good people dont kill others. Unless its self defense, or defense of others.
So simple there, just put a timer of when an attacker can be killed. (UO, L2 many games have this blue grey red etc).

Makes sense.


Good people dont loot the dead.

Don't necessarily agree with that one.


Good people dont deal with evils.

I generally agree with this, although does this mean there should be no conversion from evil to good?


Those are just a few ways to "tie" the hands of good.

I dont believe penalties should match the potential loss. I think there should just be enough that curbs the want or drive to be evil.

While I agree that to be evil should not be desirable, I don't believe it should be necessarily undesirable either. In other words, it should have the same capability to advance as good does. The difficulty of trying to be evil should lie primarily in its opposition (good). People should want to play both sides good and evil equally. Each having it's own set of pitfalls and boons. In that sense I would agree with you that something should be in place so that one side isn't favored as the 'winning side' by mechanics. Evil shouldn't be a min/max go to.

[MrDDT]

Don't necessarily agree with that one.

Do you take items off a dead guy you saw on the side of the road? Heck no you wouldnt, thats clearly an Evil act. Even stealing from an evil person is an evil act right now. Granted Xsyon doesnt live by these rules, nor should they really have to fully enforce them to make it right. But it could.
I mean really what if there were a limit, say take 1 item, but no more. If you take more then you are committing evil acts. That's just a way to balance out the system.
Its a harsh one but one that could be done. It really depends on the punishments you want to place on evil. More punishments on evil the more restrictions on good, else like you said there will be no evil and it will be worthless.




I generally agree with this, although does this mean there should be no conversion from evil to good?
I mean like trading, and supporting evil players.
IE, building a wall for a tribe thats evil while you are good.
Or being part of a trade with an evil player.




While I agree that to be evil should not be desirable, I don't believe it should be necessarily undesirable either. In other words, it should have the same capability to advance as good does. The difficulty of trying to be evil should lie primarily in its opposition (good). People should want to play both sides good and evil equally. Each having it's own set of pitfalls and boons. In that sense I would agree with you that something should be in place so that one side isn't favored as the 'winning side' by mechanics. Evil shouldn't be a min/max go to.


I dont think Good players should equal Evil players. I think there should be much less Evil players, and their play style. Its good for a game to have it that way. I think the most common should be neutral players or people in the middle area of good and evil.
Being a "Good" person in life is very hard, believe it or not. Just think, you cant lie, cheat, steal, attack, commit crimes, help people, self sacrifice etc?
Being a "normal" person as I would call it, is normally pretty good, but does slip and do some evil actions. I think this will by far be the most common aspect of people playing.

[Trenchfoot]

Do you take items off a dead guy you saw on the side of the road?

Generally no, but I can see circumstances where I might.

As for the rest I'm pretty much in agreement. Though I wasn't saying evil players base should be equal in number. I simply meant it should be as viable a game play choice as good. It shouldn't be a dead end choice otherwise why present it in the first place.

[MrDDT]

Generally no, but I can see circumstances where I might.

Then you would have broken the law, and I believe many people would think that is a very evil act. Which you would have to suffer for both morally and if someone were to know. Good thing about games is that "GOD" can be programed in to make "Payback a bitch". Unlike life, people can do bad deeds, and god might not factor in. (I dont want to get into a debate about beliefs)
Heck some people dont even want their pictures taken because it "steals" their souls.

You can also answer that for most things. Like eating another persons (cannibalism) sure its not something you normally do, but if you were about to die, and they were already dead, you were starving in the middle of nowhere sure.
But really all these factors cant be programed into the game effectively. So they just put "Eating other players is an evil action." and be done with it.

Its all about the morals the game wants to enforce to ensure fun play. Really, I dont think looting people in the game would be bad in this world, if it were something you or your tribe needed. But my point was that it can be considered evil and a limiting factor.

[Trenchfoot]

Like I said generally speaking. I don't believe cutting out a dead mans gold teeth after watching him mow down my buddies with a machine gun to be 'clearly' evil. Or robbing a dead body of its clothes because you're freezing to death, etc. But in general I would agree it would be considered thieving.

[orious13]

Taking anything from any person without consent is an evil act...always. Even if you're starving/cold. Burying them and praying for their immortal soul (running to their family...to explain) would be an act of good (beliefs aside). So by looting someone the best you can do is be neutral. Much of the time the act of good is walking away (passive), however, apathy is not an act of good. Killing in self defense might be neutral-evil -> pray for their soul as an example of a selfless act turns it neutral-good. Killing to protect someone else may be seen as neutral-->pray for their soul turns it good. The good are those that are more selfless and sympathetic. Evil are for those who are more selfish and apathetic, which includes stealing because you're starving and getting ahead at work at the cost of "friendship". You have to then make up and neutralize that "karma" by including other motives that are greater than yourself. As was said... most people are neutral in life because being evil has harsh consequences and being good often sets you up for other personal failures. The reward for being evil (mostly tangible) pays off better than does many rewards for being good (mostly not tangible...often you lose tangible things for the sake of doing good).

At least that's the strictness of my personal morals in terms of shoddy wording. Good and Evil are really just measurements on one's own inner meter. My drum may pound at a stricter beat.

There's gotta be greater incentive to be good than to be evil in games. If both have the same incentive, more people will seem evil based on how gaming history has played out already. I'd not really care if Xsyon wanted a greater amount of evil players to grasp the whole "apocalyptic/animal-like/de-evolved man" thing, but he doesn't. You shouldn't necessarily be limited, but in order for there to be more good players it should be harder to be evil and not easy for it to be forgiven.

[MrDDT]

Taking anything from any person without consent is an evil act...always. Even if you're starving/cold. Burying them and praying for their immortal soul (running to their family...to explain) would be an act of good (beliefs aside). So by looting someone the best you can do is be neutral. Much of the time the act of good is walking away (passive), however, apathy is not an act of good. Killing in self defense might be neutral-evil -> pray for their soul as an example of a selfless act turns it neutral-good. Killing to protect someone else may be seen as neutral-->pray for their soul turns it good. The good are those that are more selfless and sympathetic. Evil are for those who are more selfish and apathetic, which includes stealing because you're starving and getting ahead at work at the cost of "friendship". You have to then make up and neutralize that "karma" by including other motives that are greater than yourself. As was said... most people are neutral in life because being evil has harsh consequences and being good often sets you up for other personal failures. The reward for being evil (mostly tangible) pays off better than does many rewards for being good (mostly not tangible...often you lose tangible things for the sake of doing good).

At least that's the strictness of my personal morals in terms of shoddy wording. Good and Evil are really just measurements on one's own inner meter. My drum may pound at a stricter beat.

There's gotta be greater incentive to be good than to be evil in games. If both have the same incentive, more people will seem evil based on how gaming history has played out already. I'd not really care if Xsyon wanted a greater amount of evil players to grasp the whole "apocalyptic/animal-like/de-evolved man" thing, but he doesn't. You shouldn't necessarily be limited, but in order for there to be more good players it should be harder to be evil and not easy for it to be forgiven.


Great way to put it, and I agree with it all.
I think good acts can be harmful to someone if very very careful of how they are done. IE, pushing someone that is attacking another person, and holding them down so they cant fight anymore.

I think the KO system vs killing/murdering someone will play a big role in good vs evil. As will looting. Looting is a huge reward, and it should be a huge sway to the evil side, as is killing someone while you are the aggressor.
I fully agree that good acts should be greatly rewarded, there are many ways for this. (Faster healing, larger totem area, able to carry more weight etc) Which doesnt have to be + to combat stats or skills.
Evil should be punished also. IE, slower skill gain, or faster stat/skill loss. This will make evil be less wanted to be, because the rewards are already there. Making evil = to good plus able to do what they want will allow way to many people to be evil.

[xyberviri]

Great way to put it, and I agree with it all.
I think good acts can be harmful to someone if very very careful of how they are done. IE, pushing someone that is attacking another person, and holding them down so they cant fight anymore.

I think the KO system vs killing/murdering someone will play a big role in good vs evil. As will looting. Looting is a huge reward, and it should be a huge sway to the evil side, as is killing someone while you are the aggressor.
I fully agree that good acts should be greatly rewarded, there are many ways for this. (Faster healing, larger totem area, able to carry more weight etc) Which doesnt have to be + to combat stats or skills.
Evil should be punished also. IE, slower skill gain, or faster stat/skill loss. This will make evil be less wanted to be, because the rewards are already there. Making evil = to good plus able to do what they want will allow way to many people to be evil.

I don't agree with being good getting rewarded... Its not like i have to encourage you to do something good because your going to get some trinket or special ability, being good should bring in social rewards alone.

[MrDDT]

I don't agree with being good getting rewarded... Its not like i have to encourage you to do something good because your going to get some trinket or special ability, being good should bring in social rewards alone.

So you are ok with 90% people being evil 9% neutral and 1% good?
Because if you dont reward people for being good (or at least not punish them) then no one will be good but a few RPers

[orious13]

I don't agree with being good getting rewarded... Its not like i have to encourage you to do something good because your going to get some trinket or special ability, being good should bring in social rewards alone.

People dislike having penalties. So the only other alternative is rewarding the people who aren't supposed to be penalized/ aren't supposed to be "the problem".

If you don't want being good to give rewards, then you'll need evil to be penalized. If you're talking about real life in your example, it's true that the main reward for being good is a social one (emotional), but by being evil you gain rewards more towards the materialistic side of things at the cost of your freedom. Would you want to lose your freedom in game? This goes hand in hand with saying, "would you want being good to really serve no real game purpose other than the RL one, which you can go and get without any problem?" You can't be evil in real life without any problems, that's why people do it in game...

[Trenchfoot]

I think we're sort of off topic now as this was originally intended as a thread to expose the motives of those who are in favor of keeping safe zones permanently.

I don't believe any of us support the system I proposed here in the OP. I'm fairly certain that most of us contributing to this discussion are in favor of removing safe zones eventually.

I do believe this is a discussion worth having because I think the alignment system needs to be worked out.

EDIT: Opened an alignment thread here (http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/6998-About-Alignments?p=83585#post83585).

[MrDDT]

Ok well back on topic.

I think ZOI should be increased with Militants not Pacifists.

Im not sure 100% how your system will work, and I dont know if I like it for expansion areas/totems but maybe a mix of the 2. I really like some of thoughts in it.

[sparklingshores]

@Trenchfoot (the OP)

Nice post. I haven't yet tried this game yet, but I like your ideas. However, I think that most pvpers who select to be militiant are the hunter-killer type. They cannot survive on hunting/killing their own kind. They need fresh blood (bluebies) to satisfy their taste for mayhem. So what will happen is the game will be filled with pacifists and bored militants. But I guess that's better than allowing the militants to kill anybody they want.