Safe place or not?

[Yzandor]

You guys want: 1-Somewhere safe where you AND your belongings could avoid any attack
2-A safe spot only for your belongings

3-No safe spot, just keep it real as possible. (full sandbox)

[Jadzia]

Surprise, surprise...they are allowing us to make polls again ?

[MrDDT]

Sadly I dont like any of these options and Im what people would call "Hardcore PVPer"

My option would be.
Limited safe areas for new players (like starting areas) everything else open PVP.

[Yzandor]

Sadly I dont like any of these options and Im what people would call "Hardcore PVPer"

My option would be.
Limited safe areas for new players (like starting areas) everything else open PVP.

so vote for 3. A limited safe areas for new players is another topic.

[orious13]

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/3164-Simple-poll-to-remove-safe-zones-in-Prelude?highlight=safe+zones

[Virtus]

Surprise, surprise...they are allowing us to make polls again ?

Problem fixed, won't happen again.

[Yzandor]

hey guys, my poll was for the finished product game, what people want when Xsyon will start officially. Im new here but isnt Prelude before the official and ''final'' version? There was a poll for the same subject but for the Prelude version...if someone can answer me on this, thx :-)

[MrDDT]

hey guys, my poll was for the finished product game, what people want when Xsyon will start officially. Im new here but isnt Prelude before the official and ''final'' version? There was a poll for the same subject but for the Prelude version...if someone can answer me on this, thx :-)

Game has been released.
Prelude is just a chapter in the game.

[goodayve]

I dont really like any of these options. The better option is the one i have read the game developers allready talk about. People will be able to decide if they are going to have a safe totem or be part of the tribe wars.

Or another option i heard talked about where the main totem would be safe and the expansion totems would be able to be attacked.

I guess I would choose 1. And this does not take away at all from being a sandbox in my mind. So saying 3 is the most like full sandbox is wrong I think.
People that just want to attack everyone they see are not real pvpers. A lot of the people in the game like PVP they just dont want those fools who run around killing everyone they see for no other reason then the kill and maybe the loot.
Like I have allready heard some self proclaimed pvper mention how they saw someone, so the first thing they wanted to do was go kill that person.

Edit: of course these people are welcome in the game:) they just wont be able to kill people and take all their super good stuff while its being sorted in the homestead.

[ifireallymust]

I like the idea of being able to make my homestead safe for myself and my belongings by building and maintaining a fence of some sort. But in other (high resource) areas, the fence protection could be overcome by a siege and no safety guaranteed for anything or anyone.

[temur]

@OP
please next time take 5 minutes and search if there are any simular post (in this case there are plenty).
this is a clone ..pls lock

[Yzandor]

I dont really like any of these options. The better option is the one i have read the game developers allready talk about. People will be able to decide if they are going to have a safe totem or be part of the tribe wars.

Or another option i heard talked about where the main totem would be safe and the expansion totems would be able to be attacked.
.

thx, ill search for that thread. its interesting.

[orious13]

Yeah "after prelude" is so far down the road it'd probably be better to wait for an official poll..pole...pull...ploy from tehh main developers.

However I do like your excitement for the game :). Seems you just joined within the past 5 days.

[Cracky69]

I dont really like any of these options. The better option is the one i have read the game developers allready talk about. People will be able to decide if they are going to have a safe totem or be part of the tribe wars.

Or another option i heard talked about where the main totem would be safe and the expansion totems would be able to be attacked.

I guess I would choose 1. And this does not take away at all from being a sandbox in my mind. So saying 3 is the most like full sandbox is wrong I think.
People that just want to attack everyone they see are not real pvpers. A lot of the people in the game like PVP they just dont want those fools who run around killing everyone they see for no other reason then the kill and maybe the loot.

Like I have allready heard some self proclaimed pvper mention how they saw someone, so the first thing they wanted to do was go kill that person.

The OPs comment that no safe place makes it a full sandbox is simply an attempt to skew the pole. The two are very indirectly connected since having an extra option will make the game more sandboxy, but ultimately the key to a full sandbox is more degrees of freedom.

Imagine the game as it is now but changed so you can kill other players anywhere.
Now imagine the game changed so you can plant seeds, farm animals, set fires to land, build boats and fish in the middle of the lake.

The second scenario is more of a sandbox because you have more options available that affect the world.

I do agree of course that allowing killing anywhere would have a significant effect on the way we play the game. I think it would be great to have well-resourced areas that were desireable to be in but not safe. Unfortunately if you have no safe areas then it will end up destroying the game.

Even in an established game like EVE, if you removed the 'safe' regions then failed PvPers with big rigs would just start ganking new players to make themselves feel tough. Although this wouldn't stop everyone it would deter many new players trying out the game. New players should be granted time to set up and get a feel for the game before the destruction starts.

Less people will play a game where you can build up stuff for months just to lose them in a few moments unless they have made a choice to take the risk which they are prepared for. Also wanton destruction is prevented in real life through a complex social system that is difficult to incorporate in a game where people are logging in and out. The ability to gank newbs really adds nothing to a game in terms of PvP it just reduces the retention rate of new players.

I would have picked Mr DDTs option on this one.

[MrDDT]

The OPs comment that no safe place makes it a full sandbox is simply an attempt to skew the pole. The two are very indirectly connected since having an extra option will make the game more sandboxy, but ultimately the key to a full sandbox is more degrees of freedom.

Imagine the game as it is now but changed so you can kill other players anywhere.
Now imagine the game changed so you can plant seeds, farm animals, set fires to land, build boats and fish in the middle of the lake.

The second scenario is more of a sandbox because you have more options available that affect the world.


I agree with your statement but not the reason behind it.

I do believe the poll is skewed. (Like these polls matter when they dont even put a thought into wording them).
But your reasons dont work well.

Its true that more degrees of freedom = more sandbox. Right?
Well if that were the case then being free to do whatever you want. (Open PVP no holds bars) would be more of an open sandbox than having something that limits that. Safe areas limit freedoms. You can grow, burn, plant etc, in an open PVP world also. I dont see your point in your reasoning.

But having said that you know my statement. I understand that people need safe areas. I also understand why. The devil is in the details. The why has all the details.

As I told others before, making a game where safe areas can be put anywhere is killing ALL pvpers, and pvers. Why? Well here we go.
PVP is made up of reasons to fight, there are many reasons. But mostly its about power and control. If someone can drop a safe area anywhere they want PVPers lose a LOT of power and all the control.

Why is it bad for PVEers? Well, few reasons. If people can drop safe areas on limited resources, then those resources will never change hands. Meaning someone will control them forever. Also why, is because PVPers will use it to grief PVEers. They will exploit the system, where PVEers cant get away from these guys, they will be bugging them non stop.

How would you like it if your neighbor in real life were to just keep playing loud music all day and night. When you cant call the cops, and you cant go over there an punch him. You are left with only 1 option. Move. People wont like that.
Worse is when you moved in, you didnt have neighbors, but soon as you move in all these jerks come move near you and cause you pain. Sure they dont come over to your house and break in, but if you step foot outside, or have a friend come over. BAM they jack your car, and friends car, and beat both of you up.

Better would be if you could call the cops, or hire some people to go mess up those people and make them move. But at the same time you would have to also protect yourself from them.

Anyways my rant is over, and I hoped I can make a few people see that PVPers and PVEers can live hand in and, and its better for both.

[goodayve]

Your assuming the person that wants safe areas can not fight for themselves.

Maybe they can fight, but if they were open to be attacked any time the other person would just attack them when they wernt paying attention.

[MrDDT]

Your assuming the person that wants safe areas can not fight for themselves.

Maybe they can fight, but if they were open to be attacked any time the other person would just attack them when they wernt paying attention.

Im sure this happens in a lot of cases. But point is that if you limit someone, then its less of a sandbox. At least that's my point.

Im ok with less of a sandbox for the greater overall fun of a game. But there are breaking points to limiting a sandbox.

Its kinda like adding the need to use the restroom in game, or something. Is it really needed?

[Cracky69]

I agree with your statement but not the reason behind it.

Its true that more degrees of freedom = more sandbox. Right?
Well if that were the case then being free to do whatever you want. (Open PVP no holds bars) would be more of an open sandbox than having something that limits that. Safe areas limit freedoms. You can grow, burn, plant etc, in an open PVP world also.

I agree, in fact I said in the section you quoted that allowing killing would make it more of a sandbox.

I was simply stating in the first part of my post that full PvP is not the ONLY significant factor towards creating a sandbox. Oh well, I broadly agree with you here anyhow so I'll not witter-on unnecessarily.

[goodayve]

If it was optional for people to join tribe wars and have their totem vulnerable I think that would be good. Then if they got conquered though, and their totem taken they should then revert back to safe tribe until they change the totem again.

This way if someone looses their land they would have a chance to be safe again to rebuild. And people that did not want to worry about it would not have to join.

Building is pretty fun in this game I think so if I lost my land it would give me a chance to build something new. So I would probably join in tribe wars. Though I only have a homestead right now, might try to get bigger sometimes.

[xyberviri]

I agree, in fact I said in the section you quoted that allowing killing would make it more of a sandbox.

I was simply stating in the first part of my post that full PvP is not the ONLY significant factor towards creating a sandbox. Oh well, I broadly agree with you here anyhow so I'll not witter-on unnecessarily.

the problem is that people see "open pvp" only when they see "sandbox" and it attracts the wrong type of crowd

[Cracky69]

the problem is that people see "open pvp" only when they see "sandbox" and it attracts the wrong type of crowd

I agree.

Having said that, I've nothing against open PvP, but there must be an effective mechanism to protect newbies from mindless ganking.

[orious13]

Sandbox games are "limited" because many players can't handle an "unlimited" sandbox. It takes VERY FEW players to ruin the game for EVERYONE. These players are a virus/disease that jumps from host to host. It's the same as saying if one person exploits and people find out, more people will exploit to be on par with them until everyone needs to exploit to have a chance or leave because they'd rather not. When one exploit is fixed, another exploit turns up... When one of these viruses are suppressed...another one shows up.

[Trenchfoot]

I'm for structures being as safe as it gets with the following caveats.

1. Structures that provide safety should be relatively easy to maintain/repair.
2. Structures that provide safety should be considerably more difficult to destroy/breach.
3. Well built structures should be long lasting. Allowing players to do something other than worry about their walls being breached every 5 min.

[Garek]

I dont really like any of these options. The better option is the one i have read the game developers allready talk about. People will be able to decide if they are going to have a safe totem or be part of the tribe wars.

Or another option i heard talked about where the main totem would be safe and the expansion totems would be able to be attacked.

I guess I would choose 1. And this does not take away at all from being a sandbox in my mind. So saying 3 is the most like full sandbox is wrong I think.
People that just want to attack everyone they see are not real pvpers. A lot of the people in the game like PVP they just dont want those fools who run around killing everyone they see for no other reason then the kill and maybe the loot.
Like I have allready heard some self proclaimed pvper mention how they saw someone, so the first thing they wanted to do was go kill that person.

Edit: of course these people are welcome in the game:) they just wont be able to kill people and take all their super good stuff while its being sorted in the homestead.

Dont be supportin the cancer man cause thats what your doing. (pro-tip look up the word exploitation)

[goodayve]

Dont be supportin the cancer man cause thats what your doing. (pro-tip look up the word exploitation)

What are you talking about?

My post has nothing about exploits in it

[undeadfishboy]

i want hardcore PVP :p

[joexxxz]

Like i said before, open PVP everywhere, full loot, and have offline defense system for tribe land.
And have wait timers when the attacker is on the tribe territory.
For example:
Player <A> moves to tribe <Z> to attack players of tribe <Z>.
Player <A> needs to wait 3 minutes before he/she can attack players <Z> on tribe territory <Z>. Thats will give some time and protection for players <Z> to defend them selfs.

[Rothkur]

I like people being able to opt in or out of PVP, that said it raises questions if suppliers are all non-pvp and then the actual warring tribes are pvp. Also will there be some benefit to pvp? Also can't tribes just shut off PvP when they start to lose? Lots of issues.

After playing haven and hearth anyone can see why full, lawless, open PvP does not work and is not enjoyable.


Sandbox games are "limited" because many players can't handle an "unlimited" sandbox. It takes VERY FEW players to ruin the game for EVERYONE. These players are a virus/disease that jumps from host to host. It's the same as saying if one person exploits and people find out, more people will exploit to be on par with them until everyone needs to exploit to have a chance or leave because they'd rather not. When one exploit is fixed, another exploit turns up... When one of these viruses are suppressed...another one shows up.

This


I see advantages with giving certain bonuses for participating in PvP, but not making it required. Encouraging people to participate rather than forcing them to always seems to be the most pragmatic way to run PVP.

[PrinceReaper]

open pvp , full loot, if you don't want a dead game.

[ifireallymust]

open pvp , full loot, if you don't want a dead game.

Yeah, cause nothing will keep me logging in to the game than coming back from a day of doing rl stuff only to find my walls destroyed, my totem down, and some giggling idiots ransacking my baskets, pausing only long enough to kill me and type, "LOL L2P noob!!!!!!!" before going back to destroying everything it took me months to build.

[Rothkur]

Yeah, cause nothing will keep me logging in to the game than coming back from a day of doing rl stuff only to find my walls destroyed, my totem down, and some giggling idiots ransacking my baskets, pausing only long enough to kill me and type, "LOL L2P noob!!!!!!!" before going back to destroying everything it took me months to build.

That sounds exactly like Haven and Hearth, except it's 50 russians screaming in cryrillic.

[MrDDT]

Yeah, cause nothing will keep me logging in to the game than coming back from a day of doing rl stuff only to find my walls destroyed, my totem down, and some giggling idiots ransacking my baskets, pausing only long enough to kill me and type, "LOL L2P noob!!!!!!!" before going back to destroying everything it took me months to build.

If you played other games with this type of system its not like you log off for the night and come back to see months of your work gone. Those games are long gone. Look at games like EVE, Darkfall and Wurm online. You cant just walk up to someones place and tear it down in a night.

It takes work, planning, politics and tactics to take these things down. I think in Xsyon to take a tribes work of 30 that worked on it for 1000s of man hours it it should take weeks of planning, and action by the attacking tribe to remove that town. I have a lot of idea on how to make that happen, but thats what I think about as a goal.

I see these posts like yours fire, and really you dont get it. You think the Devs are going to just allow this to happen? You log in and months of your tribes work is gone? Nawh. There will be protections, and systems in place to prevent this. Doesnt mean you cant lose it, just means you wont lose it overnight.

Thats my idea and I think with a system where it takes weeks for attackers to effectively take or tear down a tribes work that took months. I think then you will see most people will be happy with that type of system.

[NorCalGooey]

My vote is one NON capture able totem, that has no safety to it. Then expansion totems that can be captured


If you played other games with this type of system its not like you log off for the night and come back to see months of your work gone. Those games are long gone. Look at games like EVE, Darkfall and Wurm online. You cant just walk up to someones place and tear it down in a night.

It takes work, planning, politics and tactics to take these things down. I think in Xsyon to take a tribes work of 30 that worked on it for 1000s of man hours it it should take weeks of planning, and action by the attacking tribe to remove that town. I have a lot of idea on how to make that happen, but thats what I think about as a goal.

I see these posts like yours fire, and really you dont get it. You think the Devs are going to just allow this to happen? You log in and months of your tribes work is gone? Nawh. There will be protections, and systems in place to prevent this. Doesnt mean you cant lose it, just means you wont lose it overnight.

Thats my idea and I think with a system where it takes weeks for attackers to effectively take or tear down a tribes work that took months. I think then you will see most people will be happy with that type of system.

I think they shouldn't be able to tear anything down unless they own the totem. By tear down I mean terraforming. Everything else can be destroyed by siege anyways. But I agree that destroying all the buildings and walls via siege should take weeks....at least for a tribe like ours with close to 1000 limestone walls.

But MrDDT you've heard my stance on this plenty times before. I just want to be able to keep my totem lands I've worked so hard on. It's the terraforming I'm worried about, not up keeping or repairing building/wall damages.

[MrDDT]

My vote is one NON capture able totem, that has no safety to it. Then expansion totems that can be captured



I think they shouldn't be able to tear anything down unless they own the totem. By tear down I mean terraforming. Everything else can be destroyed by siege anyways. But I agree that destroying all the buildings and walls via siege should take weeks....at least for a tribe like ours with close to 1000 limestone walls.

But MrDDT you've heard my stance on this plenty times before. I just want to be able to keep my totem lands I've worked so hard on. It's the terraforming I'm worried about, not up keeping or repairing building/wall damages.


I can understand this.

Just a little info on a system for this I think would work, is where you would have a little protection from the totem itself (call it spirit protection), this protection isnt free, you need to put resources into your totem to upkeep this spirit protection. (How much is up for balancing).
But what this protection does, is allow your WHOLE area to be protected BUT still be attackable. What that means is, say you have to break through the protections before damaging or tearing up anything. Instead right now most systems for attack are what I call point attack systems. People will attack the weakest point. But also breaking the weakest points.

If you have your whole tribe encircled with walls, each all has a set amount of HP (I would guess) well you only need to take out 1 wall of HP before causing real damage to the players. With this spirit protection. It would force people not to just grief people but only attack tribe areas if they really want to siege else all the time is wasted.

Say the spirit protection is 10k HP per day. Walls would be about 1k per wall. Well they would effectively have to take out 11k of damage before even hurting you. This buffer would allow people time to react and ward off attackers for just trying to do random drive bys to harass / grief tribes.

Anyways those are a couple of thoughts of how a system could work to prevent people from just harassing people and griefing them.

Now if you cant handle things like that, I believe you should choose a safe tribe, in the safe areas. But I think most people understand that they want some level of protections from just these random griefers that will harass people and are afraid that all these 10000s of hours they put into something can be messed up in such a little amount of time.

[ifireallymust]

If you played other games with this type of system its not like you log off for the night and come back to see months of your work gone. Those games are long gone. Look at games like EVE, Darkfall and Wurm online. You cant just walk up to someones place and tear it down in a night.

It takes work, planning, politics and tactics to take these things down. I think in Xsyon to take a tribes work of 30 that worked on it for 1000s of man hours it it should take weeks of planning, and action by the attacking tribe to remove that town. I have a lot of idea on how to make that happen, but thats what I think about as a goal.

I see these posts like yours fire, and really you dont get it. You think the Devs are going to just allow this to happen? You log in and months of your tribes work is gone? Nawh. There will be protections, and systems in place to prevent this. Doesnt mean you cant lose it, just means you wont lose it overnight.

Thats my idea and I think with a system where it takes weeks for attackers to effectively take or tear down a tribes work that took months. I think then you will see most people will be happy with that type of system.

I'm a solo player. If my fortifications can hold off a huge tribe for days or weeks, costing more effort and time than it's worth to wage war against me, then the zerg tribes will go cry on the forums about how unfair and unrealistic it is.

And just so you know, you have zero credibility with me because of your actions in game. You have bad intentions.

[MrDDT]

I'm a solo player. If my fortifications can hold off a huge tribe for days or weeks, costing more effort and time than it's worth to wage war against me, then the zerg tribes will go cry on the forums about how unfair and unrealistic it is.

And just so you know, you have zero credibility with me because of your actions in game. You have bad intentions.

"Worth" is relative.
Costing more time and effort than you put into making it isnt the only (and normally not) reason to remove/destroy someone. Its many other reasons. If you think that zerg guilds are going to cry on the forums because it takes effort to remove people and their hard work, I doubt you will see much of that.

Most people understand that it shouldnt be easy to destroy someone's hard work.

I dont know what you mean by "bad" intentions. But you have your opinions and views, and likely not going to be changed by whatever I say.

[TheShift]

I think pre-trammel uo is a good model. ie. there are towns that players can safely be in to conduct business so long as they don't face a natural enemy (ie. a warred guild or faction), and the ability to ban other players from my own home but otherwise FFA.

[NorCalGooey]

I can understand this.

Just a little info on a system for this I think would work, is where you would have a little protection from the totem itself (call it spirit protection), this protection isnt free, you need to put resources into your totem to upkeep this spirit protection. (How much is up for balancing).
But what this protection does, is allow your WHOLE area to be protected BUT still be attackable. What that means is, say you have to break through the protections before damaging or tearing up anything. Instead right now most systems for attack are what I call point attack systems. People will attack the weakest point. But also breaking the weakest points.

If you have your whole tribe encircled with walls, each all has a set amount of HP (I would guess) well you only need to take out 1 wall of HP before causing real damage to the players. With this spirit protection. It would force people not to just grief people but only attack tribe areas if they really want to siege else all the time is wasted.

Say the spirit protection is 10k HP per day. Walls would be about 1k per wall. Well they would effectively have to take out 11k of damage before even hurting you. This buffer would allow people time to react and ward off attackers for just trying to do random drive bys to harass / grief tribes.

Anyways those are a couple of thoughts of how a system could work to prevent people from just harassing people and griefing them.

Now if you cant handle things like that, I believe you should choose a safe tribe, in the safe areas. But I think most people understand that they want some level of protections from just these random griefers that will harass people and are afraid that all these 10000s of hours they put into something can be messed up in such a little amount of time.

I like that idea. What's an extra 10k hp to a tribe of 100s of attackers? But to a few griefers it could mean the difference between stopping them from infiltrating your walls or not. But you have to remember, there are terraformed dirt walls. Even if they break through those, they cant get over the dirt wall if it is high enough (or if /unstuck is fixed). Therefore the only point of entry (for a tribe that has terraformed walls all around it) would be the gate area.


I can understand this.

Just a little info on a system for this I think would work, is where you would have a little protection from the totem itself (call it spirit protection), this protection isnt free, you need to put resources into your totem to upkeep this spirit protection. (How much is up for balancing).
But what this protection does, is allow your WHOLE area to be protected BUT still be attackable. What that means is, say you have to break through the protections before damaging or tearing up anything. Instead right now most systems for attack are what I call point attack systems. People will attack the weakest point. But also breaking the weakest points.

If you have your whole tribe encircled with walls, each all has a set amount of HP (I would guess) well you only need to take out 1 wall of HP before causing real damage to the players. With this spirit protection. It would force people not to just grief people but only attack tribe areas if they really want to siege else all the time is wasted.

Say the spirit protection is 10k HP per day. Walls would be about 1k per wall. Well they would effectively have to take out 11k of damage before even hurting you. This buffer would allow people time to react and ward off attackers for just trying to do random drive bys to harass / grief tribes.

Anyways those are a couple of thoughts of how a system could work to prevent people from just harassing people and griefing them.

Now if you cant handle things like that, I believe you should choose a safe tribe, in the safe areas. But I think most people understand that they want some level of protections from just these random griefers that will harass people and are afraid that all these 10000s of hours they put into something can be messed up in such a little amount of time.

I like that idea. What's an extra 10k hp to a tribe of 100s of attackers? But to a few griefers it could mean the difference between stopping them from infiltrating your walls or not. But you have to remember, there are terraformed dirt walls. Even if they break through those, they cant get over the dirt wall if it is high enough (or if /unstuck is fixed). Therefore the only point of entry (for a tribe that has terraformed walls all around it) would be the gate area.

[MrDDT]

I like that idea. What's an extra 10k hp to a tribe of 100s of attackers? But to a few griefers it could mean the difference between stopping them from infiltrating your walls or not. But you have to remember, there are terraformed dirt walls. Even if they break through those, they cant get over the dirt wall if it is high enough (or if /unstuck is fixed). Therefore the only point of entry (for a tribe that has terraformed walls all around it) would be the gate area.


Thats the idea, is to stop the random solo, or small group of greifers from attacking your town and causing damage for no reason. Only people really wanting to put effort into taking out your town will do it.

You talk about the terraformed walls etc. Great idea for defense, but there will be a way in, and likely will be a gate. If they didnt have this reverse mushroom effect of HP, they would take out a gate pretty fast. If they made gates have like 100x hp over all other stuff, then everyone would be FORCED to build walls in 1 special way. That's not good either.

I believe once archer, and ranged combat comes in, new tactics on building walls will be more effective than what you are saying here. At which time the system I said, would have even more of an effect.

All in all the overall point is the same.
Random solo / small group raiders wouldnt want to attack a town. Only groups with tactics and planning will want to expend that type of effort.

[Phatkat]

3) I would much rather have all my stuff stolen and be killed everyday than know there is no risk in anything i do...expect maybe losing a few stats when I die. Defeats the whole dynamic of how the game works. If there is no risk whats the point? I personally don't see one. PvE isn't really huge in this game....with safe zones everyone can rome around and just craft. Crafting alone will get boring very fast without risk. This game will be so so so so so much more involved with open PvP. It will give crafters a reason to craft in the first place. I don't know how to explain it and maybe it is just me, but this game will be so boring with safe zones.

[NorCalGooey]

Thats the idea, is to stop the random solo, or small group of greifers from attacking your town and causing damage for no reason. Only people really wanting to put effort into taking out your town will do it.

You talk about the terraformed walls etc. Great idea for defense, but there will be a way in, and likely will be a gate. If they didnt have this reverse mushroom effect of HP, they would take out a gate pretty fast. If they made gates have like 100x hp over all other stuff, then everyone would be FORCED to build walls in 1 special way. That's not good either.

I believe once archer, and ranged combat comes in, new tactics on building walls will be more effective than what you are saying here. At which time the system I said, would have even more of an effect.

All in all the overall point is the same.
Random solo / small group raiders wouldnt want to attack a town. Only groups with tactics and planning will want to expend that type of effort.

It's just how it's going to have to be because of how dirt walls operate. No one can go through them or take them down. Therefore the only entrance is the area where there is no terraformed wall, which will have a gate when they are added. It's not really forcing people to build one certain way. Tribes who don't have terraformed walls will be able to be taken down from any angle. Regardless if there is a spirit protection or not, once they penetrated that they would have to attack the gate.

Unless they add ladders or siege towers.


Thats the idea, is to stop the random solo, or small group of greifers from attacking your town and causing damage for no reason. Only people really wanting to put effort into taking out your town will do it.

You talk about the terraformed walls etc. Great idea for defense, but there will be a way in, and likely will be a gate. If they didnt have this reverse mushroom effect of HP, they would take out a gate pretty fast. If they made gates have like 100x hp over all other stuff, then everyone would be FORCED to build walls in 1 special way. That's not good either.

I believe once archer, and ranged combat comes in, new tactics on building walls will be more effective than what you are saying here. At which time the system I said, would have even more of an effect.

All in all the overall point is the same.
Random solo / small group raiders wouldnt want to attack a town. Only groups with tactics and planning will want to expend that type of effort.

It's just how it's going to have to be because of how dirt walls operate. No one can go through them or take them down. Therefore the only entrance is the area where there is no terraformed wall, which will have a gate when they are added. It's not really forcing people to build one certain way. Tribes who don't have terraformed walls will be able to be taken down from any angle. Regardless if there is a spirit protection or not, once they penetrated that they would have to attack the gate.

Unless they add ladders or siege towers.

I've double posted my last 5 posts, wtf is wrong with this forum lol

[PeonSanders911]

Add gates....then make it safe for your belongings....

This game needs some PvP bad.........

[MrDDT]

It's just how it's going to have to be because of how dirt walls operate. No one can go through them or take them down. Therefore the only entrance is the area where there is no terraformed wall, which will have a gate when they are added. It's not really forcing people to build one certain way. Tribes who don't have terraformed walls will be able to be taken down from any angle. Regardless if there is a spirit protection or not, once they penetrated that they would have to attack the gate.

Unless they add ladders or siege towers.
I've double posted my last 5 posts, wtf is wrong with this forum lol


I agree, but shouldnt towns be attackable from all directions? Sure you can build a better way, but you are then forcing people to build your way, or make all walls so strong they cant be taken out in any amount of time at all.

Better would be to remove the need for these dirt walls and allow people to build walls how they choose based on the defense stats vs looks stats vs decay stats.
I would hate to see every town in the game built with dirt walls all around but for a gate in 1 spot, just because its the only option for defense.

IMO I think people should be able to climb dirt walls like they could in Wurm. Dirt walls shouldnt be the standard for defense. It should be more resource needed walls that take more skill and time. Dirt walls take 0 skill and only take dirt to build, a resource that's not limited in anyway.

[NorCalGooey]

Ladders or climbing dirt walls would work

[Dubanka]

this just goes into seige mechanics...imo, the wall piece is the simplest.

earth < limestone < granite

it's like the 3 little pigs.

earth walls, fast easy to put up, will do short term, or in a pinch...but watch out for that big bad wolf.

limestone...bit more of a pita, but easy (mostly) to get the materials (limestone), wolf has to blow a bit harder (more extensive seige equipment), but goes down with quite a bit of huffing and puffing from mr. wolf.

granite...harder to get ahold of, not rare, but...who lives on a mountain? walls are the most durrable and would require serious seige equipment to breach.

but of course, this would require having that whole other part of the game that doesnt exist, and wont for...a year? maybe? to have a point.

[ArrakisTheDragon]

By Siege equipment you mean my Bedpost Pick right? LOL j/k, Im sure theres more items on the way.

The problem with safe zones in any game is it lets the carebear diaperboy jump back and forth between the safe zone and pvp zone, taunting other players as you may put it or as MrDDT mentioned before, lets them hunt your mobs, take your resources, cut your trees and you cant do anything about it because....there is a safe zone preventing you from killing them. If it takes a person a month to build something...then dont build it. If it takes you hours to aquire resources to craft some item that can be lost in pvp....then dont craft it unless you want to put forth the effort and the time but it can be lost in the end to pvp. Otherwise whatever "rare" item you claim to craft just sits in a basket and rots without use, the same thing thats plagued Darkfall for so long.

My view of items that are hard to craft or take rare resources is they are meant to be lost, they are meant to be used because eventually they will break regardless due to durability loss or item decay. A sandbox game isnt something where little boy Jimmy can build a sandcastle and then but a protective forcefield around it to keep others from destroying it, a sandbox game is something where you can build a wonder yes...but it can utmost certainly be destroyed as well. Protective zones defeat the purpose of a sandbox game just plain and simple, no "buts" no "ifs" no "should be this or should be thats" its just the end of the line period.

For new players however.......
The inner most zones of the maps should be off limits pvp but.... anything gathered, mined, logged, caught, built will not have a quality above moderate and will have crappy durability. This way some of the diaperboy/diapergirl carebears will advance a level to big boy/girl pullups or even underwear and go beyond the safe zones to find the rare resources or higher quality materials and join a clan. This is the best crawl before walk, walk before running system I can think of and IMO.

NPC players should be in each newbie spawn zone to offer simple quests according to what skills the player takes at the beginning, giving them quick run-down of how the mechanics work in the game. Upon completion of all quests a player will be expected to "leave" or "graduate" from the newbie zone into the non-protected zones of the game. Failing to complete the last quest bars the player from being able to craft anything above a certain skill level or use a certain item. However, high quality items from the outside can be given to the newbie players in safe zones but still, anything crafted, caught, built etc in newbie zones will not go above moderate quality or moderately low durability. This way we can give the diaperbears a decent tool that will last longer then the crappy stuff that they can only make in the protected areas.

Totems should not be allowed to be placed in the newbie zones period. This defeats the purpose of tribal territories and the potential possibilities of taking lands from another tribe. The only place of safety should be homesteads (one player tribal zones) but even they are fully safe. The totem could have a "refresh timer" on it with possibly needing or not needing a resource to refresh its timer, once the timer is up anyone can come and free loot all your stuff in the zone. Homesteads should be more like the housing in DF with the exception that you can build it anywhere. If you want to protect yourself inside your homestead you can build for ex: a wooden wall surrounding it with a simple gate. That way you can run in, lock the gate and bank your loot before they break the door/gate down and kill you inside the homestead. Remember, as long as your totem is "refreshed" on a homestead, they cant loot from your bins/bags that are on the ground in this area, however if your killed by someone in this area its free game to the items that were on your person when you died.

All bins and pouches should drop upon death, your inventory filling the empty slots inside the bins/ pouches. If no such room is available a sack "aka-a grave" should instantly appear upon player death will all lootable items inside of it. Newbie zones are excluded from this. Would be cool if its a pile of bones or a skeleton for player graves and make them disappear over x-amt of time instead of server reset like in other games. That way it reduces enviromental clutter to the game if the graves decay naturally.

[Mactavendish]

In other words, what I am hearing here is you guys dont want to be forced to do something any way but the way YOU like it and the game needs to be changed to match your vision.

I am totally sure it would make the game what you guys want, but there is a reason why people have also stopped playing DF or MO... bored with the same old same old.

It really kills my how you can spout words like diaperboy and carebear. Do you not realize how immature and childish it makes you sound? It does not take any courage at all to gank a newbie "carebear". It takes no character whatsoever to gang up 3 on 1 to kill someone minding their own business. What you are representing here is not skilled players, but schoolyard bullies that have no real personal worth at all.

[MrDDT]

In other words, what I am hearing here is you guys dont want to be forced to do something any way but the way YOU like it and the game needs to be changed to match your vision.

I am totally sure it would make the game what you guys want, but there is a reason why people have also stopped playing DF or MO... bored with the same old same old.

It really kills my how you can spout words like diaperboy and carebear. Do you not realize how immature and childish it makes you sound? It does not take any courage at all to gank a newbie "carebear". It takes no character whatsoever to gang up 3 on 1 to kill someone minding their own business. What you are representing here is not skilled players, but schoolyard bullies that have no real personal worth at all.


You must have missed the part where he said there should be a safe starting area for newbies. Or dont care to talk about that?

What he posted isnt something I would say is right 100%. I believe in safe areas for people that are carebears. But it should yield more rewards for people on contested areas. Its really that simple.

[Drevar]

If a player is only going to be allowed to experience 30% of the game due to the way they choose to play, then they should only be required to pay 30% of the monthly sub fee.

I don't get how a certain play style should be given more incentives orrewards for choosing to do what they supposedly say they like to do. Usuallyyou give incentives for people to do stuff they normally wouldn't, not theother way around.

From this week's answered questions:
3. When will pvp incentives be added.
The incentives for pvp are to gain loot and improve combat skills. If you have other incentives in mind, please submit a suggestion.

While he is open to suggestions, it looks like the intent is to put mechanics in placefor you to have fun, NOT to create a final, concrete goal that you can point to and say, “We won, you suck!” You will have to decide your own goal, and your own winning conditions.
I can already tell you that holding on to a rareresource spawn isn’t going to be enough for you. So you hold a node of magical ju-ju berriesfor 6 months? Is that really going togive you the satisfaction that you want?

All of my previous experience in other games as well as reading the responses here tells me that the only reward you guys enjoy is IMPOSING your will on others, whether it’s by conquest or politics orwhatever. All the tools and game gimmicks in the world won’t mean anything if you can’t force the other side into some situation against their will. That’s why attacking and harassing “carebears”is so rewarding. No one else is more vehemently opposed to some douchebag forcing them to fight or destroying their work than the non-PvP crafters.
In the end, once all the big forts are built up and all the rare stuff is claimed, you guys are going to be reduced to raiding/sieging for the lulz, since the results won’t have any meaning in the game for you. 2 years from now, are you still going to be having great fun zerging the same 6 guys over some rare plant spawn? I doubt it.

Please prove me wrong. Please tell me what goals you have that won’t be accomplished in 1 – 3 months, leaving you dead bored and crying for more reasons to PvP. And also tell what sets that long-term goal apart as being not able to accomplish it in a non-contested zone.
This game is meant to evolve over a very, very longtime. All of my objections to many of these PvP oriented sub-systems (not PvP, itself) is that the mind-set of most of those who will partake of them will only be entertained for the short-term, yet a lot of dev time is going to be spent on them vs. those of us who intend to stay for years, if the situation allows us to.

[MrDDT]

If a player is only going to be allowed to experience 30% of the game due to the way they choose to play, then they should only be required to pay 30% of the monthly sub fee.

I don't get how a certain play style should be given more incentives orrewards for choosing to do what they supposedly say they like to do. Usuallyyou give incentives for people to do stuff they normally wouldn't, not theother way around.

From this week's answered questions:
3. When will pvp incentives be added.
The incentives for pvp are to gain loot and improve combat skills. If you have other incentives in mind, please submit a suggestion.

While he is open to suggestions, it looks like the intent is to put mechanics in placefor you to have fun, NOT to create a final, concrete goal that you can point to and say, “We won, you suck!” You will have to decide your own goal, and your own winning conditions.
I can already tell you that holding on to a rareresource spawn isn’t going to be enough for you. So you hold a node of magical ju-ju berriesfor 6 months? Is that really going togive you the satisfaction that you want?

All of my previous experience in other games as well as reading the responses here tells me that the only reward you guys enjoy is IMPOSING your will on others, whether it’s by conquest or politics orwhatever. All the tools and game gimmicks in the world won’t mean anything if you can’t force the other side into some situation against their will. That’s why attacking and harassing “carebears”is so rewarding. No one else is more vehemently opposed to some douchebag forcing them to fight or destroying their work than the non-PvP crafters.
In the end, once all the big forts are built up and all the rare stuff is claimed, you guys are going to be reduced to raiding/sieging for the lulz, since the results won’t have any meaning in the game for you. 2 years from now, are you still going to be having great fun zerging the same 6 guys over some rare plant spawn? I doubt it.

Please prove me wrong. Please tell me what goals you have that won’t be accomplished in 1 – 3 months, leaving you dead bored and crying for more reasons to PvP. And also tell what sets that long-term goal apart as being not able to accomplish it in a non-contested zone.
This game is meant to evolve over a very, very longtime. All of my objections to many of these PvP oriented sub-systems (not PvP, itself) is that the mind-set of most of those who will partake of them will only be entertained for the short-term, yet a lot of dev time is going to be spent on them vs. those of us who intend to stay for years, if the situation allows us to.



I think you are missing the point, for PVPers the content is the PVP. They just need a reason to do it. A great reason is better gear, and fame. Also rewards like DAoC does with realm points, Aion does it also. Where you can use these points to build PVP skills or PVP gear.

PVPers dont need content in the fact of a ton of new monsters to kill or dungeons to fight in. They want to claim king of the hill and that hill be worth something to someone else, so that someone else will want to take the hill from them.

PVPers also want an open world of PVP so that, if you steal from one of their friends, they can go burn your hut down. Not a system where you turn grey for 2mins and then you are blue and cant be attacked.

[ArrakisTheDragon]

In other words, what I am hearing here is you guys dont want to be forced to do something any way but the way YOU like it and the game needs to be changed to match your vision.

I am totally sure it would make the game what you guys want, but there is a reason why people have also stopped playing DF or MO... bored with the same old same old.

It really kills my how you can spout words like diaperboy and carebear. Do you not realize how immature and childish it makes you sound? It does not take any courage at all to gank a newbie "carebear". It takes no character whatsoever to gang up 3 on 1 to kill someone minding their own business. What you are representing here is not skilled players, but schoolyard bullies that have no real personal worth at all.

First off, if your ever in a situation of a 3v1 thats your own fault for putting yourself into that position to begin with. Its called situational awareness, always keep a look over your shoulder to watch your own back. I dont know about you but for me, that just adds a whole new level to the playing field. The knowledge of knowing where something good is at but your not safe in the area in which its located. Being alert and always having an escape plan or route will save you alot of times from being 2v1, 3v1, 4v1, Zerg v1, need I name more? Keeping your stats above half and your stam at least at 3/4 will give you a whole heck of alot better chance of surviving a dangerous encounter.

AS far as the maturity level goes, its a forum about a game for one. Two the heading of the topic includes the word "carebear". Three as far as I know as long as my commentary doesnt cause discrimination toward a directed person (1) not person(s) or discriminate the game company or its staff members, I can type what I want. Four, you dont know me so how can you fully judge someones maturity level based upon what they type. Thats pretty much like asking a bum off the street to be a psycologist and give treatment to paying clients.

[Book]

They want to claim king of the hill and that hill be worth something to someone else, so that someone else will want to take the hill from them.

PVPers also want an open world of PVP so that, if you steal from one of their friends, they can go burn your hut down. Not a system where you turn grey for 2mins and then you are blue and cant be attacked.

I think the fact that a hill only has value to you as it pertains to its value to someone else is part of Drevar's point. For a minority contingent of pvpers, the fun is in denying others and imposing upon others.
The fun is in standing on top of a hill someone liked, for whatever reason which is actually irrelevant to you, and being able to say "hah hah, you can't haaave it!"

There are number of reasons people want open world pvp. For some of us, it adds to the reality and thrill of a good simulation. It really does.

Trouble lies in the fact that again, a small minority contingent of pvpers want open world pvp to better impose their dominance over others in a larger and more persistent context.

If I shrug and say "ok, take the hill, whatever." The fun is gone for you. Therefore, you want to have something be meaningful to me, so you can take it away and hope I will engage in your idea of fun to get it back.

In the grander scheme of things, it is that small minority of pvpers that winds up ruining the potential of open world pvp for the more casual week-end warriors. Safe zones wind up existing to limit a small minority from limiting the choice of the majority.

And then? The minority gets very upset with the majority and I won't say they cry or anything... let's say the stomp their foot on the floor and throw a tantrum? :p

[Drevar]

PvP'ers, who PvP because they like PvP...need a reason to PvP? *boggle*

I see no issue with having some sort of fame system, titles points, whatever, if that floats your boat. Penis envy of the others would have to be the only advantage gained by having "fame" though. This does bring up my issue with spending more dev time on this vs other features or fixes.

As far as the king of the hill argument. Sure I can see that, but how long before being king of the hill becomes boring? Is defending that hill 23/7 for the next 3 years from the same 10 guys something you find appealing? And yes, as Book stated above, the imposition of your ownership of that hill and denial of the resource to someone else appears to be a greater reward than anything you actually could do with the hill itself.

I totally agree with the stealing/killing/revenge issue. I also believe a scorched earth campaign is a viable retaliation. But I also believe, as I know you do, that it should be a campaign, not a 15 minute endeavor for lulz.

[MrDDT]

PvP'ers, who PvP because they like PvP...need a reason to PvP? *boggle*

I see no issue with having some sort of fame system, titles points, whatever, if that floats your boat. Penis envy of the others would have to be the only advantage gained by having "fame" though. This does bring up my issue with spending more dev time on this vs other features or fixes.

As far as the king of the hill argument. Sure I can see that, but how long before being king of the hill becomes boring? Is defending that hill 23/7 for the next 3 years from the same 10 guys something you find appealing? And yes, as Book stated above, the imposition of your ownership of that hill and denial of the resource to someone else appears to be a greater reward than anything you actually could do with the hill itself.

I totally agree with the stealing/killing/revenge issue. I also believe a scorched earth campaign is a viable retaliation. But I also believe, as I know you do, that it should be a campaign, not a 15 minute endeavor for lulz.


This would be like saying.

PVEers who PVE because they like PVE need a reason to PVE? *boggle*
I mean what if you went out to PVE and you got no loot for it, and no rewards. Wouldn't you kinda get bored of that? I don't know I think that's the main reason they give rewards to people for PVE is because it makes it more worthwhile and fun. Pretty sure people are not out there killing bears because its fun to kill a bear only. They want a reward for it, whether its skills or resources or epic gears.

About the king of the hill. First why would it have to be only the same 10 guys? I think the king of the hill and the rewards are 2 different types of rewards, just as a rare resource is a different reward than say a special title. People have different motivating factors. Some are driving by the fame, others by items, others still for the shear thought of "I can" and others still with the thought of "Am I good enough?". Plus more. More factors you can bring into the reward the better it will be for all parties going for that "item".




Trouble lies in the fact that again, a small minority contingent of pvpers want open world pvp to better impose their dominance over others in a larger and more persistent context.

Nawh, Im not really seeing that. Maybe a very very small % of the PVPers, but none Ive seen posting here. You just think that because people like Duh say "You cant have 2 rule sets" because if you dont enforce some of the same or all of the same rules on the other 1/2 then the other half will just take the easiest route and all of the fighting and hard work will be for naught.

[Book]

Let me see if I can boil it down a bit.

PvP centric players should not get more rewards than others because they are not first class, they are not that special, nor is the playstyle all that impressive.

The notion that they incur more risk and difficulty is not true. I won't say that PvE incurs more difficulty or more risk, but each playstyle has their own. One isn't more special than the other.

Safe zones had to be implemented because a number of PvPers feel entitled to impose their playstyles on people who don't feel like playing with them in particular on a particular day. I've had to deal with kids before and I understand how upsetting it can be when someone doesn't want to play with them this very instant but eventually, everyone just has to deal with it. Artificial mechanisms have to be put in place because of those who never learned to leave others alone. By alone, I mean away from the nuisance insisting I play their game with them their way whenever they wish.

Telling me that nobody here wants to impose their domination on others is not realizing how transparent their motivations are, regardless of how they want to spin things in the hopes of manipulating the outcome more to their needs.

[MrDDT]

Let me see if I can boil it down a bit.

PvP centric players should not get more rewards than others because they are not first class, they are not that special, nor is the playstyle all that impressive.

The notion that they incur more risk and difficulty is not true. I won't say that PvE incurs more difficulty or more risk, but each playstyle has their own. One isn't more special than the other.

Safe zones had to be implemented because a number of PvPers feel entitled to impose their playstyles on people who don't feel like playing with them in particular on a particular day. I've had to deal with kids before and I understand how upsetting it can be when someone doesn't want to play with them this very instant but eventually, everyone just has to deal with it. Artificial mechanisms have to be put in place because of those who never learned to leave others alone. By alone, I mean away from the nuisance insisting I play their game with them their way whenever they wish.

Telling me that nobody here wants to impose their domination on others is not realizing how transparent their motivations are, regardless of how they want to spin things in the hopes of manipulating the outcome more to their needs.


Im not saying either playstyle is impressive or not. I didnt say anything about "first class" or special. Im talking about difficulty vs reward. Tell me as a PVE player, do you risk losing your town? Losing all your items when you are in your safe area or go out PVE?

Because as a PVPer they do. When you have it more difficult, you should be rewarded accordingly.

If you dont want to play with kids, great. You might want to look for a game that's strictly for adults, instead of playing online games. Because these will have kids in it whether you like it or not. Its really not a choice anyone can stop.

PVPers are not looking to impose their play-styles on others, they are merely upholding you to the same standards. Meaning, if you put in x amount of difficulty then, they should get the same reward for doing the same, and if they do more, they should be rewarded more.
I find it more of a nuisance to play with people that I cant stop, and force to move away from me. I have to uproot and move to be away from them. I would rather have it where, my town is at risk, but I can do something about these nuisances that are near me.
But hey, that's why I believe in safe zones. So people like you can play your way, and people like me can play my way, its a good balance of the two.


I believe my motivations are very transparent, because Im open about them. Just as I believe you are. I dont think people here want to rule everyone on the whole server, I believe they want to have fun, there are different ways to have that fun, not all are the same as yours, nor mine. But I think there is a system that works for most people, and Ive yet to see any "PVPers" saying they are not willing to meet in the middle. Sure some take a stance that is pretty far to the one side, and same with PVEers but doesnt mean the system wont work.
I think EVE's system is a great system and I think a small change to that system will work nicely here. Difficulty vs reward is what most Ive seeing is asking for. I dont think its about domination, I think its mostly about freedom, and rewards.

[Book]

I get that there's nothing implemented at the moment that would threaten my home in a safe totem. It doesn't always have to be that way though. If they were to implement tornadoes, earthquakes, etc that might destroy my stuff, I'd be fine with that and it would be interesting.

Imagine having to choose your location with potential flashfloods in mind, or having to manage the forest near your place to lower the chances of fires in the summer.

I hope PvE will eventually be plenty difficult and interesting.

It would probably be more worthwhile to increase the challenge of PvE to meet the reward than increase the reward for PvP if there really is such a difference.

Don't really see myself ever finding much sense in rewarding people more just because they play the way they like. You can't imagine how difficult it is for me to resist the impulse to kill everyone in sight. People like me should get the most rewards because resisting that impulse is sooo very difficult! Except that nobody is asking us to play like this, it's just the way we play. No reason to give us more reward for playing the way we choose.

[Drevar]

PVE'ers aren't saying we need a reason to PVE. Being able to PVE IS the reason to do it. We like to build, craft, and advance our characters. Playing the game in itself IS the reward. Very simply, we are PVE'ing for the sake of PVE'ing some more. You don't like it, it's boring, whatever. I like it and it's what I am going to continue to do.

PVP'ers on the other hand really seem enthusiastic about PVP, but for some odd reason the ability to PVP isn't enough. They need to be given something else to entice them to do what they already said they love to do. That's whats boggling to me. The incentive in Xsyon is the fact that you can do it and advance your character at the same time, as well as loot the hell outta someone to boot.

Everyone pays the same subscription fee, everyone is entitled to the same satisfaction and reward. What you do with the time you have paid for is up to you.

PvP's play for the thrill, the risk (or total lack of it in the case of newb gankers). I play for the achievement of building, creating something. The fact that you get what you want out of it, and I get what I want out of what I do should be all the reward any of us needs.

[MrDDT]

PVE'ers aren't saying we need a reason to PVE. Being able to PVE IS the reason to do it. We like to build, craft, and advance our characters. Playing the game in itself IS the reward. Very simply, we are PVE'ing for the sake of PVE'ing some more. You don't like it, it's boring, whatever. I like it and it's what I am going to continue to do.

PVP'ers on the other hand really seem enthusiastic about PVP, but for some odd reason the ability to PVP isn't enough. They need to be given something else to entice them to do what they already said they love to do. That's whats boggling to me. The incentive in Xsyon is the fact that you can do it and advance your character at the same time, as well as loot the hell outta someone to boot.

Everyone pays the same subscription fee, everyone is entitled to the same satisfaction and reward. What you do with the time you have paid for is up to you.

PvP's play for the thrill, the risk (or total lack of it in the case of newb gankers). I play for the achievement of building, creating something. The fact that you get what you want out of it, and I get what I want out of what I do should be all the reward any of us needs.


So you are ok if animals didn't yield resources?
Or trees didn't?
Or scavenging off the ground didn't yield anything?

You are simply ok with the act of able to do it, even if you didnt get anything out of it, other than the act itself? Because that's what you are saying PVPers should get.


I get that there's nothing implemented at the moment that would threaten my home in a safe totem. It doesn't always have to be that way though. If they were to implement tornadoes, earthquakes, etc that might destroy my stuff, I'd be fine with that and it would be interesting.

Imagine having to choose your location with potential flashfloods in mind, or having to manage the forest near your place to lower the chances of fires in the summer.

I hope PvE will eventually be plenty difficult and interesting.

It would probably be more worthwhile to increase the challenge of PvE to meet the reward than increase the reward for PvP if there really is such a difference.

Don't really see myself ever finding much sense in rewarding people more just because they play the way they like. You can't imagine how difficult it is for me to resist the impulse to kill everyone in sight. People like me should get the most rewards because resisting that impulse is sooo very difficult! Except that nobody is asking us to play like this, it's just the way we play. No reason to give us more reward for playing the way we choose.

Hey Im fine with that, if they had tornadoes that would wipe your totem off the map if you are in that area, I believe you should be rewarded more for living there then in some other area where there was no risk of a tornado.

[Drevar]

Not even worth arguing anymore, since you have resorted to your usual word twisting and rediculous interpretation of terms.

I may disagree with 90% of what Dubanka says, but at least he spends his time making valid points instead of arguing stupid semantics.

[MrDDT]

Not even worth arguing anymore, since you have resorted to your usual word twisting and rediculous interpretation of terms.

I may disagree with 90% of what Dubanka says, but at least he spends his time making valid points instead of arguing stupid semantics.

So when I say the same thing back to you, its "stupid semantics"?
Well now you understand how bad your thought process is on it. When you say that people shouldnt be rewarded for PVP, because PVP itself is all they need, then it should be the same for PVEers and crafters.
Heck according to you, a crafter shouldnt even get an item after crafting, they should just be rewarded with the simple fact they can craft. Haha.

[Drevar]

Wow. Just wow. Do you just read words and whatever idea or image you want to hear pops into your head, or do you actually try to even understand wtf people say to you? I'm done with this. Can't have a decent debate with someone with ESL level English comprehension.

[Jadzia]

This would be like saying.

PVEers who PVE because they like PVE need a reason to PVE? *boggle*
I mean what if you went out to PVE and you got no loot for it, and no rewards. Wouldn't you kinda get bored of that? I don't know I think that's the main reason they give rewards to people for PVE is because it makes it more worthwhile and fun. Pretty sure people are not out there killing bears because its fun to kill a bear only. They want a reward for it, whether its skills or resources or epic gears.
PvErs do PvE for fun, for developing their characters and for loot. Same with PvPers, they get fun, they develop their characters and they get loot. No idea why a PvPer thinks he has right for more.

My town won't be attacked and destroyed. In return I won't be able to attack and take someone else's town. Tribes who choose to be warring do that for fun and for the hope that they can take over other tribes' territory. The reward is right there in return for the risk you take. If you don't like the risk, you won't get the reward, as in the opportunity to siege other cities.

[billpaustin]

I didn't vote, since my choice is not on there. My choice is both: full FFA PvP in some zones, and safe areas in other zones. Any player can decide to go into the PvP zones to get the better resources, at some risk. Other players will stay in the safe zones.

That is what I would vote for, a DAOC style approach.

[MrDDT]

Wow. Just wow. Do you just read words and whatever idea or image you want to hear pops into your head, or do you actually try to even understand wtf people say to you? I'm done with this. Can't have a decent debate with someone with ESL level English comprehension.

Whatever you say man. You are not making any valid points, and when I debate your points you goto person attacks.



PvErs do PvE for fun, for developing their characters and for loot. Same with PvPers, they get fun, they develop their characters and they get loot. No idea why a PvPer thinks he has right for more.

My town won't be attacked and destroyed. In return I won't be able to attack and take someone else's town. Tribes who choose to be warring do that for fun and for the hope that they can take over other tribes' territory. The reward is right there in return for the risk you take. If you don't like the risk, you won't get the reward, as in the opportunity to siege other cities.

PVPer has a right because its harder to PVP than it is to PVE. If PVE were harder then they should get more rewards.


I didn't vote, since my choice is not on there. My choice is both: full FFA PvP in some zones, and safe areas in other zones. Any player can decide to go into the PvP zones to get the better resources, at some risk. Other players will stay in the safe zones.

That is what I would vote for, a DAOC style approach.


I agree with this also. You have areas which are highly contested and are rewarded for those areas, just like DAoC did. I love taking relics and the idea of realm points.

[Jadzia]

PVPer has a right because its harder to PVP than it is to PVE. If PVE were harder then they should get more rewards.
I doubt its hard for a PvPer to kill a crafter who is full of goods. In PvP the reward is not proportional with the risk, sometimes you have very little risk and you get high reward. Plus they do get better reward, I can never loot a full armor off a bear, or some good tools.
All of us has the risk of being killed in PvP outside of safe zone. What is my reward for this high risk ?

[MrDDT]

I doubt its hard for a PvPer to kill a crafter who is full of goods. In PvP the reward is not proportional with the risk, sometimes you have very little risk and you get high reward. Plus they do get better reward, I can never loot a full armor off a bear, or some good tools.
All of us has the risk of being killed in PvP outside of safe zone. What is my reward for this high risk ?

You have the reward of killing another player outside your safe zone, and looting them.

The risk of dying with the items on you is pretty low compared to the risk of losing your whole totem and tribe wouldnt you agree?

You are only talking about a "crafter" as one of the options, plus what reward does the PVPer get if they kill the crafter? Some tools that are likely used for skilling up and 1/2 broken?

[xyberviri]

I doubt its hard for a PvPer to kill a crafter who is full of goods. In PvP the reward is not proportional with the risk, sometimes you have very little risk and you get high reward. Plus they do get better reward, I can never loot a full armor off a bear, or some good tools.
All of us has the risk of being killed in PvP outside of safe zone. What is my reward for this high risk ?

I see where your coming from but to be honest you need to give a little on your side before you can take a little from ours.
The pvp side only has the reward of "kill some, loot corpse" thats the only reward for the pvpers.

[Jadzia]

I see where your coming from but to be honest you need to give a little on your side before you can take a little from ours.
The pvp side only has the reward of "kill some, loot corpse" thats the only reward for the pvpers.
I have zero intention to take anything form you. I'm only saying that a PvEer has the same reward as a PvPer...really, what do I get if I kill a bear ? Some skin, bones, skull....not a big reward either. I don't get any extra bonus, patting on the head or whatever.

All I'm saying here that there is no higher risk for a PvPer since everyone can be attacked not only a PvP player. Still he has higher reward since the loot from a player is usually better than a loot from an animal. I'm fine with this, no problem at all, I like full loot, just that I don't get why DDT wants even MORE reward.


You have the reward of killing another player outside your safe zone, and looting them.

The risk of dying with the items on you is pretty low compared to the risk of losing your whole totem and tribe wouldnt you agree?

You are only talking about a "crafter" as one of the options, plus what reward does the PVPer get if they kill the crafter? Some tools that are likely used for skilling up and 1/2 broken?
I don't want to kill anyone, and I don't want to loot. That is not a reward for me, more of a punishment. So I'm forced to take the risk, but get no reward.

I agree that losing your totem is much higher risk than dieing. Thats why it has a much higher reward...the option to attack, siege and take over other tribes' cities. If you don't take the risk of your totem being destroyed then you lock out yourself from the option of wars.

If there is no risk in killing a crafter, why would you want higher reward ? And its very possible that he was scavenging for hours and filled with high level valuable stuffs. Otherwise why do you attack him on the first hand ?

[MrDDT]

I have zero intention to take anything form you. I'm only saying that a PvEer has the same reward as a PvPer...really, what do I get if I kill a bear ? Some skin, bones, skull....not a big reward either. I don't get any extra bonus, patting on the head or whatever.

All I'm saying here that there is no higher risk for a PvPer since everyone can be attacked not only a PvP player. Still he has higher reward since the loot from a player is usually better than a loot from an animal. I'm fine with this, no problem at all, I like full loot, just that I don't get why DDT wants even MORE reward.


I don't want to kill anyone, and I don't want to loot. That is not a reward for me, more of a punishment. So I'm forced to take the risk, but get no reward.

I agree that losing your totem is much higher risk than dieing. Thats why it has a much higher reward...the option to attack, siege and take over other tribes' cities. If you don't take the risk of your totem being destroyed then you lock out yourself from the option of wars.

If there is no risk in killing a crafter, why would you want higher reward ? And its very possible that he was scavenging for hours and filled with high level valuable stuffs. Otherwise why do you attack him on the first hand ?


You have no idea what that risk will be attacking someone. How do you know its a crafter at all? Maybe its a seasoned warrior and you goto attack him and he beats the crap out of you? Or what if its a trap? 5 other guys in the bushes?

Taking another totem is a good reward, but why would someone risk losing a totem only to take someone elses? There is no reason behind it? Is it a good spot? Nope all the resources are everywhere. So why would I want your totem area when I could have mine? Why would I want to risk mine that I put all this work into for yours with nothing to gain from it other than the stuff I already have here? Wouldnt I just leave my totem safe and not worry about it?

Im not saying a PVP player has more risk. Im saying if a PVP player is living in a contested NO safe area, then they are at more risk. If you are a PVE player living in the safe totem area, you are at less risk of dying, because you are in or near your safe totem.

[Book]

DDT, nobody is forcing you to live in a NO safe zone contested area.

The area is that way to better accommodate your style of play. It's the way you want it. Only you also want a better reward for having the area the way you want it...

If you want to tell me that nobody is going to live in that area without extra reward... well maybe that should tell you something? :rolleyes:

If you say you're risking the loss of your totem, same as I'm always answering... this is your choice. This is the way you want it. You don't get a gold star or a cookie for having things the way you want them.

If you'd like, we could encourage people to say "Good Job Man!!!" after you kill them. There's your reward.

Addition: Try to understand that death can be just as common in a PvE setting as in a PvP setting. Revenants never sleep, there may very easily come a day when the PvE area is more dangerous than the PvP area.

[Jadzia]

You have no idea what that risk will be attacking someone. How do you know its a crafter at all? Maybe its a seasoned warrior and you goto attack him and he beats the crap out of you? Or what if its a trap? 5 other guys in the bushes?

Taking another totem is a good reward, but why would someone risk losing a totem only to take someone elses? There is no reason behind it? Is it a good spot? Nope all the resources are everywhere. So why would I want your totem area when I could have mine? Why would I want to risk mine that I put all this work into for yours with nothing to gain from it other than the stuff I already have here? Wouldnt I just leave my totem safe and not worry about it?

Im not saying a PVP player has more risk. Im saying if a PVP player is living in a contested NO safe area, then they are at more risk. If you are a PVE player living in the safe totem area, you are at less risk of dying, because you are in or near your safe totem.

If you attack someone who is scavenging or fishing without weapon and armor you can kill him before he can stop his current action and gear up. And run around and scout before you attack someone ?

If I run zones away from my camp I'm nowhere safe. There might be safe totems around me but that is not safe for me, is it ?

Why you want to take someone's totem...I have no idea. Never had. I don't want it, I wouldn't take it even if it was offered for free. But you guys want it so I guess you know why ? Perhaps they have better buildings (assuming buildings get some purpose..) or he insulted you and you want to take revenge or to destroy the tribe's homeland before taking over their expansion totem....something like this I guess. Or to drive them away from your neighborhood because they use up the resources nearby...or purely for fun, because you hate the other tribe and want to piss them off. The contest for resources will be done through expansion totems so that can't be the reason.

[MrDDT]

DDT, nobody is forcing you to live in a NO safe zone contested area.

The area is that way to better accommodate your style of play. It's the way you want it. Only you also want a better reward for having the area the way you want it...

If you want to tell me that nobody is going to live in that area without extra reward... well maybe that should tell you something? :rolleyes:

If you say you're risking the loss of your totem, same as I'm always answering... this is your choice. This is the way you want it. You don't get a gold star or a cookie for having things the way you want them.

If you'd like, we could encourage people to say "Good Job Man!!!" after you kill them. There's your reward.

Addition: Try to understand that death can be just as common in a PvE setting as in a PvP setting. Revenants never sleep, there may very easily come a day when the PvE area is more dangerous than the PvP area.

You are asking someone to risk 1000$ to play the same game as someone who risks 10$ because risking 1000$ gives them more fun. When they both have a chance to win 1010$. Does that make any sense to you?

Death in PVE can be just as common or it can be less or more common. However, what are the odds of losing what you bring in PVE vs PVP?
Also like I said, are you risking your totem and all that work into it?


If you attack someone who is scavenging or fishing without weapon and armor you can kill him before he can stop his current action and gear up. And run around and scout before you attack someone ?

If I run zones away from my camp I'm nowhere safe. There might be safe totems around me but that is not safe for me, is it ?

Why you want to take someone's totem...I have no idea. Never had. I don't want it, I wouldn't take it even if it was offered for free. But you guys want it so I guess you know why ? Perhaps they have better buildings (assuming buildings get some purpose..) or he insulted you and you want to take revenge or to destroy the tribe's homeland before taking over their expansion totem....something like this I guess. Or to drive them away from your neighborhood because they use up the resources nearby...or purely for fun, because you hate the other tribe and want to piss them off. The contest for resources will be done through expansion totems so that can't be the reason.

That's right you dont understand why. Because you cant see the other side of the coin, while PVPers see your side.

Attacking someone elses totem for no reward and only loss is not going to be very common. Look at games like EVE, DarkFall and Shadowbane to see reasons why people take other peoples areas. RESOURCES, and Location to resources.
There is a reward for taking these places.

[Book]

You are asking someone to risk 1000$ to play the same game as someone who risks 10$ because risking 1000$ gives them more fun. When they both have a chance to win 1010$. Does that make any sense to you?

Dude, I'm not asking anyone to risk a 1000$ :D That's my point. You can if you want to, I'm also not trying to stop you.

[Dubanka]

pls check out my idea in the barracks totem thread.

[MrDDT]

Dude, I'm not asking anyone to risk a 1000$ :D That's my point. You can if you want to, I'm also not trying to stop you.

You are not asking anyone to risk it, but you are asking for the same reward as someone that does.
That's the point. Why would I want you playing at my table when we are all risking 1000$ for 1010$ reward, when you are like "Hey can I play I only want to risk this 10$, but if I win, I want the same as you guys"

Makes NO sense. You are saying here is 10$, for risk, but I dont want to miss out on the jackpot that you guys are risking your 1000$ for. Haha I dont get how you dont see this as common sense. Why would I ever risk 1000$ when I could just risk 10$?

[Trenchfoot]

Let me make my personal position clear.


I want an FFA/FL open world where the players are given the tools to alter the world, and then set loose.
I want structures to be as safe as it gets.
I want siege mechanics to be one of, if not 'the' most difficult thing to achieve in the entire game. ie. The method by which you get past structures.
I want the ability to make peace (through war if necessary).
I want my enemies to be formidable (not pushovers).
I want my achievements to have a linear purpose (if conquering a resource is only valuable as a means to conquer more resources, this is circular to me, and therefore meaningless to pursue).
I want a predominantly zone free world (no amusement parks).
I want the world to be able to change (areas become safe/unsafe through alliances/war dynamically, as the players carve out the world).
I want communities to be able to enter into a state of victory with the opportunity, through hard work, to retain that state (victory being defined as: made safe by our own hands, for our people to enjoy).


These have been my personal positions since before I got here. They have not changed.

But if you asked me, would I be able to wander away from that position and still have fun playing? I would have to admit, of course. Because I've played many many games far from that position and I've had fun.

My problem is when you get too far from my position as to make it into another, better, more polished, finished game I should already be playing, instead of this one. So I guess that's my boundary. As soon as this game becomes the sum of a bunch of other games who have done more or less the same thing, what incentive do I have to subscribe to this one?

That's where I draw the line, and that's the sum total of what I'm waiting on from the devs. The second the devs state definitively, 'we're crossing that line', I'm done and I'll go play 'those other' games (no hard feelings). When they say 'we don't know yet', or just keep silent or hint, then the discussion is still worth having imo.

[joakin]

This is quite easy, its not that we already have too much of this kind of game, its the game's style, this game is already set to be a realistic game,
the perfect thing to do is NPC guards in a town that watch out for simple laws: no killing, picking stuff droped from town members, ( stealing ), etc, but before they attack a warning would be good for example: a tribe member of the town drops a wood log on the ground, then someone comes along and steals it, the guard would ask him to put it back, if the person whole stole will not drop the exact item back ( has 10 seconds) the guard would attack.

also the guard would come from a guard bed, which is a bed made for a guard which the guard sleeps in and respawns in, and the bed can customize the guard's armor and weapon, you put the armor and weapon and each time the guard gets killed youll have to pay a certain amount depending on the armor and weapon that the bed has, that way towns are more safe for ppl to drop their stuff, tho guards should be the only NPCs.
There should be a max of guard beds in the town, the more members the more beds allowed. you should also be able to put patrol points for the guard to move around on or a point were the guard should stay in untill he has to eat or sleep.

this suggestion can be thought and it would bring a balance for a safe place in towns.

NPC guards, the only guards in the game can be thought with to have a realistic effect in the game to bring a good balance

like they can spawn from a bed that you can build and put were ever in the town, but the max guard beds in a town based on the size of the town.

patrol points where the guard patrols untill he has to eat and sleep then another guard takes the shift.

if this system is made well, it could bring a good balance between safe ppl ( pu****s who are afraid to risk it :) ) and ppl who want it all sandbox.

[xyberviri]

Again, i say let the players build safe zones that require some type of upkeep that prevents pvp, with other details to be fleshed out....

[Drevar]

This would be the simplest solution. If you want a safe zone to opt out of warfare/conquest, you pay upkeep. If you opt-in to the warfare/conquest you don't have to pay upkeep but don't have a safe zone.