"End Game" and Conquering/Destroying Land Claims

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hellaciouss

This is where you're failing to see the point. If one of the tribes is a warring tribe and the other isn't, the warring tribe can do absolutely nothing about the non-warring tribe. So what if the warring tribe can kill you outside of the grounds, you spawn a few yards away, you can also kill them, which lessens their numbers when they are having to fight you to defend their resources that you are taking as well as defend against a warring tribe that can kill them. The system you want to put in place is massively exploitable, and WILL BE MASSIVELY EXPLOITED! People WILL exploit these holes to their absolute full potential, there is no if's, or and's, or but's, they will exploit these holes to the best of their ability and it will kill any incentive warrings tribes have to stay in the game.

There is way of dealing with an aggressive force if you're not the fighting type. You can hire protection. You can use dimplomacy. You can move to a hostile free area. There are however absolutely no ways to fully deal with an invunlerable tribe sitting on your territorys doorstep. If they are set on making tribes be able to go invulnerable, give them their own server so they can play Sims without causing a massively exploitable system.

---

Sorry man I see your point. The carebears that want invulnerability don't care. Its almost like they never played a pvp game. If there are exploits people will be damned sure to use em. Too many carebears that want a solely crafting game. In a game like this you shouldn't be able to just switch off your consequences for your actions when its a survival sandbox mmorpg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tehroth

Sorry man I see your point. The carebears that want invulnerability don't care. Its almost like they never played a pvp game. If there are exploits people will be damned sure to use em. Too many carebears that want a solely crafting game. In a game like this you shouldn't be able to just switch off your consequences for your actions when its a survival sandbox mmorpg.

---

But no one would be invulnerable. There would only be a small plot of land that they couldn't be hurt on. That aside...

So if this is truly about people working out ways to exploit their safe zone, make it so non-warring tribes can't engage in pvp period. Make it so they can't do anything to encroach on someone elses land and so they can't hurt or be hurt by other players. Also, make it where if you choose to switch to open pvp you can never go back to non-warring.
Neocron had a set up like this with implant chips that worked out well.

How about making it so you can destroy buildings/totems within a certain radius of your totem? Buildings/totems outside of your range could be safe, but you would still be able to kill players anywhere. That way war tribes won't have to worry about tribes popping up in their area stealing all their resources(if they do, you can just destroy them and make them move somewhere else). It will also allow the peaceful tribes to stay away from war by staying near other non-aggressive tribes and out of range of the ones that want to kill everything in their area. If an aggressive tribe tries to set up shop in a peaceful area(or a peaceful tribe turns aggressive) then the peaceful tribes can group up to fight them off and destroy their totem. Aggressive people will still be able to "raid" the peaceful areas, killing people outside their safe zones and stealing their stuff. And peaceful people who want a little pvp action can still raid the aggressive areas. If you make it full out open pvp to where you can destroy anything anywhere, then the small tribes wouldn't stand a chance. You'd end up having only a few huge tribes fighting for all the land in the game(which means you'd have a lot less people wanting to play.) It wouldn't be endgame, it would be the end of the game, and a fun game should never end. ;)

And I agree with the op about a tribes land size being determined by progress instead of tribe size. Just my two cents. :D

First having two servers would not "kill" this game at all. For some reason a great many PKers want to force everybody else within their ruleset and don't want them to have their own "safe" world. I guess that's because it lets them grief more, to fight against people who have no interest in fighting. If enough people get this game there is no reason why they can't have two servers.

I'm a lone person on my tiny plot of land. I'm not going to be eating up resources around me, and there's no reason why some big clan should be able to come and mow me down. You think it's "unrealistic"? How realistic is it that suddenly my ability to dig up land and things ends just because it's too far from my totem? Not very. It's a game with rules, it's not about how "real" it is.

Especially since this game supposedly has "magic" rituals coming in the future as the world expands and evolves and has Gods re-awakened. Why under this system could there not be a God that protects and watches over peaceful people? It makes complete sense in such a world that we are going to be having actually.

I believe that this game will have enough players to support both a PvP and non PvP server which should solve the problem for most people. It won't make the griefers happy who want to just be able to screw with people that don't want to be screwed with, but do we really care about making the griefers happy?

I absolutely will not hang around if I can get my tiny house wiped out, I'm not here for that type of game. If calling names and thinking it embarrasses people is your only way of getting your point across - go ahead and call me them. I truly don't care.

Besides that 99% of the people calling other gamers "Carebears" would pee their pants if they were going to get in a real fight - they are carebears in real :D