PVP rules

[Shrimps]

I strongly disagree. I don't see the point in having GM's at all unless they're able to do things like stop greifers and exploiters.

I would hate to have a system where there is no way for tribes to stop greifing without incurring penalties. Honestly that's why I'm tempted to just say treat all solos as evil. Because you can war a tribe but unless you can basically "war" a solo then theres nothing stopping them from greifing except for GM's.

The same thing happened in Darkfall, solos can greif all day long and unless you want to take a penalty for it you cannot stop them and the GM's were useless.

[MrDDT]

I strongly disagree. I don't see the point in having GM's at all unless they're able to do things like stop greifers and exploiters.

I would hate to have a system where there is no way for tribes to stop greifing without incurring penalties. Honestly that's why I'm tempted to just say treat all solos as evil. Because you can war a tribe but unless you can basically "war" a solo then theres nothing stopping them from greifing except for GM's.

The same thing happened in Darkfall, solos can greif all day long and unless you want to take a penalty for it you cannot stop them and the GM's were useless.

Im more than happy treating all solo people as Evil. Thats much better than having GM police. You have a system you can know what to expect and its fair to everyone because they know what it is going in. I dont agree that is the best way, but its surely better than having GM's police people.

Darkfall had no penalty really for greifing people nor being red, blue, or gray. Unless you were in an NPC town when you went red/grey you were treated just like anyone else, even cities set up for reds/grays. Thats not the same as having punishments in place to stop people from being red or gray. If every time you went red you had it so you attacked 50% slower, you would likely not be red much. (Im not saying that should be put in place).

GM's are in place NOT to police the server but to help players with the game and issues with the game. Griefing is NOT a GM issue unless its harassment. (Like spawn camping someone that has no other choice but to spawn there, or so and so calling them racist names etc.) Things GM's help with are like issues where you are stuck, or missing an item due to a bug, or cant open your backpack etc.

[Pandamin]

I strongly disagree. I don't see the point in having GM's at all unless they're able to do things like stop greifers and exploiters.

I would hate to have a system where there is no way for tribes to stop greifing without incurring penalties. Honestly that's why I'm tempted to just say treat all solos as evil. Because you can war a tribe but unless you can basically "war" a solo then theres nothing stopping them from greifing except for GM's.

The same thing happened in Darkfall, solos can greif all day long and unless you want to take a penalty for it you cannot stop them and the GM's were useless.

Yes and no.
Having GM's with no direct power is a waste of resources.
However the term griefing is so immensly broad that allowing GM's to interpret the word is bound to end in trouble.
I'm sure even we can not agree on an absolute definition for griefing. Lets not forget that anything that works against the progression of my game is some form of grief.

The only real solution is hard coded limitations and a good community who can self police itself.
I prefer hard coded limitations because then it becomes part of the universe laws.
Something that just is.
Even then people will always find a way to play the system. Its human nature.
As such the only real solution is community based in combination with universe laws.

On the note of GM's, it is not the power that makes people corrupt.
Its that power attracts corruptable people.
We do not need to cite examples where GM's have abused their powers in previous games.
(Though that does not mean I'm accusing any current GM's. These are abstracts.)
-------------------------
I personally prefer the system of safe zones vs high risk zones, just because it is a game.
I prefer it when players know exactly what they are doing. I do not wish to feel guilty when I catch a poor sap on a road. If its a high risk area all parties involved know what the deal is, it has to do with consent.
Anything that happens in a high risk area would be concidered legal. Excluding obvious exploits.

For me a player should definatly not be concidered evil because he is solo.
A player should be concidered "evil" by his actions. Surely the game will have some form of counting system.
If a tribe can not secure its existence then that tribe should not exist. Thats the whole point of the game.

So when a tribe has a problem with a certain player, that tribe should go out and deal with it, hands on. KoS lists are as old as the genre itself. They work just fine.

The act of declaring war on a tribe or individual should be nothing more then a message informing both parties.
Declaring war on itself should not carry any game affecting atributes. War shouldn't be a tool to play the system.
But those are just my opinions, in the end its up to the wisdom of the developers.

[Gamefreak]

The moment GMs act as a policing squad, is the moment I quit this game at take down my subscription. Why? The current GMs are TRIBE LEADERS. Oh GEE guys, I can't see any problems with THAT ...

[Brutix]

it could be kinda cool if their was a game mechanic that actually prevented players from attacking other players if it was against the pvp rules. For example a good player tries to attack another good player but instead of the attack action would be replaced with a emote.

[mrcalhou]

it could be kinda cool if their was a game mechanic that actually prevented players from attacking other players if it was against the pvp rules. For example a good player tries to attack another good player but instead of the attack action would be replaced with a emote.

I don't think that that is a good idea. I'd rather there be safe areas instead of safe players. At least then it'll be "fair" for everyone. I'd also make sure that safe areas would have common material/animal spawns, but the non-safe areas would have the good/rare stuff that's needed for the great majority of items.

[Brutix]

I don't like the idea of safe areas beyond tutorial purposes. I do think tribes should be able to make highly fortified settlements that is able to deter all but the most determined effort. I don't like the idea of punishing players with stat/skill or alignment loss, its been done by other games and I don't think was ever effective or fun. I think forcing players to play their chosen alignment style is a better way to go. Also skills unique to certain alignments would add some flavor as well. I know players don't like having invisible barriers but honestly I think its the only way to make a mmo. If you want gamers to play by the rules then they must be herded and forced to do so, they can't be trusted to do it themselves.

[mrcalhou]

I don't like the idea of forcing players into any role or alignment. There's already a game on the market that has the elements of what I believe is a great sandbox that caters to different play-styles. A FFA PvP game is not the way to go, but neither is forcing players into alignments that have different rule-sets. Give everyone the same rules and let them make their own choices how they want to play. If they want FFA PvP, then they can go play in the PvP areas, if they don't, then they can stick to the safer areas. I don't see how having this will hurt the game. Only the vocal carebears that get their jollies off by ganking newbies and defenseless players will whine about it. It doesn't limit player choices by making some areas safe, but rather increases choices because it allows players to choose how they want to spend their time. If they put common resources and weaker critters in the safe areas, and have the rarer and more needed stuff in the PvP areas then it encourages players to play in the PvP zones, but it does NOT force anyone to do anything they don't want to. Which is how I define a Sandbox.

[Shrimps]

having safe zones will result in a lot of zone humping. And by that I mean people will run into the pvp zone and start fights then run out when they start to lose. EVE gets around this by having heavily restricted area travel, forcing you to use gates to switch zones which wouldn't work in a single area map like Xsyon has.
Any type of forced limit to only being able to target people of the other alignment is just weird. you might as well just break the game into two factions and evenly divide the players. Not to mention that it would take all the thinking out of combat. You wouldn't have to try to avoid friendly fire or anything like that.

If the alignment system and the penalties for going evil are tough and balanced enough then it will work itself out. I think death penalties in which you lose skill and stat points and have to earn them back are the best systems to really work with the alignment system. Because systems where you just get them back over time don't work. If it's just like 45 minutes after you die untill you get them back then you can just organize your items or logout and make a sandwhich and it'll be over and you'll be fine again. You won't really feel it.

But this has been said so many times already in several different threads over several pages.

[mrcalhou]

having safe zones will result in a lot of zone humping. And by that I mean people will run into the pvp zone and start fights then run out when they start to lose. EVE gets around this by having heavily restricted area travel, forcing you to use gates to switch zones which wouldn't work in a single area map like Xsyon has.

Yeah, I thought about that, but it still seems to me that it's one of the better options. If they used a system like that, then they can have it so that if you do enter a pvp flagged area and attack someone (or just enter it) then you can still be damaged and killed for x amount of time after reentering a safe area.

Any type of forced limit to only being able to target people of the other alignment is just weird. you might as well just break the game into two factions and evenly divide the players. Not to mention that it would take all the thinking out of combat. You wouldn't have to try to avoid friendly fire or anything like that.

Agreed.

If the alignment system and the penalties for going evil are tough and balanced enough then it will work itself out. I think death penalties in which you lose skill and stat points and have to earn them back are the best systems to really work with the alignment system. Because systems where you just get them back over time don't work. If it's just like 45 minutes after you die untill you get them back then you can just organize your items or logout and make a sandwhich and it'll be over and you'll be fine again. You won't really feel it.

But this has been said so many times already in several different threads over several pages.

I think that that is an okay penalty in some regards, but I think it'll encourage newbie camping. That's not an issue in and of itself since this game is a tribe based game, except as it stands you spawn tribeless and there aren't even any NPCs to help get you started. Yes, yes. I know that that is the way the game is designed, but recent studies (Darkfall, Eve, Mortal, my own experiences (not very scientific)) have shown that the new player experience is incrediably important to player retention.