Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 77
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Jadzia View Post
    The OP basically says that tribes should be able to choose if they want their tribe zone to be safe or not. I really like the idea, the more options we get the better the game will be. I do believe that everyone has the right to choose his/her playstyle, and with the OP's idea the ones who want more PvP can choose evil or good, the ones who want peace can choose neutral.

    On a side note in my understanding neutral was inbetween good and evil, not a one who stays out of fights but a one who do both good and evil. So it would be more natural to me to give the protection option for good tribes and keep the neutrals/evils unsafe, but it doesn't really matter how we call it.
    We went over this long ago. If you want to be PvP-safe, then you should not have access to things that people will start conflict over. You also shouldn't be able to trade with anyone who hasn't been Neutral for a long period of time. You cannot have 2 separate games playing off of each other in a seamless map. It just won't work, especially considering the game is supposed to be open-PvP.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by JCatano View Post
    We went over this long ago. If you want to be PvP-safe, then you should not have access to things that people will start conflict over. You also shouldn't be able to trade with anyone who hasn't been Neutral for a long period of time. You cannot have 2 separate games playing off of each other in a seamless map. It just won't work, especially considering the game is supposed to be open-PvP.
    Its actually the other way around, lol, you didn't get it. Good and neutral tribe zones are safe zones during Prelude. Its kind of a forced safety for ones who may not want it. The OP suggested a way how tribes could choose NOT to have safe areas without being evil. Whats wrong with it ? If someone don't want to be safe he has the right not to be.

  3. #23
    Leaving poeple choice if they want their tribe to be a safe zone is ok. Allowing to steal from bins is ok, but only if we'll get lockpicking skill, which we might get.

    Good tribes have restrictions too we can't steal, we can't kill anyone for loot without affecting our alignment. If our alignment drops too much we will be removed from tribe by game mechnics.

    There are diffrences between alignments, but they aren't a main reason for PvP.

  4. #24
    Jadzia:

    Quote Originally Posted by dfend View Post
    Everybody who does not want to take part in this kind of action and rather gather and craft some stuff and build houses, terraform the area and such should pick neutral. Neutral players would have a safe zone on their claim on which neither Evil nor Good aligned players could hurt them. Also stealing from Neutral tribes territory should not be possible. They are truly Neutral, but that also means they cannot attack/kill Good or Evil aligned players or steal from their territory without alignment hits. After all, they are Neutral.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jadzia View Post
    The OP basically says that tribes should be able to choose if they want their tribe zone to be safe or not. I really like the idea, the more options we get the better the game will be. I do believe that everyone has the right to choose his/her playstyle, and with the OP's idea the ones who want more PvP can choose evil or good, the ones who want peace can choose neutral.

    On a side note in my understanding neutral was inbetween good and evil, not a one who stays out of fights but a one who do both good and evil. So it would be more natural to me to give the protection option for good tribes and keep the neutrals/evils unsafe, but it doesn't really matter how we call it.
    "Opposite"? That doesn't even make sense considering the context of what I stated.

    Again, we went over this in a thread long ago.

    There are so many problems that pop up with regard to meaningful gameplay, having an influence on the gameword, and things of that nature when you have untouchable Neutrals running around on the same map.

  5. #25
    JCatano, I really don't get you...are you agreeing with the OP or not ?

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Jadzia View Post
    JCatano, I really don't get you...are you agreeing with the OP or not ?
    "There are so many problems that pop up with regard to meaningful gameplay, having an influence on the gameword, and things of that nature when you have untouchable Neutrals running around on the same map." - Me

    ---

    It's obvious where I stand.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by yoori View Post
    Resources aren't safe(not the ones in bins). You can steal them then you are marked as a thief and you can be attacked without alignment consequences for defenders. the only thing you can't do is make a party and raid good/neutral players who can't(it's supposed to be twitch-based after all) or don't want to fight before they can set up defences.
    Stealing resources, being marked as thief ... are we playing the same game? Nothing of that is currently in. So as the game is, they are save which is why it needs changing or it will be very boring for a large number of the playerbase after a couple weeks. I think most who like PvP would not make it until Tribal Wars (unless it arrives way sooner)

    Quote Originally Posted by yoori View Post
    Good tribes have restrictions too we can't steal, we can't kill anyone for loot without affecting our alignment. If our alignment drops too much we will be removed from tribe by game mechnics.
    How do you know you cannot steal as a Good player without alignment hits? My suggestion is that Good players can steal from Evil players and get Good alignment for that. Also, Good players can kill Evil players for loot. Even on the Evils player territory if you whish to. Oh and you will also get Good alignment for that.

    And if you dont want anybody to steal your stuff out of your bins and dont want anybody to be able to hurt you on your tribes territory (until Tribal Wars perhaps), go Neutral.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCatano View Post
    There are so many problems that pop up with regard to meaningful gameplay, having an influence on the gameword, and things of that nature when you have untouchable Neutrals running around on the same map.
    In the system I suggest, Neutral players are not untouchable. Only on their own territory. Which I think is balanced since they are not allowed to attack/steal from anybody without getting alignment hits, in which case they would soon not be Neutral anymore. Do you see other problems there? Maybe we can find a solution for that too.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by JCatano View Post
    "There are so many problems that pop up with regard to meaningful gameplay, having an influence on the gameword, and things of that nature when you have untouchable Neutrals running around on the same map." - Me

    ---

    It's obvious where I stand.
    Yup, you didn't read the OP He didn't suggest anything about neutrals, they would stay as they are now, he suggested things about good tribes. Neutrals would only be safe in tribe zones, as it is already implemented.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by dfend View Post
    In the system I suggest, Neutral players are not untouchable. Only on their own territory. Which I think is balanced since they are not allowed to attack/steal from anybody without getting alignment hits, in which case they would soon not be Neutral anymore. Do you see other problems there? Maybe we can find a solution for that too.
    Neutral alts claiming land around the enemies of the main character.

    Neutrals (alt or real) supplying resources and gear.

    Neutrals used as "shields" in their tribal area if collision detection is implemented.

    Neutral areas used as an exploit to get away from PvP if combat is disabled within safe tribal areas. (I don't think Jooky would be that clueless, though.)

    I'm sure there are a few other situations. Good, Neutral, and Evil tribal areas should all be at risk. Don't underestimate the exploitive ability of gamers.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Jadzia View Post
    Yup, you didn't read the OP He didn't suggest anything about neutrals, they would stay as they are now, he suggested things about good tribes. Neutrals would only be safe in tribe zones, as it is already implemented.
    I understood exactly what he said, which is why I commented on Neutrals.

    And, he did comment on Neutrals:

    Quote Originally Posted by dfend View Post
    Everybody who does not want to take part in this kind of action and rather gather and craft some stuff and build houses, terraform the area and such should pick neutral. Neutral players would have a safe zone on their claim on which neither Evil nor Good aligned players could hurt them. Also stealing from Neutral tribes territory should not be possible. They are truly Neutral, but that also means they cannot attack/kill Good or Evil aligned players or steal from their territory without alignment hits. After all, they are Neutral.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •