Did you know this will be a FFA PVP game?

[FabricSoftener]

A grieving tactic could be hard but not that much if i outnumber the tribe i want to move. I used basalt coz is kinda a rare resource but can be anything. And sure, is absolutely easyer to take it by steal, or buying or whatever. But if i want to have the basalt monopoly in my region so i can base my economy on it i obviously have to own it. With safe zones this is not possible and the political side of the game si going to be borken.

I'm not against safe zone in the beginning, we all need time to build the world and welcome new players. We need it, and the game need it. But as us pvper (i'm not an hardcore pvper but i like it) are asking, those safe zones can't last forever. I also know that lot of "carebears" here are fine with no safe zones in 6-9 months once cityes are built and defended. But i also noticed that they don't want the main totem to be siegeable. I can undestand, but i also think that this will be bad for the game lifespan.

both in darkfall and in this game my stance is the same and rather simple. All pvp should be war mechanics only. In short, you should have to declare war on tribe to attack them and to attack in the tribe land you should have to declare seige which then leaves your land open to attack from them as well.
seige mechancis could be long term or short term I would be open for discussion on that however overall its painfully clear to me how the system should work.

In short, if you want to pvp that is fine, declare war.

[Grushenko]

In short, if you want to pvp that is fine, declare war.

I'm perfectly fine with that. Hope that we won't lack on a war system/siege mechanics.

[coca]

M2S has officially declared war on EVERY TRIBE playing the game.. just to clear things up.

[MrKrueak]

M2S is what gives PVP players their bad name

[Zheo]

i knew it will be FFA PvP and if it wasnt i wouldnt be here.

[FabricSoftener]

i knew it will be FFA PvP and if it wasnt i wouldnt be here.

if there was a pve game that had deep crafting and allowed me and my 'clan' to build outposts, villages etc I wouldnt be playing this game

I have been playing video games for a very long time and to be frank if I never killed another anything for the rest of my gaming career that would be fine. Yeah its fun but after a few decades it really gets old.

[MrKrueak]

i'm not against ffa pvp at all myself, i just think there needs to be some sort of enforced guidelines to deter griefing/ganking. the consequences needs to be severe

[river111]

I'm so happy that me, one lil guy, way up in the mountains all by myself, on my 30m radius safe spot is such a big threat to the lifestyle of Bigcountry and JC and the likes that they would threaten to leave the game entirely if they dont have the ability to come on my land and destroy my one leather tent. Its a game changer they say, out of the entire world, my 30m radius plot, the only place I'm ever safe, 22 seconds of walk time from end to end, is a game changer for them. Impossible to play the game if a safe zone is in effect for just me on my itty bitty plot of land way up in the mountains.

Look yeah I get it, your worried about the tribal warfare, fine here is a simple solution to the headache. That optional turn on/off deal for safe zones after prelude, make it homesteads ONLY. Make the tribes fight, leave the lil guy alone. You dont gain anything from the little guy anyway by griefing him. Its not enjoyable to burn down one tent and kill the same naked dude over and over to you (well some of you do but you get my point).

Tribal warfare yes, for tribes yes. Hermit, crazy white dude with tthe beard to his bellybutton, leave him alone k.

[ifireallymust]

I'm so happy that me, one lil guy, way up in the mountains all by myself, on my 30m radius safe spot is such a big threat to the lifestyle of Bigcountry and JC and the likes that they would threaten to leave the game entirely if they dont have the ability to come on my land and destroy my one leather tent. Its a game changer they say, out of the entire world, my 30m radius plot, the only place I'm ever safe, 22 seconds of walk time from end to end, is a game changer for them. Impossible to play the game if a safe zone is in effect for just me on my itty bitty plot of land way up in the mountains.

Look yeah I get it, your worried about the tribal warfare, fine here is a simple solution to the headache. That optional turn on/off deal for safe zones after prelude, make it homesteads ONLY. Make the tribes fight, leave the lil guy alone. You dont gain anything from the little guy anyway by griefing him. Its not enjoyable to burn down one tent and kill the same naked dude over and over to you (well some of you do but you get my point).

Tribal warfare yes, for tribes yes. Hermit, crazy white dude with tthe beard to his bellybutton, leave him alone k.

Not a bad idea. Or make a Homestead radius protectable through means that a Tribe-sized area isn't. A special barricade or similar that must be maintained, so that Homesteaders must make an effort to protect themselves, and so the land can be claimed if someone goes innactive for too long.

[coca]

I remeber this one guy talking about something similar to this... I think he proposed having a perimeter that induced a penality to an attacker and that any structures within that are that could be gone into a door close would have the ability to kick someone out of it... instead of I think he said defenders getting automatic GOD MODE when attacked.

I think that same person would argue with river hermit about sure your little ole 30m plot ... but would ask that hermet to walkoutside the safe zone and look at how many tribe totems are in any given are and imagine the game with 90% of them as safezones.... imagine 10 fold the amount of players and safezone over what we have now.. pretty soon you have a boreing world that lacks any resemblance of compitition.