When Should Safe Zones Be Turned Off?

[DaAzub]

You guys suck, Zerg me down for a 1v1 fight, If this was implemented right away I would go to your tribe zone all the time. Good Loots too.

[willbonney]

Hey all. Would you all mind going to my "suggestion" post in the suggestion thread and submitting your thoughts/ideas on the idea I had for a PvP system. I'd appreciate it a lot.

For those about to Troll me, I salute you. ;P

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthrea...6852#post46852

[ifireallymust]

I went ahead and voted now, have more information because of the update. Minimum six months is time for those of us who don't want to be in large tribes to figure out how to defend ourselves when we eventually need to do so, and there are plenty of ways to do it. If we fail to, that's our own disorganized faults.

[BigCountry]

I went ahead and voted now, have more information because of the update. Minimum six months is time for those of us who don't want to be in large tribes to figure out how to defend ourselves when we eventually need to do so, and there are plenty of ways to do it. If we fail to, that's our own disorganized faults.

Best thing said all morning.

Welcome to the sandbox.


/salute

[ifireallymust]

Best thing said all morning.

Welcome to the sandbox.


/salute

Thank you! I figure, as much as those of us who build and craft love doing it, in six months, most of us will be looking around for something to add to our experience anyway, if not before then. But we need time. Turning the big war tribes loose on us now would be a slaughterhouse. I don't even think it would be fun for the tribes.

One issue I'm thinking about now is new players. Small tribes and solo players like me who want to keep our independence from the big tribes should have some responsibility for helping new players down the road with the same independent outlooks find place to settle and we'll have to help them protect it, otherwise, new players down the road will either be forced into a harried victim role or forced to join a big tribe. I think it can all work, though. And I think it will be good for the game to have people who aren't all up in each others baskets and crowded behind walls all day but who can still defend each other when necessary.

[Zenmaster13]

If they completely turn off safe zones, there will be griefing and ganking. I don't think anyone could argue against that fact. If they do turn it off, many new players will not be able to establish themselves, unless they are in a tribe. So forced tribing or forced to be a grief gank target.

People also seem to think that all we have to do is police the griefers as an in game community. I have never seen this concept work, but I have seen it suggested many times. You cannot police someone who re-rolls with a different char name, nor can you police griefers with multiple accounts, and there are other examples as well.

I figure we need some safe areas, but have the rest open for pvp. This pleases both sides. If you argue against this, you are without a doubt wanting to gank or grief someone for your own enjoyment.

[BigCountry]

Zen you will have safe zones for 6 months.

In 6 months the world will be built.

Any new player who joins 6 months from now will log into a completely different world/game than what you see now.

Safe zones will be gone and this new player will need to join a tribe or find a neutral/good player ran city to find shelter in. Societies will be setup.

He/she will get griefed no much or less than he/she would with safe zones being on at this point in the game, because everyones territory will have some sort of walls/protection. If you play this game for 6 months and still have not put up walls and protection, then you deserve to get grief/ganked because you did not follow directions on how the game is be to played out.

[Zenmaster13]

Zen you will have safe zones for 6 months.

In 6 months the world will be built.

Any new player who joins 6 months from now will log into a completely different world/game than what you see now.

Safe zones will be gone and this new player will need to join a tribe or find a neutral/good player ran city to find shelter in. Societies will be setup.

He/she will get griefed no much or less than he/she would with safe zones being on at this point in the game, because everyones territory will have some sort of walls/protection. If you play this game for 6 months and still have not put up walls and protection, then you deserve to get grief/ganked because you did not follow directions on how the game is be to played out.

There are no directions on how the game should be played out. How silly for you to say that. This is a sandbox, but you already know that. How will new players know they have to join a tribe? Not everyone comes into the forums. I'm sure you will say it's thier own fault.

You are making alot of assumptions on how the world will be in 6 months. They are just dartboard predictions at best, no better than anyone else could predict to be exact.

Tell me why you want no safe zones. Please don't use some weak immersion arguement.

[ifireallymust]

If they completely turn off safe zones, there will be griefing and ganking. I don't think anyone could argue against that fact. If they do turn it off, many new players will not be able to establish themselves, unless they are in a tribe. So forced tribing or forced to be a grief gank target.

People also seem to think that all we have to do is police the griefers as an in game community. I have never seen this concept work, but I have seen it suggested many times. You cannot police someone who re-rolls with a different char name, nor can you police griefers with multiple accounts, and there are other examples as well.

I figure we need some safe areas, but have the rest open for pvp. This pleases both sides. If you argue against this, you are without a doubt wanting to gank or grief someone for your own enjoyment.

If there are ways to keep solo and small numbers of griefers out of a homestead once a certain fortification or fortifications goes up, then those who want to help new players prepare can do so, and I for one will do so, as it fits very well with my play style.

You're right, we can't police name changing solo griefers, but those aren't the biggest threats anyway. The biggest threats are griefer tribes and coalitions intent on owning every resource and patch of land, who can knock down the walls one or two griefers couldn't. Fortunately, big tribes can be policed, if there are enough of us in game who care to do so. And that, also, fits with my play style. Not a leader, not a follower, not comfortable in a big tribe. But willing to show up and fight with other players when needed.

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic and no matter what we do, one month after safe zones are gone, a coalition of tribes will control everything. That's actually how things tend to go in these games. Well, in that case, I'll have had a very enjoyable six months, and the devs will have been compensated for it. I'll move on, sad that this time was no different from the others, and two months after that, the 'winners' will all move on, too, since they'll have nothing and no one left to conquer.

You think the devs haven't thought of this eventuality already? I know they have, and I'm starting to trust that they'll be more inventive than the typical ffa full loot pvp dev crowd when it comes down to it.

[Maliqe]

They can turn off safe zones around tribal totem the day they make gates that actually work. Walls are pretty at this point but without a gate, meaningless. If a player wants to surround himself with walls for protection, then the system needs to be in place that will allow them to be safe. Not through a game mechanic. Through walls and gates.