Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1

    Ok, can we just put this to bed now?

    Quote from Virtus:

    Hey guys, sorry for not clearing this up earlier. I only just saw it a little while ago and had to confirm what I thought was going to happen.

    Here is the plan:

    At first all tribal areas will be safe then, at some point down the road, tribal safe zones will be optional.

    If your tribe wishes to play more realistically with the chance of being attacked at any point you may do so. However, if you wish to be more of a crafting tribe and not have to look over your shoulder all the time you may keep the safe zone on.

    Hope this clears things up

    My comment from that particular thread:

    it all looks good to me now... I mean come on does it have be totally black or white!? Havent u guys heard of compromise so we can ALL enjoy the game?? That is aimed at both sides of the argument not to mention any names but pvpers and "carebears".

    The announcment about pvp plans is great, its a COMPROMISE! The pvpers already have concessions in a game thats not supposed to be pvp focused, namely.. FULL LOOT - FFA outside of tribe zones. Tribal Warfare. And..the possibility later on of haviong secondary settlements in new area that are fully open to raiding. AND plenty of tribes giving up there safe zone to play a game of pew pew with you!

    The carebears get... a limited area that is relatively safe to craft and supply the world with goods. Is that so bad??

    It seems to be if thats not enough for you then maybe you really are just looking for easy target non pvp types to gank as apparently some people already have doing camping spawn points.

    Anyway, try to understand other peoples point of view ffs and learn to COMPROMISE then we can all enjoy a great game!

  2. #2
    This particular carebear was trying to compromise. Go figure, the people who made the game already had a better idea than anything I could come up with. Sheesh, what are they not paying me for around here?


  3. #3
    Oh and well done to the dev team for getting a definative answer out when u noticed confusion on the forums!

  4. #4
    So only tribes which allows PVP can have more totems ?

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Illmaculate View Post

    What isn't mentioned is how siege mechanics will work have fun pal.
    have you seen this from the features list?

    "Combat permissions in tribe zones based on tribal settings"

    I just noticed it myself.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Niburu View Post
    So only tribes which allows PVP can have more totems ?
    dont think thats been announced or discussed but it seems fair to me

    if you want to expand into new areas then u have to pvp flag - seems like a compromise.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by bruisie159 View Post
    dont think thats been announced or discussed but it seems fair to me
    I saw lots of threads about the conquest system or what not so i though there is an Dev update i missed

  8. #8
    Keep initial areas safe zones. Once tribes expand to new locations,its on, no safe zones. That simple.

  9. #9
    And for tribes with safe zones, i think there should be some sort of "timer" where the safe zone doesnt apply if you have recently attacked another player. Simply to prevent you just starting fights, then running onto your tribe land and turning around, suddenly transformed into an unkillable human!

  10. #10
    I'm sorry, but this is a complete joke. Giving tribes the option to either make their land vulnerable to attack or not... I wonder what 99% of tribes will choose? Walls and defensive structures, all just fluff now.

    Saying that some players can choose to play realistically, and others not, is ridiculous. In fact, that shafts the players who favour realism, because what's realistic about this system that's proposed?

Posting Permissions

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