An Alternative to Throwing Little Guys Under a Bus

[fflhktsn]

would be nice if the community had the ability to oust tribes and single player homesteads, who would stand no chance given a real life scenario as such.

we have to deal with locked tribe locations for a LONG time before tribal wars is anything more than just a "we hope" timeframe.

At least removing the anti-sandbox idea of safezones would allow for...say...hopi tribe to make pandemics life a living hell if they ended up jacking the hopis planned location (given the devlopers give all who paid a fair chance that is) the community would then give pandemic the oppertunity to move or not progress. However theres so many anti-sandbox protective measures that this scenario could never be a possibility.

Just a thought i guess, totem placement is going to be a huge deal once the small junk piles are used up, and the land becomes so full of safe zones that moving to a new loaction will be near impossible. Since these safezones now turn a team of 1 into an unstoppible force. Some people might not be bitching now, but they will months down the line when the special tribes are able to procure resources, but the little guy isnt.

[ifireallymust]

How about 1) fixing the game 2) then when the game launches we start in a world where people don't already have a claim or knowledge of where the best place to be is... IE remix world or coordinate system so people didn't have innate knowledge of the world before the landclaim process started.

Wouldn't bother me, but I have no clue how difficult or time consuming it would be to do that.

[ifireallymust]

would be nice if the community had the ability to oust tribes and single player homesteads, who would stand no chance given a real life scenario as such.

we have to deal with locked tribe locations for a LONG time before tribal wars is anything more than just a "we hope" timeframe.

At least removing the anti-sandbox idea of safezones would allow for...say...hopi tribe to make pandemics life a living hell if they ended up jacking the hopis planned location (given the devlopers give all who paid a fair chance that is) the community would then give pandemic the oppertunity to move or not progress. However theres so many anti-sandbox protective measures that this scenario could never be a possibility.

Just a thought i guess, totem placement is going to be a huge deal once the small junk piles are used up, and the land becomes so full of safe zones that moving to a new loaction will be near impossible. Since these safezones now turn a team of 1 into an unstoppible force. Some people might not be bitching now, but they will months down the line when the special tribes are able to procure resources, but the little guy isnt.

1. This game isn't reality.

2. Name one sandbox game with zero safe zones.

[Caffy]

personally I would want to be semi nomadic and not have a place to be permanent but would rather like to be able to pack up and move to the next best junk pile down the road

[mrcalhou]

At least removing the anti-sandbox idea of safezones

Screw it. I'm taking the bait. Safezones are NOT anti-sandbox. Lack of choices is anti-sandbox. Therefore, having no safe zones is anti-sandbox because it removes the players choice of whether or not to play in "safety." If there were incentives for players to play in non-safe areas then you have your sandbox and your PvP.

[fflhktsn]

Screw it. I'm taking the bait. Safezones are NOT anti-sandbox. Lack of choices is anti-sandbox. Therefore, having no safe zones is anti-sandbox because it removes the players choice of whether or not to play in "safety." If there were incentives for players to play in non-safe areas then you have your sandbox and your PvP.

we agree for the most part. unless that choice is to nullify others play options, such as a pvp player.

as i understand, your point is: removing pvp as a viable option = not restricting choices, neither is restricting where in the world these players are able to play.

the sandbox solution is to let the players make areas safe given the tools already in the game.

solo players should never be caterd to in a game like this, that is what themeparks are for. they have the ability to set shop up in player made safe zones, and the ability to make friends who will cater to the hermit mountain man rp if thats the route they choose.

you always have to option to make areas safe yourself in a sandbox, however removing playstlyes that are dependant on the world being unsafe is exactly what you dont want, as it restricts players choices that differ from yours.

id settle for patrolling police men aor patrolling protection space ships, however that really doesnt make sense given the IP of the game.

also, just saying safezones are not anti sand box and using caps on the word not, doesnt make it true. it removes my option to be a needed and necessary in game protection force. for this reason, there should be no option to be magically protected in the apocalypse, as no such ability would be afforded anyone who survived the apocalypse.

[mrcalhou]

What I'm saying is that having safezones does not make a game any less of a sandbox. I think that the safezones need to be balanced in such a way so that there is a reason for people to leave them. When I play a game I don't want to be paranoid all the time, having to look over my shoulder. At the same time, I do not want to be able to do everything in safe areas, because that will destroy the balance of the game. I think that there needs to be resources, mobs, and activities that can only be done outside of safe zones to encourage players to play in those areas. This way when I play I'm given the choice of staying in "safety" or venturing out into more dangerous areas depending on how I'm feeling that day.

The key thing is that both play-styles should be encouraged, and, more importantly, they should be reliant on each other. Safezone players are going to trade PvP players for those items that they can't get, and at the same time the PvP player might be able to get items at a cheaper rate.


Edit: As far as any lore considerations goes, the apocalypse in this game was brought upon by like demons and stuff, so magical protection wouldn't be entirely lore-breaking.

[KeithStone]

How about 1) fixing the game 2) then when the game launches we start in a world where people don't already have a claim or knowledge of where the best place to be is... IE remix world or coordinate system so people didn't have innate knowledge of the world before the landclaim process started.

this would require a redesign of the entire map, that could take months.

[ifireallymust]

solo players should never be caterd to in a game like this, that is what themeparks are for. they have the ability to set shop up in player made safe zones, and the ability to make friends who will cater to the hermit mountain man rp if thats the route they choose.

Oh, I see now! If you get your unlimited pvp, it's a sandbox. But I shouldn't get to play solo in the sandbox. Because options and room for different play styles only fit with your definition of 'sandbox' when we're discussing your options and your play style.


Let me try out my definition of a sandbox and we'll see how you like it, then:


PvP players who want unlimited access to victims should never be caterd to in a game like this, that is what first and third person shooters are for. they have the ability to kill everyone, anytime, anywhere, and the ability to make enemies who will cater to the PKer serial killer rp if thats the route they choose.