Friends and safe zones

[Armand]

That is the most game killing thing i have heard anyone say yet...LETS JUST MAKE THE WHOLE WORLD A SAFE ZONE!~then we will all be bored in a month and quit!

Pretty much this.

Safe zones are a crutch we're stuck with until proper siege and defense mechanics are implemented. I think everyone ought to want them gone asap.

[Jadzia]

Since homestead areas are small and solo players can't protect their guests on their land this should be an option for homesteads.

[Garek]

I highly disagree, we shouldnt allow safezones anywhere. Its just not realistic and makes the game much more boring and less dangerous.

[mrcalhou]

I highly disagree, we shouldnt allow safezones anywhere. Its just not realistic and makes the game much more boring and less dangerous.

I disagree with you. Safezones are fine. What they shouldn't allow is letting players completely control where those safezones happen to be. I'd like to see about 40% of the map be safezones with building and terraforming limited to tribe areas and the other 60% of the map FFA-PvP with pretty much unrestricted building and terraforming.

Pop Quiz: Which MMO used to have unrestricted FFA PVP and realized that it was hurting subscriptions so the game's developers decided to put extreme consequences for PvP in some parts of the game's map? Hint: It's not currently owned by EA and is currently pulling in around $4,500,000 a month from subscription fees.

[thurgond]

There is no need for this as in most cases the current safe zone mechanic will take care of "good" players. If you are being chased by an "evil" player and manage to reach a good tribe's land, generally you will be safe. Only a fool would follow you onto land where he could and probably would be attacked with impunity. (Plenty of fools around now, but nature will weed them out pretty fast.)

When gates are implemented, if a tribe's leader wants to and can give you a key, then you can enter their lands and lock the gate behind you. If keys are tribe only, then you had better plan to go the long way around.

Ravelli

[blackzilla]

I highly disagree, we shouldnt allow safezones anywhere. Its just not realistic and makes the game much more boring and less dangerous.

How are safe zones unrealistic? They exist in today's society and date back to the begining of time. There would be safe zones in a post apocolyptic setting as well. You wouldn't walk into a military base and take out a crack navy seal without some serious planning and willing to die in the act... you are the one that first started comparing this game to real life not I remember that.

Also, is there a way to have a non tribe member but friend be immune to your attacks if you pvp with them in groups or is it friendly fire all the time?

[kaisergod]

How are safe zones unrealistic? They exist in today's society and date back to the begining of time. There would be safe zones in a post apocolyptic setting as well. You wouldn't walk into a military base and take out a crack navy seal without some serious planning and willing to die in the act... you are the one that first started comparing this game to real life not I remember that.

Also, is there a way to have a non tribe member but friend be immune to your attacks if you pvp with them in groups or is it friendly fire all the time?

Thing is, there isnt some magical forcefield around that navy seal preventing him from being touched while he walks around killing people on his base. You CAN attack them, but that is a decision you make knowing there are consequences. In a game with Safezones, there is no decision to be made, no weighing consequences, etc you are simply unable to do anything due to some magical barrier that says "This person cant even be touched while theyre in here".

[blackzilla]

Thing is, there isnt some magical forcefield around that navy seal preventing him from being touched while he walks around killing people on his base. You CAN attack them, but that is a decision you make knowing there are consequences. In a game with Safezones, there is no decision to be made, no weighing consequences, etc you are simply unable to do anything due to some magical barrier that says "This person cant even be touched while theyre in here".

It's okay to play videogames....

[kaisergod]

It's okay to play videogames....

um.... youre the one who was going on about how safezones exist in reality just like they do in the game. i pointed out that they dont. not sure what your point is supposed to be here other than being a useless troll

[Aethaeryn]

Thing is, there isnt some magical forcefield around that navy seal preventing him from being touched while he walks around killing people on his base. You CAN attack them, but that is a decision you make knowing there are consequences. In a game with Safezones, there is no decision to be made, no weighing consequences, etc you are simply unable to do anything due to some magical barrier that says "This person cant even be touched while theyre in here".

The seal also doesn't log out and go to work all day somewhere else leaving the place empty. Games are not realistic and at times we need unrealistic things added to take the place of what might happen in a more realistic setting. For example. . you could not go into the base.. shoot he navy seal and log out behind a tree.