"End Game" and Conquering/Destroying Land Claims

[Hellaciouss]

carebears.... carebears everywhere

qft.

it's going to be funny watching them come to the forums and complain they can't farm resources where they choose and refuse to move. It won't be enough that they have invulnerable towns, they will want to be able to plunder everything around them while invulnerable.

[blake378]

qft.

it's going to be funny watching them come to the forums and complain they can't farm resources where they choose and refuse to move. It won't be enough that they have invulnerable towns, they will want to be able to plunder everything around them while invulnerable.

no what's going to be funny is when this game turns into darkfall and everyone starts complaining about how horribke it is. then where are all the darkfall players going to go? i don't understand a lot of this people leave darkfall and come here to try and make it more like darkfall? does this make sense to anyone else? i think the main tribe bases should be safe zones for good and evil alike and when expansion totems come out those towns they create there or the resources that are there should be destroyable.
insert carebears comment below please just like i want.

[Dade512]

The thing with this thread is that it's the EXACT same as a lot of the ones we had a few weeks back.

Would be PKer wants to be able to kill/destroy everything. Is offended by the fact that there's the *possibility* that some people might be able to CHOOSE to be safe from his reach (within their tribal zone). This is, of course, regardless of the fact that people will HAVE to leave their tribal zones sooner or later which makes them OPEN to PvP. Tells everyone who disagrees with him that they're wrong. Makes up ludicrous scenarios to support his claims of being griefed by "invulnerable" players. Calls them carebears.

[Haphazard]

I think the issue is that the game mechanics are more than just open field pvp and war. There are lots of "aggressive" things a "peaceful" tribe can and will do, and there is nothing in the "proposed" game mechanics which will allow anyone to stop them.

Hopi tribe with their giant zerg of crafters will swoop down on a trash pile near you and pick it clean, cut down all the trees and kill all the wildlife in a matter of weeks, and the ONLY response that anyone can do is to try to do the same back to them.

Yes, PvP and WAR is the last resort in a series of diplomatic efforts, but in the end, sometimes force is the only way to get your point across. Good game design will make sure that someone, somewhere can hold ANYONE accountable for their actions, regardless if they claim to be peaceful or not.

We are not arguing about basically inconsequential PvP combat here. We are talking about burning your house down around your ears and salting the earth so you don't come back.

[maelwydd]

We are talking about burning your house down around your ears and salting the earth so you don't come back.

So you want people to leave the game?

[Dade512]

The thing I'm still not understanding is you both keep stating "Near" "Near", as tho the mere proximity of someone set to non-warring is an insult to you. So what if they claim some land near you? If the junk/trees/grass/water/rocks/whatever are not within your zone of influence you have zero claim to it other than you were picking on it previously. That is not an aggressive act, that's just finding new, unclaimed resources to take advantage of.
Why the need for retaliation when someone stakes a claim near you? Why do you think you own these resources if they're not within your zone of influence? Why the angst about non-warring tribes? I feel I'm missing an intricate part of the puzzle regarding the whole proximity thing. I mean, if you wanted these resources that your set up near, maybe better totem placement was called for...

[maelwydd]

The thing I'm still not understanding is you both keep stating "Near" "Near", as tho the mere proximity of someone set to non-warring is an insult to you. So what if they claim some land near you? If the junk/trees/grass/water/rocks/whatever are not within your zone of influence you have zero claim to it other than you were picking on it previously. That is not an aggressive act, that's just finding new, unclaimed resources to take advantage of.
Why the need for retaliation when someone stakes a claim near you? Why do you think you own these resources if they're not within your zone of influence? Why the angst about non-warring tribes? I feel I'm missing an intricate part of the puzzle regarding the whole proximity thing. I mean, if you wanted these resources that your set up near, maybe better totem placement was called for...

It has nothing to do with the resources and everything to do with the fact they just don't like the idea of someone they can't kill if they manage to get to safety. I mean, if it was to do with resources then they wouldn't complain because one of the facets of the proposed system is that non warring tribes home village is their only safe zone so if they do want resources they will have to travel out into the wilds where they can be attacked. But that is ignored to perpetuate their baseless argument.

[Dade512]

It has nothing to do with the resources and everything to do with the fact they just don't like the idea of someone they can't kill if they manage to get to safety. I mean, if it was to do with resources then they wouldn't complain because one of the facets of the proposed system is that non warring tribes home village is their only safe zone so if they do want resources they will have to travel out into the wilds where they can be attacked. But that is ignored to perpetuate their baseless argument.

Ah, I see. So my statement from earlier was correct and it's the same as the arguments from a month ago. Just being upset about the fact that there may be a (relatively) small plot of land they can't kill someone on. Gotcha...

[Haphazard]

I could give a crap about killing anyone - killing someone doesn't really cause anyone to alter their actions. I want to burn your house down if you act like an asshat.

[Dade512]

The thing I'm still not understanding is you both keep stating "Near" "Near", as tho the mere proximity of someone set to non-warring is an insult to you. So what if they claim some land near you? If the junk/trees/grass/water/rocks/whatever are not within your zone of influence you have zero claim to it other than you were picking on it previously. That is not an aggressive act, that's just finding new, unclaimed resources to take advantage of.
Why the need for retaliation when someone stakes a claim near you? Why do you think you own these resources if they're not within your zone of influence? Why the angst about non-warring tribes? I feel I'm missing an intricate part of the puzzle regarding the whole proximity thing. I mean, if you wanted these resources that your set up near, maybe better totem placement was called for...

I'd still like to understand these questions.