Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 140
  1. #11
    Xsyon Citizen
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Huntington Beach, Ca
    Posts
    133
    I think things in tribal areas should be safe including stumps until of course they lift the safe zones and sieges are allowed.

    On the other hand, if you go off your tribal land and say, cut down a tree for logs those logs are now open for anyone to do anything with. I don't think that "safe" should be extended for an example, that if you cut down a tree outside your safe zone only you or your tribe can access those logs, this doesn't happen in real life. This includes taking said logs or destroying said logs. This also teaches a lesson that, if you harvest outside your tribal safe zone one needs to move those resources inside your tribe borders ASAP.

    It is just like PvP. You are safe in your tribal area, you are not safe outside. The same goes for resources. We all learned this in beta over the last year. (If you weren't in early beta, you are learning this now)

    Remember, this is an open sandbox game and there are many was for one to play it, to include brigands, peaceful tribes, solo play (to an extent), warring tribes... hence the good, neutral and evil standings.

    In saying this I am sure the devs are trying to make this world as real as possible to include usage of the resources like, trees, animals, junk piles etc., real and functional as possible. What happens in the real world when all the animals are killed off? Now I understand some balance to a point here, but this isn't a a controlled theme park MMO.

    I am sure what is coming next is that people will complain that the junk piles are gone in their area, the tribe next to them is to large and has to many people to collect resources, there's not enough fish, the animals can't re-spawn/grow fast enough, distance to travel to gather stuff is to far, why isn't there a Walmart... it will happen. I haven't even started on the griefing and PvP aspects.

    This is not a caring and sharing game. It's a post apocalyptic open sandbox MMO with basic rules and guidelines to include taking or destroying of resources, making enemies or allies, etc.. These resources are a precious commodity so use them wisely. Look at our real world around us. It you are expecting to go camping, build your fire, set up some tents, sing kumbaya and not be bothered... this is the wrong game for you.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Chile View Post
    I think things in tribal areas should be safe including stumps until of course they lift the safe zones and sieges are allowed.

    On the other hand, if you go off your tribal land and say, cut down a tree for logs those logs are now open for anyone to do anything with.
    I totally agree. But the OP was talking not of logs but of tree stumps being destroyed, and asking if that was working as intended. QQing about lost logs would be silly.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Larsa View Post
    Of course posters are right when they write that trees shouldn't be so easy to destroy. However, if it would be more difficult and would take longer, people would still do it. Just because they can.

    In the long run you have no other option than to relocate to a nicer neighbourhood. Even then, the same might happen again and you might have to relocate again. It's the nature of the beast.

    The devs made this game with FFA PvP mechanic, thus FFA PvP-er came to play the game. Thus the trees will go down.
    So the nature of the beast is "unless I am willing to FFA PvP constantly, I should just deal with it?" That's not an acceptable argument, or an acceptable situation. If it comes down to it, I suppose I could just leave, but considering that both the PvPer and the non-PvPer are paying customers, both have an equal right to play. The difference between the two is that my style of play doesn't require interfering with the gaming of others.

    Bottom line, the game is touted at being more than just a PvP game. If PvPers are given free reign, they will act like dicks to the fullest extent they are able. And while I fully support their right to be able to do that, and am even okay with having to take steps to avoid being a victim of that, I am not okay with having to work twice or three times as hard as they to do so.

    In real life, the planes are much more even and there are consequences (natural and man-made) that prevent this from occurring with any great frequency. That we haven't turned this planet into a scorched and blackened husk is proof to that. In the exaggerated reality of the game world those consequences for antisocial behavior seem to be removed entirely while being constructive retains much more of its complicated nature.

    And that's hardly fair. (Yes, I know life isn't fair. This isn't life. This is a game. And games are designed to give as even a playing ground to all players as possible.)

    Added after 8 minutes:

    Quote Originally Posted by Chile View Post
    I think things in tribal areas should be safe including stumps until of course they lift the safe zones and sieges are allowed.

    On the other hand, if you go off your tribal land and say, cut down a tree for logs those logs are now open for anyone to do anything with. I don't think that "safe" should be extended for an example, that if you cut down a tree outside your safe zone only you or your tribe can access those logs, this doesn't happen in real life. This includes taking said logs or destroying said logs. This also teaches a lesson that, if you harvest outside your tribal safe zone one needs to move those resources inside your tribe borders ASAP.

    It is just like PvP. You are safe in your tribal area, you are not safe outside. The same goes for resources. We all learned this in beta over the last year. (If you weren't in early beta, you are learning this now)

    Remember, this is an open sandbox game and there are many was for one to play it, to include brigands, peaceful tribes, solo play (to an extent), warring tribes... hence the good, neutral and evil standings.

    In saying this I am sure the devs are trying to make this world as real as possible to include usage of the resources like, trees, animals, junk piles etc., real and functional as possible. What happens in the real world when all the animals are killed off? Now I understand some balance to a point here, but this isn't a a controlled theme park MMO.

    I am sure what is coming next is that people will complain that the junk piles are gone in their area, the tribe next to them is to large and has to many people to collect resources, there's not enough fish, the animals can't re-spawn/grow fast enough, distance to travel to gather stuff is to far, why isn't there a Walmart... it will happen. I haven't even started on the griefing and PvP aspects.

    This is not a caring and sharing game. It's a post apocalyptic open sandbox MMO with basic rules and guidelines to include taking or destroying of resources, making enemies or allies, etc.. These resources are a precious commodity so use them wisely. Look at our real world around us. It you are expecting to go camping, build your fire, set up some tents, sing kumbaya and not be bothered... this is the wrong game for you.
    The real life argument is a false argument. In real life I can permanently kill someone who messes with my stuff. Risk versus reward makes people think twice about how badly they want to be a dick; in this gamespace, there's no risk and all reward to the PvPer, and for the non-PvPer it's mostly risk, little reward. In real life that dichotomy doesn't exist because we're plugged in constantly; you don't get to log out and you have to live with what you do.

    In real life, nobody could slash and burn an entire hillside in a few hours. In real life, everyone needs those resources which would make it a competition, instead of one group of people needing the resources and another group of people having no interest in those resources.

    In real life, retaliation is possible through many means. In this game, there is no way I could retaliate in any meaningful way; what am I going to do? Kill them? They can retreat to their safe place and log off just as I can, and PvP is what they want. So I don't see how that's a sustainable situation. Eventually anyone interested in building and terraforming will leave, so I doubt the studio can afford to entirely alienate an entire section of their market.


    In otherwords, this comes across as a typical response from a pro-PvPer and does not at all address the fact that there is a difference between having PvP and giving PvPers free reign to victimize people. Don't tell me "this is the wrong game for me" in a knee-jerk reaction of someone you think is too soft to play this kind of game. This game wasn't touted as a pure PvP rapefest, the PvP was advertised as part of it, not the whole play. I'm up for a challenge, but I am not a masochist; I'll only put up with an intractable situation for so long.

    In real life death is permanent; as realistic as this game tries to be, unless it allows permadeath with no character recreation it will fall short of that goal and steps should be taken to help mitigate that very basic natural consequence.

    You can play rough all you like, but try a more solid argument for your case.



    EDIT: Bottom line, the point is kind of moot once a Dev makes a say. If they say the system works as intended and that they really do mean for people to be able to strip-destroy resources, well, then I get to eat crow and drive on. The debate part is only for if they say the matter is open for discussion and want input into the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by iskald4400 View Post
    I totally agree. But the OP was talking not of logs but of tree stumps being destroyed, and asking if that was working as intended. QQing about lost logs would be silly.
    Yes, indeed. Not QQing about lost logs. QQing about destroyed stumps preventing us from having even a chance at getting the wood. ^^ PvP debates are as old as MMOs though, so I'm not going to argue too hard; just want to see if the devs mean for it to work like this!

  4. #14
    I like the idea of making stumps ridiculously time consuming to destroy. Maybe stumps on tribe land could be easier to remove, so people who want to remove a stump to put up a wall or building won't be too inconvenienced.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfmoonstrike View Post
    I think the best solution might be a simple one.

    Make it so players can't destroy a stump unless its on your land (or tribe's land). So it'll still allow some for some form of "dickory" but after awhile it'll just be too much of a pain in the ass to keep chopping down a tree every respawn cycle for most people.
    This is honestly a pretty damn good idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by madea View Post
    And yet more complications seem to arise:

    1) "Make it so players can't destroy a stump unless its on your land (or tribe's land)" - The problem here is, as Liil said, we set up next to a forest, not in the forest. Technically, there aren't any trees on "our" land.
    I think you misread his idea. If its not on anyones land it couldn't be detroyed, like Rocks. Thus the stumps would be safe.



    I've heard that trees will regrow nearby if the stumps are destroyed, just not ON the stumps like if they aren't destroyed. Could be the fix is already in place, we'll find out after the grow cycle.

  6. #16
    Xsyon Citizen
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Intensity in ten cities
    Posts
    435
    I think making it extremely time-consuming and stamina-intensive would be best, thus making it easy to chase down and kill someone who's doing this to your surrounding lands.

  7. #17
    Madea made some really nice points there.
    I agree that carebear-protectors need options to track down specific players who've been messing around. Even if someone saw the perpetrators and knows their nicknames, it's too hard atm to take revenge.

    Quote Originally Posted by madea View Post
    EDIT: Bottom line, the point is kind of moot once a Dev makes a say. If they say the system works as intended and that they really do mean for people to be able to strip-destroy resources, well, then I get to eat crow and drive on. The debate part is only for if they say the matter is open for discussion and want input into the matter.
    The devs want balanced PvP, but the entire system is very much work-in-progress. Don't know if they already have any specific plans...

  8. #18
    I'm not a huge fan of fixes that go along the lines of "If, then, unless."

    Get rid of the stipulations, make it effect everyone, and then tweak the numbers. Like I tell my students, as my teachers told me: "KISS." Keep it simple, stupid.

  9. #19
    The trees should grow back in 24 hours. That would solve the problem quickly without any need of coding.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by jumpshot View Post
    This is honestly a pretty damn good idea.



    I think you misread his idea. If its not on anyones land it couldn't be detroyed, like Rocks. Thus the stumps would be safe.



    I've heard that trees will regrow nearby if the stumps are destroyed, just not ON the stumps like if they aren't destroyed. Could be the fix is already in place, we'll find out after the grow cycle.
    Ah! So I did; thank you for pointing that out. I retract my objection on that point, then. :3

Posting Permissions

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