Are contested totems the best way for land control

[Book]

<snip for space>

I'm not sure why the safe area would need to be "very limited." I mean, if it gets worked out in such a way that it doesn't encroach on the pvp area's ability to have fun... what's it to anyone the size of the area? If you're having fun, what's the problem with other people having fun if a way can be found to do it so that you get to have fun and they get to have fun?

I could certainly understand why people who have a real passion for pvp wouldn't want to stick around if the pvp isn't viable. Many are saying just that.

If a way can be found to make it fun for all, it's worth a shot. If people are willing to keep batting ideas around, it's worth a shot.
We put humans on the moon, and have cool remote control toys cruising around Mars... someone thought it was worth a shot even if it wasn't easy.

If you're worried about there being no players in the safe areas because there are no players who want to play that and the unsafe areas being cramped because everyone in the world wants that, make it a dynamic system based on monthly population of said areas.

[mrcalhou]

"Limited," "very limited," etc these are all just arbitrary terms. They mean nothing. What matters is if there is enough content for both groups of players.

[MrDDT]

No, its not me who want to change it. I'm fine with the system Jordi plans, the opt-out warfare. I don't want to change it, do you ?

He has always planned the game to be this way. Warfare over resources, not over the cities. Now that there are players who wants to fight over the cities too he is willing to give an option for that, but not forcing it on everybody. Ok, let's not change it.

Its already been changed to that system you are talking about thats a problem right there. Because of how that system is going to effect things its pretty much safe areas anywhere you want. Which is exploitable is so many ways.
We are talking about the new system, you are trying to go beyond (you and others) where you have MORE, while PVPers are trying to tell you (and others) just how bad the "new" system is. If I would have known about this change I would have said something then, I didnt see the update. Now its clear to me and others just how bad of a change it will be.

[Dubanka]

I'm not sure why the safe area would need to be "very limited." I mean, if it gets worked out in such a way that it doesn't encroach on the pvp area's ability to have fun... what's it to anyone the size of the area? If you're having fun, what's the problem with other people having fun if a way can be found to do it so that you get to have fun and they get to have fun?

I could certainly understand why people who have a real passion for pvp wouldn't want to stick around if the pvp isn't viable. Many are saying just that.

If a way can be found to make it fun for all, it's worth a shot. If people are willing to keep batting ideas around, it's worth a shot.
We put humans on the moon, and have cool remote control toys cruising around Mars... someone thought it was worth a shot even if it wasn't easy.

If you're worried about there being no players in the safe areas because there are no players who want to play that and the unsafe areas being cramped because everyone in the world wants that, make it a dynamic system based on monthly population of said areas.

You're not getting it. There is no such thing as partially safe. If there is a safe zone mechanic it will be utilized by all - removing all consequence from pvp. But, I guess that is your intent correct?

[MrDDT]

I'm not sure why the safe area would need to be "very limited." I mean, if it gets worked out in such a way that it doesn't encroach on the pvp area's ability to have fun... what's it to anyone the size of the area? If you're having fun, what's the problem with other people having fun if a way can be found to do it so that you get to have fun and they get to have fun?

I could certainly understand why people who have a real passion for pvp wouldn't want to stick around if the pvp isn't viable. Many are saying just that.

If a way can be found to make it fun for all, it's worth a shot. If people are willing to keep batting ideas around, it's worth a shot.
We put humans on the moon, and have cool remote control toys cruising around Mars... someone thought it was worth a shot even if it wasn't easy.

If you're worried about there being no players in the safe areas because there are no players who want to play that and the unsafe areas being cramped because everyone in the world wants that, make it a dynamic system based on monthly population of said areas.

I dont care how much space you have, I care about the game system of it.
If safe zones have rare resources, can be placed anywhere, anytime, and have everything these PVP contested areas have. THATS the problem. You can have 1 million miles if its all barren dirt. I wouldnt care about it. But when you are able to craft weapons, armor, gather resources, and build things that can be used for war, and would then be sold and or given to these PVP lands there are issues.
Smaller space means less resources, and less area to work your crafts. Thats what we care about.

Im here typing over and over because many people are talking to me about it. If you guys want me to stop, I can but tell you right now Im not just one person wanting this, this is what most of the people I know want. I know a LOT of types of players too. Not just PVPers. This system is good for BOTH PVPers and PVEers. It makes econ work very well.

[Jadzia]

Its already been changed to that system you are talking about thats a problem right there. Because of how that system is going to effect things its pretty much safe areas anywhere you want. Which is exploitable is so many ways.
We are talking about the new system, you are trying to go beyond (you and others) where you have MORE, while PVPers are trying to tell you (and others) just how bad the "new" system is. If I would have known about this change I would have said something then, I didnt see the update. Now its clear to me and others just how bad of a change it will be.

Lol. This is what I'm trying to tell you. This is not a change. This is how Jordi has planned it from the very beginning. He has always planned to make warfare optional. Optional, as in opt-out in some way, with a warring-tribe system or with 2 servers.

[MrDDT]

Lol. This is what I'm trying to tell you. This is not a change. This is how Jordi has planned it from the very beginning. He has always planned to make warfare optional. Optional, as in opt-out in some way, with a warring-tribe system or with 2 servers.

No he didnt. Dunno where you got that idea, but Ive been here from the start. It wasnt always the plan.

[Jadzia]

No he didnt. Dunno where you got that idea, but Ive been here from the start. It wasnt always the plan.

You know that I've been here from the start too. And Jordi never announced how he planned warfare. Did you ask him what was his plan back then ? I did.

[Book]

You're not getting it. There is no such thing as partially safe. If there is a safe zone mechanic it will be utilized by all - removing all consequence from pvp. But, I guess that is your intent correct?

nono That's not my intent. I don't know if you've had time to read some of the other things I said.

[MrDDT]

You know that I've been here from the start too. And Jordi never announced how he planned warfare. Did you ask him what was his plan back then ? I did.

July 07 2008 [21:25] jooky@***: in the beginning we might not have destroyable towns yet
July 07 2008 [21:25] jooky@***: but when we do
July 07 2008 [21:25] jooky@***: players will be able to attack / burn / destroy buildings
July 07 2008 [21:26] jooky@***: this is something we will discuss

Please show me yours? Because I posted mine.