Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    Yeah I really don't like the way the alignment system is sounding. Good/Neutral/Evil should be a personal POV that changes depending upon who you're talking to. Even the bad guy is the hero of his own story.

    I think alignment should be something more like allowing the players to form alliances and then be identified with the morality of the alliance in the same way alignment seems to be intended. Opposing alliances will of course consider one another evil. There could be a way for tribes to set restrictions. ie. Check the box that says 'Reject alliances with foes.'. Then whoever your tribe marks as a foe either excludes any tribe from allying with you who also allies with them, or it break alliances to those who are currently allies and decide to ally with your foes.

    There should be as many organizations of players as the players see fit to classify themselves. Rather than simply good/neutral/evil, which is a fraudulent system imo.

    EDIT: In a good/neutral/evil system. Evil can't be too evil (you can call yourself evil but we're going to add a bunch of rules that requires you to behave), and good is only as good as they are restricted from being evil (which makes it the new neutral).

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by KeithStone View Post
    I don't like this at all- there's already going to be limitations on who you can ally with. For example, a good tribe would not be able to ally an evil tribe and vice versa. You can't jump back and forth between being good and evil without first disbanding your tribe so that will keep people from flip flopping allies or trying to ally the entire server for a day.
    Sorta, but you can still have issues with allies flipfloping.
    It helps both sides, allies will be able to work out with better allies and know that this ally isnt going to just use them.
    Also helps with people exploiting it with tribe wars and other functions.

    Good and Evil is a good also way to do it. I dont see why you wouldnt want both systems in it. You didnt state that in your post. Whats the reason why you dont want it again? Because the good vs evil thing isnt really effecting the taxing of allies.

  3. #13
    I think the alignment system needs to change to just being a gauge of personal actions. Have tribes alignment based on average of members alignment and have alliance alignment being an average of tribes alignment.

    For alliance fee requirements have Tribes build embassies in each others land. Would also force Tribes to be selective as the embassies are going to eat up their land space. Alliance permissions could be based on embassy type/level. For example, each tribe creates a small flag pole in the other tribes land space. This is a level 1 embassy and unlocks alliance chat. Then they decide to upgrade to a small shed (the flag pole moving on top of it) which unlocks safe zone access permissions (the host tribe would still have control on actually granting safe zone). etc. This also provides a visual aspect to alliances when you are scouting out enemy tribes.

    Now abandoning an embassy or kicking one out would become interesting. Do you allow the embassies to be like they are supposed to be in real world? Do you have embassy owners deposit something important as surety for behavior? Can an embassy be destroyed by anyone? Do embassies require maintenance? What happens if they aren't maintained? To exit an alliance do you have to destroy your embassies on all the other Tribes land? Or is it enough to destroy all the alliance embassies that are on your land?

  4. #14
    Let the players decide who is good or evil. Let them develop their own sense of right and wrong, their own customs, their own culture. So that from place to place, tribe to tribe, the laws on whats acceptable and what isn't vary.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Trenchfoot View Post
    Let the players decide who is good or evil. Let them develop their own sense of right and wrong, their own customs, their own culture. So that from place to place, tribe to tribe, the laws on whats acceptable and what isn't vary.
    Is this your first MMO?

  6. #16
    Oh right because alignments are traditional. I forgot.

    As long as alignments aren't/doesn't:

    A. A safety mechanism for the good guys.
    B. Make neutral the liars club.
    C. Turn evil into props (players who pay to be the games mobs who can never really win).

    Then I can probably live with it just like I always have.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Trenchfoot View Post
    Oh right because alignments are traditional. I forgot.

    As long as alignments aren't/doesn't:

    A. A safety mechanism for the good guys.
    B. Make neutral the liars club.
    C. Turn evil into props (players who pay to be the games mobs who can never really win).

    Then I can probably live with it just like I always have.

    I dont know why you say that "evil" players never win. Ive seen them win in many games. UO, Darkfall, Wurm Online, and Karos. Just to name some off the top of my head.
    No idea what you are getting at.

    My comment was about players policing their own, doesnt work. You need a system that punishes people for doing those things. Players have and likely never will be bothered to police good vs evil. It just doesnt work.

  8. #18
    I dont know why you say that "evil" players never win. Ive seen them win in many games. UO, Darkfall, Wurm Online, and Karos. Just to name some off the top of my head.
    No idea what you are getting at.
    Yawn. Probably because I didn't say that.

    My comment was about players policing their own, doesnt work. You need a system that punishes people for doing those things.
    I know it was. And punishes who for doing what?

    Players have and likely never will be bothered to police good vs evil. It just doesnt work.
    Players have and always will police to the extent that mommy doesn't do it for them. They police their interests, because it's in their interest to do so. Of course no one polices good or evil, because it's a farce to begin with. The best is can be is arbitrary.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Trenchfoot View Post
    Yawn. Probably because I didn't say that.
    I know it was. And punishes who for doing what?
    Players have and always will police to the extent that mommy doesn't do it for them. They police their interests, because it's in their interest to do so. Of course no one polices good or evil, because it's a farce to begin with. The best is can be is arbitrary.
    Wow, here we go again.

    Yes you did say that, I even quoted it.

    Punishes people for doing "evil" things.

    Yes players do police a little when it suits them. But trying to base a system where players do 100% of the policing with no support nor rules from a system in game will not work. Players will not follow any kind of structure.
    Good and Evil isnt a farce at all. Devs have a good idea what Good and Evil actions are.

  10. #20
    Maybe I'm way off here, But it sounds like Trenchfoot want's a free for all, Because without good and evil rules in-game, Thats what you have. And beyond the tribal safe area's, Thats what we have now.

    The sad thing is, No one really knows how the alignment system(At lest I don't know yet) will work or when it will go in-game.

Posting Permissions

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