Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by aliksteel View Post
    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.
    yeah the allignment system is antoher topic unto itself...and yet another issue where the player base's discussion of it would be greatly benefitted by the dev's stating, in detail, what their current design philosophy is/was and how they currently plan to implement the system. jabbering about it, or getting overtly hostile about this or htat system is really kinda pointless at the moment...since it's all speculation.

    And no, i don't want to see any 2 year old quotes telling me what jordi's intent was on some given day regarding the system.

  2. #22
    Considering they have a new game designer, perhaps that system is still in limbo and they simply don't have specifics yet. I presume they'll announce it and open it up for discussion when they themselves have a better sense of what's going on...

  3. #23
    People police themselves? When? Not where I live.. we have police for that. Also this is a game. People have to log off and since it is not actually their life taken. . and the clothing on their actual back that was taken. . they aren't going to band up for survival. They might move on to another game. . . they might just decide to join the free for all and not bother with other elements of the game.

    People have in the past. . policed themselves when after the lynching the guy remained dead. This is not the case in MMOs.

    Now. . give people a limited number or resurections and and then that might change things. People might band together to kill someone knowing that they might actually accomplish something.

    The way games work right now it takes ten times the effort to find and hunt down a PK that is randomly bothering you than it does for him to bother whoever he decides to target. And then once you kill him. . he pops back up.

    I hate alignment systems myself but there needs to be some form of penalty to those who constantly kill others (assuming their tribes are not at war). Since there is no permadeath there is not much recourse. As soon as they add perma-death and get rid of safe zones I will be the first person to turn PK. . until then it is just too far on the side of the PK. . with the combat stats and getting the drop on the guy trying to gather grass. What sense of victory is there in that?

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubanka View Post
    yeah the allignment system is antoher topic unto itself...and yet another issue where the player base's discussion of it would be greatly benefitted by the dev's stating, in detail, what their current design philosophy is/was and how they currently plan to implement the system. jabbering about it, or getting overtly hostile about this or htat system is really kinda pointless at the moment...since it's all speculation.

    And no, i don't want to see any 2 year old quotes telling me what jordi's intent was on some given day regarding the system.
    Dubanka thats not nice. You've effectively cut off Jadzias tongue by saying that.

    Personally im currently a little more concerned with the initial identification of ally/enemy or good/evil, before we even enter the discussion of what that means at all. If you haven't noticed, you can't so much as see a persons name until you run up to within a yard of him. Even if you do get that close, and you do get your cursor on him long enough to read his name -- its Black, which shows up very nicely on an already (usually) dark terrain surrounding you.

    I know i bring up darkfall a lot but ill do it again. They had a simple way of determining "good" or "red" - blue names versus red names. This alignment was superseded by diplomacy -- an ally, evil or good, turned up dark green. A clan member, evil or good, turned up bright green. A warring clan showed up as orange. It was also much much easier to identify these status of good or evil, ally or enemy, from greater distances.

    Group fights will be a clusterfuck in this game if they don't first improve the identification of players. In theory you could outfit your teams with very specific armor sets, but of course your enemies could simply copy that outfit, or send in one of their own in that outfit and have him cause havoc and confusion.

    They could have the most intuitive alignment system in gaming industry and no one would know who was what until you were close enough to be killed by them anyway.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelTEE3 View Post
    Group fights will be a clusterfuck in this game if they don't first improve the identification of players. In theory you could outfit your teams with very specific armor sets, but of course your enemies could simply copy that outfit, or send in one of their own in that outfit and have him cause havoc and confusion.

    They could have the most intuitive alignment system in gaming industry and no one would know who was what until you were close enough to be killed by them anyway.
    Truth right there.
    I posted about this in another thread, but ya thats right.
    I dont want to see targeting someone with a WOW type system, but Darkfall's system worked well with still allowing confusion in combat to happen if people didnt focus.

  6. #26
    I believe there was an intent to have both an enemies system and a rivals system for tribes. Enemies would be the pure Good vs Evil within the regular alignment system while rivals would allow Good and Neutral to declare war on each other outside the regular system.

    The more lately described opt-in system would pretty much override that, though, as it would be a purely consentual war with anyone.

  7. #27
    the ability to dye in guild colors/tabards/symbols would solve the player identification issue.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubanka View Post
    the ability to dye in guild colors/tabards/symbols would solve the player identification issue.
    If those ideas had to be worn and were not traded yep. I doubt that will happen.

  9. #29
    The dyes and symbols would be cool.

    I like the ambiguity and uncertainty we have right now. More immersive and a good reason to flash a peaceful emote from a distance.

    Perhaps doesn't make it easy on the more pvp inclined, but since when should pvp be easy.

  10. #30
    Good/Neutral/Evil is LESS dynamic than friend or foe. Here's what I mean.

    - Allow tribes to form nations.
    - A single tribe can found a nation, but requires X number of tribes to sign on before the nation is established.
    - The main nation control panel would go to the leader of the tribe that founded the nation, making that tribe the nations capitol city. All tribe leaders in a nation would acquire a nation control panel to interact with their nation.
    - Nations can friend tribes who aren't already a part of a nation (including them in their nation).
    - Friending friends of foes should be disallowed, requiring you to break with current relationships in order to establish new ones.
    - Nations can foe tribes if they do not belong to a nation. If they do belong to a nation, your nation must foe the nation of the tribe you wish to foe.
    - Tribes can friend or foe other tribes. Again, they can't friend their nations foes or foe their nations friends, without first breaking from the nation.
    - Tribes/nations that you are neutral to, need never be marked either friend or foe (simply keep them off of both lists).

    - Friending tribes/nations must be done at 'their' totem. Requiring them to receive you for a pow-wow. Perhaps the tribe you intend to friend can set up an ally type quest listing what is required before they will accept your friendship (tribute/agreements). Nations/tribes can then control who friends them by receiving them (letting them through the gates to have access to the totem), and by presenting pre-requisites before they'll let you friend them. In other words, friending is something TWO tribes do, not just one. Some tribes will just have to sit at home and wait for friends to come along. Others will have a willful goal and have to travel to acquire their allies (unite the tribes).

    - Attacking a tribe (using a war totem to invade tribal lands) should auto foe you to that tribe, and/or their nation. Neutrals can be attacked (warfare), but it will make them foes.
    - Possibly other actions could auto foe, as long as a single tribe isn't able to pull the rug out from under a nation by it.
    - White names for friends, black names for neutral, red names for foes. Or insert color scheme here.
    - Friends cannot be attacked, except maybe out in the free world (boxing matches)?
    - Perhaps individuals can be good or evil, and then tribes can police themselves by disallowing one or the other in their tribe? Some tribes can accept both (civil unrest).
    - Other ideas?

    My argument doesn't stem from an intention to make everything FFA. I'm not against having a system, just against the good/neutral/evil system as I have heard it was planned to work. As someone else said, maybe they have something that will make good/neutral/evil as dynamic, ripe with real diplomacy, and brimming with player choice as the system described above? I just don't know yet.

    Poke holes in it guys.

    EDIT: Question - Should individuals and tribes posses the potential for both good and evil? Should they be allowed to posses both qualities (as people, tribes, and nations always do)?

    EDIT EDIT: Friend or foe would be better explained ally/enemy in this example really. In other words, you should have friends who aren't allies, and allies who aren't necessarily friends, etc. This system would also allow a form of diplomatic conquest.

    EDIT EDIT EDIT: This example doesn't necessarily exclude a good/evil system. In fact it could be a layer apart from an individual/personal flag of good or evil. Again, this is a beef with the good/evil system as it relates to tribal warfare.

Posting Permissions

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