Safe place or not?

[temur]

@OP
please next time take 5 minutes and search if there are any simular post (in this case there are plenty).
this is a clone ..pls lock

[Yzandor]

I dont really like any of these options. The better option is the one i have read the game developers allready talk about. People will be able to decide if they are going to have a safe totem or be part of the tribe wars.

Or another option i heard talked about where the main totem would be safe and the expansion totems would be able to be attacked.
.

thx, ill search for that thread. its interesting.

[orious13]

Yeah "after prelude" is so far down the road it'd probably be better to wait for an official poll..pole...pull...ploy from tehh main developers.

However I do like your excitement for the game . Seems you just joined within the past 5 days.

[Cracky69]

I dont really like any of these options. The better option is the one i have read the game developers allready talk about. People will be able to decide if they are going to have a safe totem or be part of the tribe wars.

Or another option i heard talked about where the main totem would be safe and the expansion totems would be able to be attacked.

I guess I would choose 1. And this does not take away at all from being a sandbox in my mind. So saying 3 is the most like full sandbox is wrong I think.
People that just want to attack everyone they see are not real pvpers. A lot of the people in the game like PVP they just dont want those fools who run around killing everyone they see for no other reason then the kill and maybe the loot.

Like I have allready heard some self proclaimed pvper mention how they saw someone, so the first thing they wanted to do was go kill that person.

The OPs comment that no safe place makes it a full sandbox is simply an attempt to skew the pole. The two are very indirectly connected since having an extra option will make the game more sandboxy, but ultimately the key to a full sandbox is more degrees of freedom.

Imagine the game as it is now but changed so you can kill other players anywhere.
Now imagine the game changed so you can plant seeds, farm animals, set fires to land, build boats and fish in the middle of the lake.

The second scenario is more of a sandbox because you have more options available that affect the world.

I do agree of course that allowing killing anywhere would have a significant effect on the way we play the game. I think it would be great to have well-resourced areas that were desireable to be in but not safe. Unfortunately if you have no safe areas then it will end up destroying the game.

Even in an established game like EVE, if you removed the 'safe' regions then failed PvPers with big rigs would just start ganking new players to make themselves feel tough. Although this wouldn't stop everyone it would deter many new players trying out the game. New players should be granted time to set up and get a feel for the game before the destruction starts.

Less people will play a game where you can build up stuff for months just to lose them in a few moments unless they have made a choice to take the risk which they are prepared for. Also wanton destruction is prevented in real life through a complex social system that is difficult to incorporate in a game where people are logging in and out. The ability to gank newbs really adds nothing to a game in terms of PvP it just reduces the retention rate of new players.

I would have picked Mr DDTs option on this one.

[MrDDT]

The OPs comment that no safe place makes it a full sandbox is simply an attempt to skew the pole. The two are very indirectly connected since having an extra option will make the game more sandboxy, but ultimately the key to a full sandbox is more degrees of freedom.

Imagine the game as it is now but changed so you can kill other players anywhere.
Now imagine the game changed so you can plant seeds, farm animals, set fires to land, build boats and fish in the middle of the lake.

The second scenario is more of a sandbox because you have more options available that affect the world.

I agree with your statement but not the reason behind it.

I do believe the poll is skewed. (Like these polls matter when they dont even put a thought into wording them).
But your reasons dont work well.

Its true that more degrees of freedom = more sandbox. Right?
Well if that were the case then being free to do whatever you want. (Open PVP no holds bars) would be more of an open sandbox than having something that limits that. Safe areas limit freedoms. You can grow, burn, plant etc, in an open PVP world also. I dont see your point in your reasoning.

But having said that you know my statement. I understand that people need safe areas. I also understand why. The devil is in the details. The why has all the details.

As I told others before, making a game where safe areas can be put anywhere is killing ALL pvpers, and pvers. Why? Well here we go.
PVP is made up of reasons to fight, there are many reasons. But mostly its about power and control. If someone can drop a safe area anywhere they want PVPers lose a LOT of power and all the control.

Why is it bad for PVEers? Well, few reasons. If people can drop safe areas on limited resources, then those resources will never change hands. Meaning someone will control them forever. Also why, is because PVPers will use it to grief PVEers. They will exploit the system, where PVEers cant get away from these guys, they will be bugging them non stop.

How would you like it if your neighbor in real life were to just keep playing loud music all day and night. When you cant call the cops, and you cant go over there an punch him. You are left with only 1 option. Move. People wont like that.
Worse is when you moved in, you didnt have neighbors, but soon as you move in all these jerks come move near you and cause you pain. Sure they dont come over to your house and break in, but if you step foot outside, or have a friend come over. BAM they jack your car, and friends car, and beat both of you up.

Better would be if you could call the cops, or hire some people to go mess up those people and make them move. But at the same time you would have to also protect yourself from them.

Anyways my rant is over, and I hoped I can make a few people see that PVPers and PVEers can live hand in and, and its better for both.

[goodayve]

Your assuming the person that wants safe areas can not fight for themselves.

Maybe they can fight, but if they were open to be attacked any time the other person would just attack them when they wernt paying attention.

[MrDDT]

Your assuming the person that wants safe areas can not fight for themselves.

Maybe they can fight, but if they were open to be attacked any time the other person would just attack them when they wernt paying attention.

Im sure this happens in a lot of cases. But point is that if you limit someone, then its less of a sandbox. At least that's my point.

Im ok with less of a sandbox for the greater overall fun of a game. But there are breaking points to limiting a sandbox.

Its kinda like adding the need to use the restroom in game, or something. Is it really needed?

[Cracky69]

I agree with your statement but not the reason behind it.

Its true that more degrees of freedom = more sandbox. Right?
Well if that were the case then being free to do whatever you want. (Open PVP no holds bars) would be more of an open sandbox than having something that limits that. Safe areas limit freedoms. You can grow, burn, plant etc, in an open PVP world also.

I agree, in fact I said in the section you quoted that allowing killing would make it more of a sandbox.

I was simply stating in the first part of my post that full PvP is not the ONLY significant factor towards creating a sandbox. Oh well, I broadly agree with you here anyhow so I'll not witter-on unnecessarily.

[goodayve]

If it was optional for people to join tribe wars and have their totem vulnerable I think that would be good. Then if they got conquered though, and their totem taken they should then revert back to safe tribe until they change the totem again.

This way if someone looses their land they would have a chance to be safe again to rebuild. And people that did not want to worry about it would not have to join.

Building is pretty fun in this game I think so if I lost my land it would give me a chance to build something new. So I would probably join in tribe wars. Though I only have a homestead right now, might try to get bigger sometimes.

[xyberviri]

I agree, in fact I said in the section you quoted that allowing killing would make it more of a sandbox.

I was simply stating in the first part of my post that full PvP is not the ONLY significant factor towards creating a sandbox. Oh well, I broadly agree with you here anyhow so I'll not witter-on unnecessarily.

the problem is that people see "open pvp" only when they see "sandbox" and it attracts the wrong type of crowd