Safe place or not?

[Book]

DDT, nobody is forcing you to live in a NO safe zone contested area.

The area is that way to better accommodate your style of play. It's the way you want it. Only you also want a better reward for having the area the way you want it...

If you want to tell me that nobody is going to live in that area without extra reward... well maybe that should tell you something?

If you say you're risking the loss of your totem, same as I'm always answering... this is your choice. This is the way you want it. You don't get a gold star or a cookie for having things the way you want them.

If you'd like, we could encourage people to say "Good Job Man!!!" after you kill them. There's your reward.

Addition: Try to understand that death can be just as common in a PvE setting as in a PvP setting. Revenants never sleep, there may very easily come a day when the PvE area is more dangerous than the PvP area.

[Jadzia]

You have no idea what that risk will be attacking someone. How do you know its a crafter at all? Maybe its a seasoned warrior and you goto attack him and he beats the crap out of you? Or what if its a trap? 5 other guys in the bushes?

Taking another totem is a good reward, but why would someone risk losing a totem only to take someone elses? There is no reason behind it? Is it a good spot? Nope all the resources are everywhere. So why would I want your totem area when I could have mine? Why would I want to risk mine that I put all this work into for yours with nothing to gain from it other than the stuff I already have here? Wouldnt I just leave my totem safe and not worry about it?

Im not saying a PVP player has more risk. Im saying if a PVP player is living in a contested NO safe area, then they are at more risk. If you are a PVE player living in the safe totem area, you are at less risk of dying, because you are in or near your safe totem.

If you attack someone who is scavenging or fishing without weapon and armor you can kill him before he can stop his current action and gear up. And run around and scout before you attack someone ?

If I run zones away from my camp I'm nowhere safe. There might be safe totems around me but that is not safe for me, is it ?

Why you want to take someone's totem...I have no idea. Never had. I don't want it, I wouldn't take it even if it was offered for free. But you guys want it so I guess you know why ? Perhaps they have better buildings (assuming buildings get some purpose..) or he insulted you and you want to take revenge or to destroy the tribe's homeland before taking over their expansion totem....something like this I guess. Or to drive them away from your neighborhood because they use up the resources nearby...or purely for fun, because you hate the other tribe and want to piss them off. The contest for resources will be done through expansion totems so that can't be the reason.

[MrDDT]

DDT, nobody is forcing you to live in a NO safe zone contested area.

The area is that way to better accommodate your style of play. It's the way you want it. Only you also want a better reward for having the area the way you want it...

If you want to tell me that nobody is going to live in that area without extra reward... well maybe that should tell you something?

If you say you're risking the loss of your totem, same as I'm always answering... this is your choice. This is the way you want it. You don't get a gold star or a cookie for having things the way you want them.

If you'd like, we could encourage people to say "Good Job Man!!!" after you kill them. There's your reward.

Addition: Try to understand that death can be just as common in a PvE setting as in a PvP setting. Revenants never sleep, there may very easily come a day when the PvE area is more dangerous than the PvP area.

You are asking someone to risk 1000$ to play the same game as someone who risks 10$ because risking 1000$ gives them more fun. When they both have a chance to win 1010$. Does that make any sense to you?

Death in PVE can be just as common or it can be less or more common. However, what are the odds of losing what you bring in PVE vs PVP?
Also like I said, are you risking your totem and all that work into it?

If you attack someone who is scavenging or fishing without weapon and armor you can kill him before he can stop his current action and gear up. And run around and scout before you attack someone ?

If I run zones away from my camp I'm nowhere safe. There might be safe totems around me but that is not safe for me, is it ?

Why you want to take someone's totem...I have no idea. Never had. I don't want it, I wouldn't take it even if it was offered for free. But you guys want it so I guess you know why ? Perhaps they have better buildings (assuming buildings get some purpose..) or he insulted you and you want to take revenge or to destroy the tribe's homeland before taking over their expansion totem....something like this I guess. Or to drive them away from your neighborhood because they use up the resources nearby...or purely for fun, because you hate the other tribe and want to piss them off. The contest for resources will be done through expansion totems so that can't be the reason.

That's right you dont understand why. Because you cant see the other side of the coin, while PVPers see your side.

Attacking someone elses totem for no reward and only loss is not going to be very common. Look at games like EVE, DarkFall and Shadowbane to see reasons why people take other peoples areas. RESOURCES, and Location to resources.
There is a reward for taking these places.

[Book]

You are asking someone to risk 1000$ to play the same game as someone who risks 10$ because risking 1000$ gives them more fun. When they both have a chance to win 1010$. Does that make any sense to you?

Dude, I'm not asking anyone to risk a 1000$ That's my point. You can if you want to, I'm also not trying to stop you.

[Dubanka]

pls check out my idea in the barracks totem thread.

[MrDDT]

Dude, I'm not asking anyone to risk a 1000$ That's my point. You can if you want to, I'm also not trying to stop you.

You are not asking anyone to risk it, but you are asking for the same reward as someone that does.
That's the point. Why would I want you playing at my table when we are all risking 1000$ for 1010$ reward, when you are like "Hey can I play I only want to risk this 10$, but if I win, I want the same as you guys"

Makes NO sense. You are saying here is 10$, for risk, but I dont want to miss out on the jackpot that you guys are risking your 1000$ for. Haha I dont get how you dont see this as common sense. Why would I ever risk 1000$ when I could just risk 10$?

[Trenchfoot]

Let me make my personal position clear.

• I want an FFA/FL open world where the players are given the tools to alter the world, and then set loose.
• I want structures to be as safe as it gets.
• I want siege mechanics to be one of, if not 'the' most difficult thing to achieve in the entire game. ie. The method by which you get past structures.
• I want the ability to make peace (through war if necessary).
• I want my enemies to be formidable (not pushovers).
• I want my achievements to have a linear purpose (if conquering a resource is only valuable as a means to conquer more resources, this is circular to me, and therefore meaningless to pursue).
• I want a predominantly zone free world (no amusement parks).
• I want the world to be able to change (areas become safe/unsafe through alliances/war dynamically, as the players carve out the world).
• I want communities to be able to enter into a state of victory with the opportunity, through hard work, to retain that state (victory being defined as: made safe by our own hands, for our people to enjoy).

These have been my personal positions since before I got here. They have not changed.

But if you asked me, would I be able to wander away from that position and still have fun playing? I would have to admit, of course. Because I've played many many games far from that position and I've had fun.

My problem is when you get too far from my position as to make it into another, better, more polished, finished game I should already be playing, instead of this one. So I guess that's my boundary. As soon as this game becomes the sum of a bunch of other games who have done more or less the same thing, what incentive do I have to subscribe to this one?

That's where I draw the line, and that's the sum total of what I'm waiting on from the devs. The second the devs state definitively, 'we're crossing that line', I'm done and I'll go play 'those other' games (no hard feelings). When they say 'we don't know yet', or just keep silent or hint, then the discussion is still worth having imo.

[joakin]

This is quite easy, its not that we already have too much of this kind of game, its the game's style, this game is already set to be a realistic game,
the perfect thing to do is NPC guards in a town that watch out for simple laws: no killing, picking stuff droped from town members, ( stealing ), etc, but before they attack a warning would be good for example: a tribe member of the town drops a wood log on the ground, then someone comes along and steals it, the guard would ask him to put it back, if the person whole stole will not drop the exact item back ( has 10 seconds) the guard would attack.

also the guard would come from a guard bed, which is a bed made for a guard which the guard sleeps in and respawns in, and the bed can customize the guard's armor and weapon, you put the armor and weapon and each time the guard gets killed youll have to pay a certain amount depending on the armor and weapon that the bed has, that way towns are more safe for ppl to drop their stuff, tho guards should be the only NPCs.
There should be a max of guard beds in the town, the more members the more beds allowed. you should also be able to put patrol points for the guard to move around on or a point were the guard should stay in untill he has to eat or sleep.

this suggestion can be thought and it would bring a balance for a safe place in towns.

NPC guards, the only guards in the game can be thought with to have a realistic effect in the game to bring a good balance

like they can spawn from a bed that you can build and put were ever in the town, but the max guard beds in a town based on the size of the town.

patrol points where the guard patrols untill he has to eat and sleep then another guard takes the shift.

if this system is made well, it could bring a good balance between safe ppl ( pu****s who are afraid to risk it ) and ppl who want it all sandbox.

[xyberviri]

Again, i say let the players build safe zones that require some type of upkeep that prevents pvp, with other details to be fleshed out....

[Drevar]

This would be the simplest solution. If you want a safe zone to opt out of warfare/conquest, you pay upkeep. If you opt-in to the warfare/conquest you don't have to pay upkeep but don't have a safe zone.