Safe Zone/Free Zone ala Tribal Creeds

[fatboy21007]

if im not mistaken the reason Evil can be a boxing pillow is cuz they will be the only ones who can really ffa full loot. and everything they do doesnt effect them. However everything a good and nuetral tribe does can effect them and actually turn their alignment into evil. Which i can see alot of balance their. I mean good tribes i dont think can full loots ya and nuetral i think i heard can only loot 1 item. However they havent said much about nuetral. but wat i gathered so far is Nuetral will be a more *crafter friendly* alighnment as they choose to stay out of the wars n remain safe or jump into them and turn into evil or good. Ethier way None of us can say forsure how the alighnment system will work. So all in good time we shall find out. Atm all ideas that are poping up mean nothing when you havent seen the dev's full plans ethier. and so far seems like they are intent and making this game in their vision. which for the most part is a good thing. as no offence to any of ya, but us players are the reasons games die. we moan and wine n devs make stuff are way...but in the end they game ends up failing and pop leaves, cuz of boredem. So lets try the dev's vision this time around. And remember all the other games liek this wat happend when dev's took all major game mechanics ideas that players gave and used them. Im for wanting to see wat the dev's do. So far id say their doin a great job :-)

[Trenchfoot]

Thank you all for your input.

I'm convinced.

[wolfmoonstrike]

First I'd like to say love this idea. I think it has a nice blend of risk vs reward. In a perfect world people would have only a certain amount of militants that can do the dirty work needed. They can be your goto guys w/o risking the rest of the tribe. I also agree that pacifist should take a alignment hit for killing.

I have mixed feelings.

Something to add to this would be the following because I also don't get why pacifists can't fight back without a problem in self-defense, but killing is a different story. In the US you can actually get off with no punishment from killing someone in self-defense. It's harder in some states than it is in others. Frankly with your current system pacifists DO have more risk since the tiny safe zone can go away or decrease and/or if encountering another militant on 99% of the map, you can either run or die. Most of the time you'll probably die if you have less fort/run/agi. Actually you might die all of the time if you're a crafter spec and can't hide. Pacifist monks do/did know how to fight back.

If you make it so pacifists cannot be looted (since they aren't a risk and can't attack back), that won't work either because then people won't care bout dying (spies running free into your town etc.).


So what one can do is the following:

1) A pacifist can attack back in self defense after being attacked, but if they kill the target, they cannot loot the target. If they loot the target, they are militant... that is just by clicking the loot button not actually be taking anything off of the target. This also goes for fish/gathering/foraging/scavenging on non-ally territory as that is an act of aggression.

2) A pacifist can attack back in self-defense after being attacked, but if they succeed in taking the aggressor down to 0% health, the aggressor gets incapacitated for xx amount of seconds before the last hit is landed or a kill/murder button is pressed, allowing the pacifist to run away or risk becoming militant. Keep in mind out of combat is supposed to be faster than in combat; however, many pvpers have 90 agi vs a lot less for many crafters, which makes that not work as well. You also can't forage/gather/scav/fish here either.

Both ways are exploitable I guess and need tweaking.

I like number 2 out of what you said. I was playing MnB this last week due to my internet being out lol and I wouldn't mind seeing knock outs possible instead of kills. So like for the pacifist tribes out there, they could carry blunt weapons so they knock out somebody instead of killing them. Being KOed means you get knocked to the ground and can't get back up until the usual timer dings. You can be killed and/or looted while KOed. But if a pacifist tries to loot anymore than one thing he should become militant (the pacifist did win I think he deserves some reward) and if he tries too loot something too big the KOed person revives right away. IE body armor.

[Trenchfoot]

So like for the pacifist tribes out there, they could carry blunt weapons so they knock out somebody instead of killing them.

Great idea! I play the hell out of MnB and this never occurred to me. Way to be on your toes.

It's really not about game mechanics at all, it's about ideologies. What people have a problem with so much is competition. And they won't accept any idea that forces them to compete.

I'm still convinced that this game either has to become 'old hat' to please the non-competitive crowd, or it has to try something new and please the 5th gen crowd. Either way you loose a crowd. And the only way around that is two servers. One where you can be free, and one where the game plays itself for you.

[wolfmoonstrike]

Great idea! I play the hell out of MnB and this never occurred to me. Way to be on your toes.

It's really not about game mechanics at all, it's about ideologies. What people have a problem with so much is competition. And they won't accept any idea that forces them to compete.

I'm still convinced that this game either has to become 'old hat' to please the non-competitive crowd, or it has to try something new and please the 5th gen crowd. Either way you loose a crowd. And the only way around that is two servers. One where you can be free, and one where the game plays itself for you.

I will forever be against 2 servers but that is beside the point. No matter the decision there will be consequences both that are intended and those that aren't and even those that are completely unforeseen. I think your idea goes a long way of providing balance and still allowing people to play the way the want within the lore and within a PA world. Honestly once they add religion this could seriously fit into lore and thus RP styles.

Your goddess is a peaceful one so any transgressions against her desires means the less willing she is to protect you. Or something like that lol.

[Trenchfoot]

play the way the want within the lore and within a PA world.

Excellent point.

I came to this game for the premise. Not for pvp, not for a world building sim, but to experience the challenge of making my way (by my own merits) in a post-apoc world. Everything that takes away from that, makes me not want to play it that much more.

EDIT: Added your idea to the op wolfmoon. ty

[findangle]

PVP isn't about Tom and Jerry fights over and over again for no purpose other than loots and bragging rights..

PVP is a social control mechanism. its the difference between "if i do this.. i'll anger them and they'll come after me." and "yeah it's kind of a mean thing to do but what can they do about it?"

The idea that non-pvp'ers can elect out of the consequences of their social and political actions and not have a damaging effect on the rest of the game is simply non-pvp oriented players misunderstanding the purpose of a pvp system.

The question then becomes "what system takes over as a social control for those players that can no longer be policed by the community?"

Then of course there are the obvious issues where once you put in a safe place to craft you will see large cities full of safety crafters making weapons and armor and etc, for their homeless hobo pvp characters..

I only see one way to make safe zone's viable without breaking the overall game or providing inherently exploitable mechanics.. you must remove the safe players ability to affect the world. If you simply remove the ability for safe players to build/terra, trade or speak then it could be done relatively harmlessly.

With as much freedom as players are given in these games the player base HAS to have a tool they can use to police behavior.

An argument you hear against this is similar to the argument against public smoking bans.. it is similarly flawed. the argument is essentially that if you provide a choice, the pvp players will go pvp amongst themselves and the non pvp's will stay home and craft and everyone is happy. it usually also tries to imply that anyone who disagrees is just a noob ganker anyway and therefore has no valid opinion. The thing they don't understand is that people don't pvp because it's fun to lose crap.. people pvp because they want to beat other players. those people use ANY advantage allowed by game mechanics. if they can hide their entire production force under a no-pvp blanket they will. this means that the only pvp you can find is between two characters that have nothing to lose cause they left it all back home on their safety character.




Traditionally what you see in an MMO is this idea that your stronger pvp players are supposed to protect your weaker craft minded players. this in practice doesn't really work. it's a really boring job for a pvp type player to stand guard for hours on end.. since the players pay to play and not the other way around there is really no good way to put together coordinate 24/7 watch groups.

The problem as i see it isn't that there is too much pvp.. its that the pvp is a little too narrow. the risk of a combat oriented pvp type player attacking another similar player is obvious. they could kill you and take your stuff. whats the risk of attacking a crafter? there should be one.


Long winded post i agree but the journey is meant to put your mind in a state that is receptive to this question:

How do you make a combat oriented player look at a crafting oriented player and say "is it worth the retaliation?"

some random reasonably creative thoughts:

Spawn an NPC raiding party from the crafters village to raid the attackers village. make this attack force tough enough that the attackers village gets sick of it and either ejects the killer or makes him stop.

Have "the gods" "frown" upon the killer making them easy prey to any other combat type character.


The value of the freedom to kill anyone is more than the pve-crafter minded folks understand or admit. but to turn paying customers into sitting ducks because they chose a perfectly valid play style will kill the community. you must find a way to allow this pvp to happen while at the same time providing a steep enough consequence that it rarely actually happens.

"behave or be annihilated" is why pvp exists in games like this.. it's what separates it from counterstrike and unreal tournament. as long as you keep everyone making social choices based on potential player reprisal it works. the minute some people are able to ignore that in their decision making process you will have problems.




(Note: i'm not yet a player of xsyon.. waiting for payday to replenish my gaming budget.. but i've played wurm, darkfall and HnH WAY too much and have studied the social cultures of these games. while the exact features and implementations change from game to game the player motivations and social behaviors do not. people will play to win. if you provide safety to people who do not wish to compete that safety will be used to provide a tactical edge to those who do.)

[MrDDT]

findangle,

Good post.

As I might not agree fully with all of it, the overall thoughts are what I believe to be tree.
PVE, and PVPer can live in a world together is a great idea, and it can work.

[Trenchfoot]

Yes great post. And a good question.

How do you make a combat oriented player look at a crafting oriented player and say "is it worth the retaliation?"

If we could point to one thing I think we would. I think it really does have to be a tapestry to perform well. I don't know if I like the idea of pocket armies. But here's what I would say:

1. Make high/master level crafting highly valued, and low level crafting a time sink hassle that keeps repeating itself endlessly. So that pvp players will 'need' at least one of each type of crafter just to survive. Otherwise they should be relinquished to pvping in between making new shoes and clothes and whatever other day to day necessities which will eat up a lot of their 'pvp' time, because the low level crap they make is darn near useless (keeps wearing out or breaking every few uses). In other words, if you want to be a successful pvp player, you can't do it on your own. Not only should you need superior numbers of warriors in combat, but you should also need superior numbers of crafters to supply you.

2. Make the maintenance of high/master level crafting impossible to maintain unless you focus solely on it. Again, if you want to pvp, you need to get your 'time' to do so from crafters. Otherwise you should be caught up in day to day survival for the most part. Several crafters under your wing so to speak, should give you an enormous edge in combat. Both in terms of gear and logistics.

3. Allow players to form their own nations/alliances, with the ability to retaliate. ie. If one of you attacks one of us, you pass along the right for all of us to attack any of you (and your crafters). Also through this mechanism players would be able to establish their own ideals, laws, and customs. A warring nation that recruits and actively protects crafters (a crafters haven) should be a nation to be feared on the battlefield far and above those who do not.

4. Let solo play be highly undesirable. Like the difference between central air and a fan in the window in the 90 degree heat. If people want to isolate themselves from the politics and alliances of the world, they should lead a meager existence. Likewise people should gravitate to comfort, provision, and safety in numbers in a post-apoc world. In general, dedicated crafters should be drawn to large safe tribes and learn not to put themselves in danger by wandering too far from the safety of their tribe/alliance/nation. It makes sense to me that in a post-apoc world you're either a wolf or a sheep. And if you're a sheep you're either subject to the wolves or you get yourself a sheep dog. Crafters should seek pvprs just as much as pvp should seek crafters. It should be an extremely symbiotic relationship.

[Jadzia]

Trenchfoot, so you basically suggest crafters to:

1. be forced to join a huge tribe
2. stay at home in like 90% of their time.

I can tell you these options won't attract many crafters to play the game.

Spawn an NPC raiding party from the crafters village to raid the attackers village. make this attack force tough enough that the attackers village gets sick of it and either ejects the killer or makes him stop.

Have "the gods" "frown" upon the killer making them easy prey to any other combat type character.

I like these ideas.