Do you really want another DF or MO?

[Jadzia]

Nowhere in there does it say that walls and gates would mean a "safe zone".

True. And where does it say it means 'no safe zone' ? This is what I said. Jordi didn't give any details. He didn't say this neither he said that. So you can't say it has changed...because it wasn't specified. It could have meant both, the only way to know it for sure was to ask about it from support or FAQ question.

[MrDDT]

True. And where does it say it means 'no safe zone' ? This is what I said. Jordi didn't give any details. He didn't say this neither he said that. So you can't say it has changed...because it wasn't specified. It could have meant both, the only way to know it for sure was to ask about it from support or FAQ question.

He said safe zones would be removed after prelude.
That has now changed to "We will allow tribes to switch to a warring tribe during prelude if they want".

Again, cant post links because its on the old forums AND, many threads on these forums are not able to be seen by you, or are deleted AKA moved into a private forum.

[Jadzia]

He said safe zones would be removed after prelude.
That has now changed to "We will allow tribes to switch to a warring tribe during prelude if they want".

Again, cant post links because its on the old forums AND, many threads on these forums are not able to be seen by you, or are deleted AKA moved into a private forum.

He said safe zones will be replaced by walls and gates.

Again, you are confusing safe zones with cities being siegeable. These are 2 very different things. If I let you come into my city inside my walls and gates and you can kill me that doesn't mean AT ALL that these walls and gates can be destroyed by you.

[JCatano]

True. And where does it say it means 'no safe zone' ? This is what I said. Jordi didn't give any details. He didn't say this neither he said that. So you can't say it has changed...because it wasn't specified. It could have meant both, the only way to know it for sure was to ask about it from support or FAQ question.

"This won't be in for a while as towns are planned as safe zones in the Prelude, ..."

You know very well that he stated many times in the past that safety would turned off after Prelude. When you relate the mechanic of being allowed to damage structures at any time with the removal of safe zones after Prelude... Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out, unless everyone here is one except you.

There would be no need to remove safe zones if walls and gates created the same, exact thing...

[MrDDT]

He said safe zones will be replaced by walls and gates.

Again, you are confusing safe zones with cities being siegeable. These are 2 very different things. If I let you come into my city inside my walls and gates and you can kill me that doesn't mean AT ALL that these walls and gates can be destroyed by you.

Im not confusing anything. You are the one trying to say that he didnt say that he was removing safe zones after prelude, and that nothing has changed. Im here pointing out how false that is.

[Book]

"This won't be in for a while as towns are planned as safe zones in the Prelude, ..."

You know very well that he stated many times in the past that safety would turned off after Prelude. When you relate the mechanic of being allowed to damage structures at any time with the removal of safe zones after Prelude... Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out, unless everyone here is one except you.

There would be no need to remove safe zones if walls and gates created the same, exact thing...

I can see your point J but there is a difference any way you look at it.

Quick example. The place I settled is surrounded by a high cliff on three sides. There was a tiny junkpile in there, water down the hill, mist nearby, peaceful... great spot.
I did put some walls up and such.


Once safe zones are removed and walls / gates are the only form of protection, spots like mine will not be defended since anyone can drop from above. May or may not be a problem, I don't really invite all that much reason to kill me in game.

But you see my point. Safe zones to allow the construction of defensible locations during Prelude, and then dependence on those defensible locations thereafter. Those not there during prelude, or who didn't build with defense in mind, would be in trouble. Even if walls were not destructible, this is very different from a "poof the magic safe zone" scenario. Requires greater architectural / strategic prowess.
********************
@DDT
the effects of hunger and thirst are so negligeable, they may as well not be there at the moment. Much more can be done with this from a survival standpoint.

Could be that comfort is meant to be a PvP mechanic only with absolutely no other reason for existing. That would seal the deal for me to stay away as I would consider that a very sad waste of a good potential mechanic. I don't believe that to be the case... but I'm sure you'll tell me. Thanks.

[JCatano]

I can see your point J but there is a difference any way you look at it.

Quick example. The place I settled is surrounded by a high cliff on three sides. There was a tiny junkpile in there, water down the hill, mist nearby, peaceful... great spot.
I did put some walls up and such.


Once safe zones are removed and walls / gates are the only form of protection, spots like mine will not be defended since anyone can drop from above. May or may not be a problem, I don't really invite all that much reason to kill me in game.

But you see my point. Safe zones to allow the construction of defensible locations during Prelude, and then dependence on those defensible locations thereafter. Those not there during prelude, or who didn't build with defense in mind, would be in trouble. Even if walls were not destructible, this is very different from a "poof the magic safe zone" scenario. Requires greater architectural / strategic prowess.
********************
@DDT
the effects of hunger and thirst are so negligeable, they may as well not be there at the moment. Much more can be done with this from a survival standpoint.

Could be that comfort is meant to be a PvP mechanic only with absolutely no other reason for existing. That would seal the deal for me to stay away as I would consider that a very sad waste of a good potential mechanic. I don't believe that to be the case... but I'm sure you'll tell me. Thanks.

Being dropped into from above would be a location-choice flaw. Tab that onto the people choosing those spots. I didn't see many that did, anyway.

Coming in after Prelude doesn't negate anyone from getting walls up, especially when talking about some sticks and twine.

My point is that Jordi had always said: "Safe zones will be removed after Prelude."

Supported by the fact that he said structures could be damaged at any time with exception to during Prelude, and we can all see how things have changed. Anyone trying to say that spectrum of vision hasn't been changed is misinformed or just not willing to admit it for <insert reason>.

If Jordi wasn't smart enough to realize that removing safety zones after Prelude, but allowing walls/gates top keep a tribe 100% safe aren't the same thing, then... Ouch. Good luck. I assume he's a brighter than that, hence why I took those quotes at face value.

[Book]

Yup, absolutely, being open from above is a flaw from a defensible standpoint. Was just saying that in my mind, that makes a difference.

I can't claim to know whether Jordi changed his mind or not, happy to take your word for it, don't think that part matters to me all that much.

However, would imagine that if Jordi did change his mind, he saw good business reason to do so. A lot of people here feel they're experts on game design but seeing as how he's the one actually doing it, kinda have to think he's got a notion as to where he's headed don't you think?

Honestly, if he happens to announce he's changed his mind to the other direction, you won't see me here complaining about it. I'll assume he felt that was the best way for his investment to pan out and I would sincerely hope that it would. Not terribly complicated.

[Jadzia]

"This won't be in for a while as towns are planned as safe zones in the Prelude, ..."

You know very well that he stated many times in the past that safety would turned off after Prelude. When you relate the mechanic of being allowed to damage structures at any time with the removal of safe zones after Prelude... Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out, unless everyone here is one except you.

There would be no need to remove safe zones if walls and gates created the same, exact thing...

A genius to figure it out...then you have to realize that all of these "genius' were wrong. You related the mechanic of destroying buildings with the removal of safe zones...and you were wrong. I didn't want to read more into it than it was there...so I tried not to assume anything only to read what was written. And when I saw that it could mean 2 very different things I asked which is the correct interpretation...and I got the answer. And this answer hasn't changed even a bit during the whole last year.

The plans haven't changed. Some of you just assumed the wrong thing. I tried to warn you so many times lol....all I got in return was flaming. You really can't tell that I didn't point it out several times that warfare can very well be consensual

I guess he wanted to change the safe zones to walls to give purpose to build walls and to be more realistic.

Can architecture structures be damaged by other players at any time?

As the game evolves yes. This won't be in for a while as towns are planned as safe zones in the Prelude

Keith asked the wrong question here. His question could be meant as he was asking if the mechanic would be there to destroy things.
Its like asking 'Can this door be opened by players anytime ?' and when they say yes, you think that all the players will be forced to open the door, although they only meant that they will implement a doorhandle.

He should have asked "Can every players' structures be damaged by anyone by anytime even if the owner doesn't want to participate in war ?"
He would have got the correct answer then.
I have seen this question being asked by 6 different person, in 6 different time. The answer was always the same: "No".

[MrDDT]

Honestly, if he happens to announce he's changed his mind to the other direction, you won't see me here complaining about it. I'll assume he felt that was the best way for his investment to pan out and I would sincerely hope that it would. Not terribly complicated.

A lot of people are no longer here complaining about it. They just simply left the game and likely will never look at this carebear version of it.
Same can be said for the other side, that saw the features back in 2009 and said "Oh this isnt anything like wow, next".

Point is that, once people have bought the game, and are following it, paying monthly dues, only to have the vision change, is very upsetting. Then others to say "Well its always been that way" is very upsetting to see how clearly they are lying and driven by their own wants.

If people were to say "Well its changed deal with it" I can understand that. Save for one fact. Its changed, and not even THEY like it now. Sure you might have one or 2 people still playing the game like Jadzia who love the current system. But clearly thats not going to work for Xsyon as a whole, as you can see due to the lack of people playing.

Added after 7 minutes:

A genius to figure it out...then you have to realize that all of these "genius' were wrong. You related the mechanic of destroying buildings with the removal of safe zones...and you were wrong.

We took the statement that "Safe zones would be removed after prelude" to mean, it would be removed. Not meaning, it may be removed, or could be removed. But WILL be removed.

"Can every players' structures be damaged by anyone by anytime even if the owner doesn't want to participate in war ?"

Because that question doesnt answer ask it either.

I would HOPE that answer is "No" to that one also. I would hope they had a system like Shadowbane, or Darkfall, or many other PVP games had in place to prevent griefing and other things.

So, please ask the question again, and try to word it better, because your question also fails.

Problem was again IT HAS CHANGED. You fail to understand that, people like you are the major cause of it, because PVPers didnt cry about the system. Just like you are not crying about the system now.