Do you really want another DF or MO?

[joexxxz]

Liike I said, Jadzia dont care about the game, she just want to prove to people that she can out argue everyone of you. Thats all.

[Jadzia]

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.

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.

I searched the exact question that a friend of mine asked. I hope you find it a properly worded one:
2. What will happen after Prelude ? Will every tribe and solo player be forced to give up the safe zone of their area, or will it be optional ?
Will players and tribes be able to opt out of wars and sieges ?

The answer was: it will be optional.
It hasn't changed.

[JCatano]

All you got was a change of heart from him.

- Safe zones removed after Prelude when tribes can defend themselves. (Why use the word "defend" when there would be nothing to defend yourself from because of absolute safety within the walls?)
- Structures can be damaged at any time after Prelude.
- Defense towers in the future.
- The intention for after the Prelude is that tribes keep themselves protected. That's 6-9 months from now at least. Right now isn't the best time for me to enter a big discussion about all this. :-) (PM to me)

That was the original idea.

What he more recently stated:

- Opt-in war for main tribe area.
- Expansion totems for PvP conflict.


Original versus the more recent... Not the same.

Where is your friend's question in the answer thread? I seemed to have missed it.

[MrDDT]

All you got was a change of heart from him.

- Safe zones removed after Prelude when tribes can defend themselves. (Why use the word "defend" when there would be nothing to defend yourself from because of absolute safety within the walls?)
- Structures can be damaged at any time after Prelude.
- Defense towers in the future.
- The intention for after the Prelude is that tribes keep themselves protected. That's 6-9 months from now at least. Right now isn't the best time for me to enter a big discussion about all this. :-) (PM to me)

That was the original idea.

What he more recently stated:

- Opt-in war for main tribe area.
- Expansion totems for PvP conflict.


Original versus the more recent... Not the same.

Where is your friend's question in the answer thread? I seemed to have missed it.

Clearly JC, this is just what we have now. I mean nothing has changed. This was the vision the whole time. I mean don't you see defense towers for PVE? That's what his plans were for, the hordes of zombies attacking bases. DUH!

[JCatano]

Gosh, how could I have missed that. Nevermind! Nothing has changed. Jadzia was sooooo right.

[Jadzia]

All you got was a change of heart from him.

- Safe zones removed after Prelude when tribes can defend themselves. (Why use the word "defend" when there would be nothing to defend yourself from because of absolute safety within the walls?)
- Structures can be damaged at any time after Prelude.
- Defense towers in the future.
- The intention for after the Prelude is that tribes keep themselves protected. That's 6-9 months from now at least. Right now isn't the best time for me to enter a big discussion about all this. :-) (PM to me)

That was the original idea.

What he more recently stated:

- Opt-in war for main tribe area.
- Expansion totems for PvP conflict.


Original versus the more recent... Not the same.

Where is your friend's question in the answer thread? I seemed to have missed it.

Nvm. I can't convince you of something you don't want to believe. Defend and protect...who said all of these can't give 100% protection ? Towers and walls and gates...and you are safe.

The intention for after the Prelude is that tribes keep themselves protected.
Yes, by building walls. How does that mean to you that they won't be protected is beyond me. If I can be killed and my city can be destroyed then it is not protected.

But again, nvm. This is a pointless debate, I just don't like that you keep accusing Xsyon that he changed the core of the game when he didn't. But its not my problem, I'm sure he can talk for himself

My friend question was a FAQ question.

[ifireallymust]

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:



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.



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.

MrDDT, you've made some good points throughout, but this isn't one of them. Who is the they that don't like what? Do you think that the reason we are eagerly awaiting updates and the reason some who argued against no safe zones left the game is because of safe zones? Why not because features that have nothing to do with pvp that we know of, like taming and cooking, aren't in yet? What if people are waiting for farming and multi-level housing and other non-pvp content? Do you have any proof that those who said they did not want safe zones removed at launch (which, you may remember, many pvpers were asking for!) actually said, 'Darn, those pvpers were right! I really wish we didn't have safe zones. Oh well, I quit!" I haven't seen anyone change their minds on this issue one way or the other. Maybe I'm wrong. Point me to the post where a safe zone supporter quit and cited safe zones as the reason.

[JCatano]

Nvm. I can't convince you of something you don't want to believe. Defend and protect...who said all of these can't give 100% protection ? Towers and walls and gates...and you are safe.

The intention for after the Prelude is that tribes keep themselves protected.
Yes, by building walls. How does that mean to you that they won't be protected is beyond me. If I can be killed and my city can be destroyed then it is not protected.

But again, nvm. This is a pointless debate, I just don't like that you keep accusing Xsyon that he changed the core of the game when he didn't. But its not my problem, I'm sure he can talk for himself

My friend question was a FAQ question.

There is nothing to defend yourself from if you're inside of safety walls... (Exactly what we have now.) Wouldn't need defense towers, either. In other words, there wouldn't be any need to turn safe zones off, because it would be exactly the same situation. Tribes would wall in their entire radius no matter the size.

He changed his mind. No doubt about it. He keeps saying he's going to flow with what the community wants. He did, but it looks like he was mistaken, because Xsyon has about 3 people playing and 10 posting.

KeithStone Asks (5-30-2011):

Are safe zones going to be removed at some point where we need to use walls/gates to keep people out of tribe zones?

Starting with expansion totems, yes. After we see the dynamics that happen when tribes war over expansion we plan to allow tribes to turn off their safe zones permanently to allow them become warring tribes. The option to remain a safe tribe will be in place during the Prelude. The future will depend on how the game evolves and this will be requesting feedback from all players regarding this (through emails and surveys, not just on the forums).


Time to start flowing back to the original vision to see if it helps anything.

Link your friend's question. I'm still missing it.

[MrDDT]

MrDDT, you've made some good points throughout, but this isn't one of them. Who is the they that don't like what? Do you think that the reason we are eagerly awaiting updates and the reason some who argued against no safe zones left the game is because of safe zones? Why not because features that have nothing to do with pvp that we know of, like taming and cooking, aren't in yet? What if people are waiting for farming and multi-level housing and other non-pvp content? Do you have any proof that those who said they did not want safe zones removed at launch (which, you may remember, many pvpers were asking for!) actually said, 'Darn, those pvpers were right! I really wish we didn't have safe zones. Oh well, I quit!" I haven't seen anyone change their minds on this issue one way or the other. Maybe I'm wrong. Point me to the post where a safe zone supporter quit and cited safe zones as the reason.

They didnt say "Darn I wish we didnt have safe zones" they said other things like "Man Im being griefed because people are dropping a totem and terraforming the area around me, and making roads on my junk piles near me". Which is the problem with safe zones, and other safe systems.

[ifireallymust]

They didnt say "Darn I wish we didnt have safe zones" they said other things like "Man Im being griefed because people are dropping a totem and terraforming the area around me, and making roads on my junk piles near me". Which is the problem with safe zones, and other safe systems.

I know that at least one person quit over you chopping down all the trees, but that has nothing to do with safe zones, since you were vulnerable to attack while you were chopping them down, weren't you? I know that the junk pile pavers frustrated and irritated me and caused me to move back onto a junk pile, but that has nothing to do with safe zones, either, since I remember Plague killed the primary culprit while he was out doing it, so obviously he wasn't using safe zones to grief.

Just because people found ways to annoy other players despite the safe zones doesn't mean we'd be better off without them. In fact, it seems we'd be worse off, as annoying other players would be much easier if they had no place to flee to!

Actually, you just made an argument for permadeath, not the removal of safe zones. Although a griefer could reroll with a preorder axe and shovel and go right back to griefing, so maybe not. But maybe you've just made an argument to increase the length of time you have to wait before you drop a totem or rejoin a tribe again? Is that what you're arguing?

It seems that you are making an argument for more consequences for bad behavior. I believe you're going to suggest next that we, the players, should enforce those consequences, and that we cannot do so while safe zones exist, but this isn't true. Everyone leaves their tribal area sometimes. If you don't, you can't very well grief most players, can you?