Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 55

Thread: safe zones poll

  1. #31
    Xsyon Citizen joexxxz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    USA/CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    549
    @Jadzia Im sorry, but you dont know what you are talking about

    What it is so afwul about???

  2. #32
    Yes, let's all opt out of the post-apoc era. Screw building the world out of it. We'll just bypass that altogether. So wherever I plant my totem, the post-apoc era ends immediately.

    How do you escape the consequences of a post-apoc world? It's easy, plant a totem.

    Added after 20 minutes:

    What this discussion is really about is FFA. And FFA is like baking crackers.

    One lump of leaven, leavens the whole. You can't mix yeast into your dough and expect only 50% of the dough to rise.

    Same with FFA. Any compromise you make to FFA makes it well..... NOT FFA. There is no balance to be struck here. Either the game will be FFA or it won't.

    You wonder why so many pvp'rs grief? Many are just sadistic and enjoy your frustration, no question.

    But what many don't realize is that tons of griefers are just people who want an FFA game and they're tired of trying games that always always always seem to cave in on this. In a sense they see themselves as doing a community service. they're fighting for something bigger than just loot, they're fighting for the game itself.

    Added to this is another dark secret about pvp players most non-pvp players don't realize. And that's the fact that there are MANY of us who pvp who play the good guys. Who are good to our neighbors. Who help protect the weak and innocent. But by eliminating FFA you rob of us that opportunity as well. It's no wonder so many switch over to the dark side, because it's virtually the only place we can make a stand for FFA. We are in a sense forced to fight in-game for the right to play it (all asshats aside).

    They don't hate so-called carebears because they can't get to your loot. They hate so-called carebears because they threaten the very essence of the game by pushing for a FFS (free for some) game.

    Now if you want to argue for some mechanism to keep new players safe so they can at least have a chance to get into the game, isn't that planned already as tribal starting points? But in the same token, the very premise of this game is that you must band together or your chances of survival are slim to none.

    So that when you argue for a FFS game, what you're really arguing for is solo play, and thereby the very premise the game was built on is MEANINGLESS.

    Added after 1 49 minutes:

    You want balance? Here's the balance.

    Make the game FFA (eventually, when it's ready for it). Then the non-pvprs can solve all of their gripes by:

    A. Making allies quickly instead of isolating themselves.
    B. Providing a useful service or product.
    and most importantly
    C. Joining a tribe that defends their land and protects their own.

    It's a fairly simple solution.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by joexxxz View Post
    @Jadzia Im sorry, but you dont know what you are talking about

    What it is so afwul about???

    Joexxx, stop posting, your either make a troll reputation for yourself or are regarded ..Ahem ..well not in a nice way. Read the faq's read the feature list, and then when you know about as much as Jadzia ..or me.. then start discussing things.

    Quote Originally Posted by joexxxz View Post
    @Jadzia Im sorry, but you dont know what you are talking about

    What it is so afwul about???

    Joexxx, stop posting, your either make a troll reputation for yourself or are regarded ..Ahem ..well not in a nice way. Read the faq's read the feature list, and then when you know about as much as Jadzia ..or me.. then start discussing things.

  4. #34
    I agree Trenchfoot, the discussion is about FFA PvP. Many players who didn't read enough about the game came here thinking that Xsyon is an FFA PvP game. Now they realized that they were wrong, and they try to change the game, crying about everything. When the devs said that this is not a PvP focused game, when the players said the same they were like 'hah ! this game has open PvP, don't tell me its not PvP focused !'. They lived and still live in denial, thats why they are frustrated. Its about time to accept that PvP in Xsyon is an option, not the focus, not the driving force. That means that other game mechanics won't be altered to make PvP more free and to let less freedom to other type of players.

    PvP is possible. Tribe wars will be possible by time. But you have to understand that the developers decided long time ago that they won't force their playerbase into activities they don't like. Thats why the tribe areas will remain safe after Prelude if the owner wish it, and thats why warfare will be opt-out. You can fight the ones who are willing to fight too, but can't the ones who want to live in peace. Yes, Xsyon is not FFA PvP. It has open PvP but easy to run away from fights, there are safe zones, opt-out warfare and limited looting. This is the setup, accept it or leave....or ask for an FFA PvP server. You have no right and no opportunity to force your own playstyle to others.

  5. #35
    Now they realized that they were wrong, and they try to change the game, crying about everything.
    hehehe You're such a sweetheart Jadz.

    Its about time to accept that PvP in Xsyon is an option, not the focus, not the driving force.
    How does promoting the dissolution of safe zones in favor of player made structures AS safe zones automatically make pvp the driving force?

    You have no right and no opportunity to force your own playstyle to others.
    You're so cute I just want to pinch you.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Trenchfoot View Post
    hehehe You're such a sweetheart Jadz.



    How does promoting the dissolution of safe zones in favor of player made structures AS safe zones automatically make pvp the driving force?



    You're so cute I just want to pinch you.
    Aw its nice to see you like me so much

    And if structures provide the same level of safety than safe zones then it really is the same, isn't it ? Safe zone doesn't have to be a magical barrier, walls and gates can work just as good.

  7. #37
    And if structures provide the same level of safety than safe zones then it really is the same, isn't it ? Safe zone doesn't have to be a magical banner, walls and gates can work just as good.
    Almost my point, with a couple of caveats.

    1. No one short of an army with siege equip can get in. Siege equip could take enormous resources and time to produce. It could be more like a real siege where it takes them several days to breach the walls, not to mention time to drive them away or call for help. Masons/Architects on the other side could easily repair the walls making it even more difficult to get inside. A tribe with many skilled masons could exhaust a siege army, and a large siege army could exhaust a town with few masons.

    2. Decay. Decay may be a problem if the walls crumble too fast. Players shouldn't be expected to defend their safe zone by being logged in 24/7 just to repair walls so no one can get in. They haven't turned on decay and QL yet so I don't have much to go on. But if 1 year RL = 9 years in game, you'd think a well blt stone wall would last at least that long. Giving ample time to maintain and upkeep your safe zone.

    3. Burglars. I wouldn't be disappointed if they never implement what I'm about to say. It just seems logical to me that if you have locks you have them for a reason. Perhaps a burglar with certain skills could gain entry into the safe zone. Maybe he can't unlock it for all of his pals but just for himself, requiring the whole gang to be lock pickers. Of course the lock pick skill would have to be implemented in such a way where you'd really have to specialize in it to get anywhere. Just an idea on this one. I cold go either way.


    One last thing. I propose these things not so I can do them to other players, but because I am in favor of having them done to ME.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Trenchfoot View Post
    Almost my point, with a couple of caveats.

    1. No one short of an army with siege equip can get in. It could be more like a real siege where it takes them several days to breach the walls. Masons/Architects on the other side could easily repair the walls making it even more difficult to get inside. A tribe with many skilled masons could exhaust a siege army, and a large siege army could exhaust a town with few masons.

    2. Decay. Decay may be a problem if the walls crumble too fast. Players shouldn't be expected to defend their safe zone by being logged in 24/7 just to repair walls so no one can get in. They haven't turned on decay and QL yet so I don't have much to go on. But if 1 year RL = 9 years in game, you'd think a well blt stone wall would last at least that long. Giving ample time to maintain and upkeep your safe zone.

    3. Burglars. I wouldn't be disappointed if they never implement what I'm about to say. It just seems logical to me that if you have locks you have them for a reason. Perhaps a burglar with certain skills could gain entry into the safe zone. Maybe he can't unlock it for all of his pals but just for himself, requiring the whole gang to be lock pickers. Of course the lock pick skill would have to be implemented in such a way where you'd really have to specialize in it to get anywhere. Just an idea on this one. I cold go either way.


    One last thing. I propose these things not so I can do them to other players, but because I am in favor of having them done to ME.
    Nice ideas. And I like your last sentence....thats why its good it will be optional You can have your fun, while others who don't find it fun can opt-out.

    Still I can see 1 big advantage on the magical barrier safe zone. Player structures can provide the same safety (since opening up to sieges is optional) but would cost some social aspects of the game. If players can be attacked in their home city then they simply won't let anyone come in, only players they know. This would make trading/questing really hard.

  9. #39
    You can have your fun, while others who don't find it fun can opt-out.
    Unless everyone opts out. And here's the problem I have with this. When you give people the option for pvp to be meanlingless, pvp becomes meaningless. And I admit that's a broad statement and probably only partially applies here.

    I guess I should be asking how big of a land mass will tribes be able to make the 'non-pvp' section? How long will it take before those tribes (who can't be conquered through pvp) eat the entire landscape, relegating all pvp to a small area dubbed 'the pvp zone'? Will there be mechanisms in place to allow pvp areas to grow? The non-pvp areas will obviously be allowed to grow (you can't stop them obviously, they're non-pvp). How do we of the pvp areas protect from an invader (non-pvp zones) that we're not allowed to fight?

    These are the things that concern me most. My intent isn't to take anything away from anyone. I just want to know if pvp areas will have the same right to the map that non-pvp areas do. Or in other words, how do we keep non-pvp from pushing pvp off the map? If you can resolve this for me, I have no qualms about letting others opt out.

    Still I can see 1 big advantage on the magical barrier safe zone. Player structures can provide the same safety (since opening up to sieges is optional) but would cost some social aspects of the game. If players can be attacked in their home city then they simply won't let anyone come in, only players they know. This would make trading/questing really hard.
    Good point that needs to be addressed. I don't have an answer for this one. Maybe some kiosk type structure you can place outside your gatehouse that gives access to quests? In the same regard, who doesn't want storefronts where they can put items up for sale at a vendor? Ok maybe that's wanting too much atm...

  10. #40
    Here is the answer for your (valid) concern: Some expansion zones being open to more conquest without safe zones

    This is from the Update Archive thread. There will be zones where safe play won't be an option, so non-PvP can't push PvP off the map.

    And everyone opt-outs but you...I'm sure you don't have to be worried about that. You are not the only one who wants sieges and PvP, so I bet you will find enemies to fight. And if there is no one...that means all of the playerbase want safe play so why would the game cater to one single person...but this is more like a joke, both of us know it won't happen

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •