Safe Zone/Free Zone ala Tribal Creeds

[Jadzia]

My opinion is that I dont want only players policing the server. I want a system with good and evil, with some safe areas for protections for newbs and other non pvp types.

Good. So you disagree with Trench.

You inferred that PVP FFA is the reason why other games are low population and we are talking about this system applying to Xsyon. Thus you brought it up.
Im stating opinion and facts on why they are not the reason why Xsyon and other FFA PVP games are low POP.

No. I said FFA PvP games where there is no coded protection only player policing the servers don't work and have low population. You keep missing this lol. FFA PvP games with coded protection can work, depends on the protection mechanism.

I dont know any game at all ever that only has players policing the server. So Im not understanding your point on that either.

Trench whole idea is about that...lol...if you don't understand the point why do you argue...

[MrDDT]

Good. So you disagree with Trench.


No. I said FFA PvP games where there is no coded protection only player policing the servers don't work and have low population. You keep missing this lol. FFA PvP games with coded protection can work, depends on the protection mechanism.

Trench whole idea is about that...lol...if you don't understand the point why do you argue...

You are trying to focus this only on one person and yet still trying to edge your opinions as fact in there.

You dont answer my questions when I ask, you dont give any real data that supports your ideas, and then you twist it into thinking it works for you.

PVPers, crafters, and PVEers can all live together. There just needs to be a system that supports each one.

Yes people can police their own to a point. No I dont think people should be in charge of policing people 100% of the time.

I disagree with Trench a LONG time ago. I said that. You should follow the thread. Then you started going off on how PVPers will be bored in 2 huge guilds because of having to protect crafters or some crap that has no support for it. Ive have no idea where you get that idea. What game shows that?

Then you go on and talk about FFA PVP full loot games and how they are all dying and low pop. Then I list games that have them.
Then you try to make it "Well I said 100% policed by people" which the only person talking about that is Trench (maybe he already said he would like safe areas for new people) and I already disagreed with.

I dont understand the point because you dont make logical sense. You jump from 1 point to another with out any reason or reading others posts about what they said. Then when asked direct questions you avoid them talking about how other games dont do it.

This isnt "other" games. Its Xsyon. We are here to talk about 1 game. Xsyon. If you dont like Xsyon, off good reasons on why it should be changed. Its called a thought process.


Having said all that. Im so glad you agree with me that FFA PVP games coded with some protections can work. Now lets work out the details on how to get protections done.

Ive yet to see any reason by you or anyone else why a system where you pretty much have EVE system (high protection, limited resources, lower mats etc) wont work.

Trench, I agree with most of your points but I dont believe its a good idea for people to police each other 100% of the time. There should have to be a system like Lineage 2/UO/Darkfall etc have where if you do bad things bad things happen to you.

[Trenchfoot]

Trench, I agree with most of your points but I dont believe its a good idea for people to police each other 100% of the time. There should have to be a system like Lineage 2/UO/Darkfall etc have where if you do bad things bad things happen to you.

Questions.

Should the protection mechanisms remove pvp from the chain of things people need?

If doing bad things produces a negative game mechanic, then shouldn't doing good things produce a positive game mechanic?

In other words, if good can become evil, but evil cannot become good you have a system that favors evil. One where good is allowed to be completely apathetic to evil actions. Good should BE good in substance, or it should be changed to read 'Not Evil Yet', instead of good. Good must be in direct opposition to evil. If good is allowed to take a rain check on the opposition of evil, I submit it isn't good at all.

When evil is the only thing to do outside of the norm, and good is a stationary 'take no action' alignment, evil is what everyone wants to do. You can sit at home and be 'good' and ignore all the evil around you, or you can become evil and join the action. Which sounds like more fun to you?

And please give an example of policing 100% of the time, as opposed to policing only some of the time? I know people police all the time (in fact it's required to accomplish certain things). I think police is a broad term, so I'm not certain I understand what you mean.

From my experience people police their interests and always have. If I want a resource, I police that resource. If someone attacks me or one of my allies, I police those enemies. If I desire a piece of territory, I police that territory. In short, if you oppose my interests, you WILL be policed.

Perhaps you mean someone that hands out justice for allied and un-allied, relationship or no relationship alike? To that I would say, where in terms of territory would that be needed? Inside someones tribal lands, or outside?

I don't think we disagree so much on good and evil as you might think. While I don't agree with a game mechanic that directly punishes evil, I do agree with a game mechanic that makes the evil actor and their tribe vulnerable to retaliation by the ones they wronged and perhaps their allies. The wronged parties should as easily gain the opportunity to counteract perhaps even at an advantage, but I still think the choice ultimately has to be up to the wronged parties to follow thru on that opportunity/advantage.

If evil wants to be evil, they should have good breathing down their neck.
If good wants to be good, they should likewise actively pursue the opposition of evil actions.

The question is how do you incentive-ize good to act out their goodness (assuming evil needs no real incentive), other than laying the consequences of their own apathy on their doorstep?

EDIT: The second pvp becomes a non-issue for some in the game, it becomes a non-issue for all. If I can team up or alt with someone who doesn't need pvp, that will be the safe base my pvp operates out of. Then if you want to pvp, you begin that process with a non-pvp alt or ally. This creates fighting for fighting sake. I agree that fighting for fighting sake (serial killers) should not be a sustainable/profitable option, and should generally lead to your eminent loss becoming a sinkhole that brings you further and further down until you just can't continue to do it and prosper.

I think the definition of evil should be limited to those actions which are necessarily evil. For example, paving over JPs I use or cutting down trees I 'believe' are mine is not necessarily evil. Cold blooded murder and theft are by necessity evil.

The problem is, if I retaliate for someone paving over the JPs I need to produce the only way I really can, which is to kill them, what does that make me? And how does the game take account for every little nuance that defines the line between truly evil and truly good? How would the game distinguish between someone who is defending their livelihood, and a serial killer?

EDIT EDIT: If the game could distinguish, I would say:

Flag the offender as a murderer or thief.

Flag the tribe of the offending party as hostile, ie. Murder or theft being an act of war. Therefore, the tribe should politically suffer the consequences of their members behavior.

When the good guys get a hold of them and kill them display a message to that effect to the tribes who were wronged. ie. 'Player X, The murderer of 'Player Y' has been avenged by 'Player Z'.

Increase the finality of death. ie. Dieing gives you a temporary stat reduction and lays you up for a week to take it easy and recover. Perhaps even if this 'type' of death (dieing because you were put to death as a murderer) could, if repeated too often lead to perma death. Like if the murderer doesn't take a week off to get his stats back up and keeps at it, he can dig himself into a hole until finally he has no stats and dies permanently.

Thieves should be able to avoid death/punishment by paying restitution. Same goes for the destruction of personal property. The idea being that you can restore your relationship by paying back what you stole or fixing what you broke.

Reward champions who right wrongs in some way, allowing them to become renowned protectors with maybe even some special abilities to that effect.

[MrDDT]

100% policing is where there is no system where it stops players from doing bad things, so its up to players to decide whats bad and good, and enforce it.
Ive never seen a game do this, so I cant give you a game to look at.

Things that are considered policing are say, someone loots your friend. Its up to the players to enforce the offender to stop doing that. You can enforce it when many actions as a player (as Im sure you are aware of).


I could lay out a huge good/neutral/evil system but Ive already done it once before.

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthrea...full=1#post223

Read this topic and understand the good and evil system. This how Xsyon plans to do it.
Ive posted many times in that topic.

Pretty much I believe there needs to be a good/neut/evil system, that the game uses that punishes Evil type of play enough that it keeps it limited to people that really want to play that type of player. I think most people should be a shade of good to neutral.

[Trenchfoot]

Right I'm not for 'no system'. I'm for a system which gives players a heavy incentive to stop other players from doing bad things, and a heavy consequence if they don't.

As long as the only 'bad things' you can attribute directly to evil are theft, destruction of personal property, and murder. All other 'bad things' should be 100% police-able by the player base. And the main reason the aforementioned 'bad things' need a 'system' to regulate them, is that death isn't final. If it was, you could easily police 100% because you would literally be putting a definite end to the players evil rampage.

Which I personally would love to see, but would be the first to admit that this isn't practical in terms of retaining subs.

My problem isn't that the game defines theft and murder as evil, my problem would be if it defined the defense of your interests as necessarily evil.

For example: A bandit attacks one of my neighbors and loots him, the neighbor informs me. On his way out of the area the bandit passes thru my area, so I retaliate and kill him and take the loot back. Should I then be labeled evil for my actions?

Or another example: Two nations labeled good want the same resource, yet their only recourse shouldn't be for one of them to turn evil to take that resource by force. Perhaps one claims divine right to the resource, or squatters rights. It should be a political/cultural/religious/idealism right and wrong, as opposed to a good and evil right and wrong.

See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying allow players to define right and wrong themselves morally speaking (theft, murder, etc.), but ideologically speaking players should have free reign.

EDIT: I would prefer to play in a world where tyrant chiefs and so-called 'evil' tribes could possibly swallow the world in oppression if we don't get off our backside and do something about it.

[MrDDT]

Right I'm not for 'no system'. I'm for a system which gives players a heavy incentive to stop other players from doing bad things, and a heavy consequence if they don't.

As long as the only 'bad things' you can attribute directly to evil are theft, destruction of personal property, and murder. All other 'bad things' should be 100% police-able by the player base. And the main reason the aforementioned 'bad things' need a 'system' to regulate them, is that death isn't final. If it was, you could easily police 100% because you would literally be putting a definite end to the players evil rampage.

Which I personally would love to see, but would be the first to admit that this isn't practical in terms of retaining subs.

My problem isn't that the game defines theft and murder as evil, my problem would be if it defined the defense of your interests as necessarily evil.

For example: A bandit attacks one of my neighbors and loots him, the neighbor informs me. On his way out of the area the bandit passes thru my area, so I retaliate and kill him and take the loot back. Should I then be labeled evil for my actions?

Or another example: Two nations labeled good want the same resource, yet their only recourse shouldn't be for one of them to turn evil to take that resource by force. Perhaps one claims divine right to the resource, or squatters rights. It should be a political/cultural/religious/idealism right and wrong, as opposed to a good and evil right and wrong.

See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying allow players to define right and wrong themselves morally speaking (theft, murder, etc.), but ideologically speaking players should have free reign.

I dont see how the punishment of being able to be killed, or looted, or stolen from is a punishment when Good players can have the same done to them.
It needs to be more of a punishment than that. Much more.
Plus also IMO safe areas should be in game.

[Trenchfoot]

If it needs to be more than that why not simply remove the ability to do it from the game? I mean, if everyone agrees something shouldn't be able to be performed and they want such as stiff penalty as to discourage it altogether why bother?

Or giving the benefit of the doubt, are you saying there's a way to allow the enemy to have his teeth and be a real opponent and still keep him from 'winning' so much?

Should I fear my enemy? Or should I be able to administer justice with little effort, or to hunt down evil as easily as a deer, never fearing for my safety? Or should I be able to sit at home, and call myself good, and be completely uninvolved because the game will take care of that for me? And then we're back to, why even have the ability to commit evil in the first place?

Also what about the perma death idea? You don't think that would weigh heavy on evil doers?

[Trenchfoot]

site double posted me

So I'll take advantage. I want to be worried my enemy will make my homeland a miserable place to live unless I get off my arse and do something about it.

[MrDDT]

If it needs to be more than that why not simply remove the ability to do it from the game? I mean, if everyone agrees something shouldn't be able to be performed and they want such as stiff penalty as to discourage it altogether why bother?

Or giving the benefit of the doubt, are you saying there's a way to allow the enemy to have his teeth and be a real opponent and still keep him from 'winning' so much?

Should I fear my enemy? Or should I be able to administer justice with little effort, or to hunt down evil as easily as a deer, never fearing for my safety? Or should I be able to sit at home, and call myself good, and be completely uninvolved because the game will take care of that for me? And then we're back to, why even have the ability to commit evil in the first place?

Also what about the perma death idea? You don't think that would weigh heavy on evil doers?

First off NO perma death. I dont agree with any system that allows that.

Discouraging people to do evil acts is normal. Whats to stop everyone from being evil (killing, looting etc) if there is no punishment? The only punishment you say is that other players might attack you? Well if you are good cant other players attack you?

Im not saying stop them from "winning", Im saying stop them from gaining as much as someone that has the hardship of doing something thats hard. (Being Good ie not looking after killing, not killing random people that dont attack you first etc).
Killing someone that doesnt attack you first is an evil act. Evil would be rewarded with loot, and fame (infamy). However, to discourge such actions they should be punished. Maybe like when they die instead of only having 30s to be looted they are able to be looted for 1min. Or a slower respawn timer. Or maybe change to lose more skills. Whatever.

I dont know where you get the idea that I think it should be easy to kill Evil. I dont think it should be any harder or easier to kill them. I think there should be punishments and rewards.

[Trenchfoot]

If you're saying, the potential loss from committing acts of evil (penalties) should match the potential loss of the victim of such actions (evils reward). I couldn't agree more.

What if someone attacks my neighbor? Should I be able to defend my neighbor without being labeled evil unjustly? In those chain of events, how would the game determine that I had rightly attacked first? How complex or blind should the system be?

It would need to be pretty complex imo. To the extent that it is blind to these nuances, it would mean that every time you place restrictions on evil you also tie the hands of good. I have a problem with that. I don't like when the game automates things I want to live out so to speak.

What about religious differences? If someone desecrates my sacred tribal burial mound, do I then have the right to carry out my traditions and beliefs, the whole time being established in myself that I am doing what is right by retaliating with lethal force to avenge my ancestors and give them peace? Or should that be considered evil by a blind system?

I would love to see something mind blowing-ly dynamic.