Safe Zone/Free Zone ala Tribal Creeds

[Jadzia]

The idea here is that non-pvp players should not be allowed to be a risk to other players, unless they take on some risk themselves. This system doesn't take any capability away from non-pvp players. It simply allows them to avoid risk, by never becoming a risk to others.

A pacifist player is never a risk to other players unless he is attacked. In that case if the pacifist player engage in combat then he does take the risk of being killed and looted just like a pvp-player. With a combat timer he wouldn't be able to take advantage of his safe zone, so that would be a fair fight. I see absolutely no reason for that part of your suggestion and no advantages to anyone, its only a pointless limitation. Other parts are fine.

[Trenchfoot]

so that would be a fair fight.

Should all fights in the game be fair fights? Or just the ones you're involved in?

I see absolutely no reason for that part of your suggestion and no advantages to anyone

The advantage is this:

Two players meet out in the open, outside of either of their territories. One payer kills the other for whatever reason. The player who was killed goes back to his tribe and says 'Hey so and so killed me let's go get em.'. They form a war party and after some snooping around they find that player X belongs to a tribe with a safe zone. They can't retaliate and hold a tribe responsible for the actions of their members. The idea being that if you're going to represent your tribe in the open world, your actions in the open world should effect your tribe. So that if a tribe decides that killing one of their members is an act of war, whether in self defense or not, they should be able to retaliate.

That's the disadvantage. You're stealing our post-apoc world away from us.

I think the only problem you really have is with the game itself. You just don't want to play in a post-apoc world. You want to remove all of the elements that MAKES it a post-apoc world and replace it with a world building sim.

[Jadzia]

Should all fights in the game be fair fights? Or just the ones you're involved in?

The advantage is this:

Two players meet out in the open, outside of either of their territories. One payer kills the other for whatever reason. The player who was killed goes back to his tribe and says 'Hey so and so killed me let's go get em.'. They form a war party and after some snooping around they find that player X belongs to a tribe with a safe zone. They can't retaliate and hold a tribe responsible for the actions of their members. The idea being that if you're going to represent your tribe in the open world, your actions in the open world should effect your tribe. So that if a tribe decides that killing one of their members is an act of war, whether in self defense or not, they should be able to retaliate.

That's the disadvantage. You're stealing our post-apoc world away from us.

I think the only problem you really have is with the game itself. You just don't want to play in a post-apoc world. You want to remove all of the elements that MAKES it a post-apoc world and replace it with a world building sim.

I think we can agree in disagreeing. I think that self-defense shouldn't have any consequences alignment-wise, you think it should. Its up to the devs to decide.

And I have no problem with the game's current setup. Its you who want to change it. Seems the developers' definition of a post-apoc world is different from yours. I prefer their version, thats why I play their game, not yours.

[Trenchfoot]

When some tribes can be held accountable for their actions, by the player base, and others can't. There's a real problem there.

Then to say 'It's your choice if you want to be held accountable by the player base.', makes pvp a non-issue. So that tribal warfare cannot exist in an environment where one tribe is held accountable and another CAN'T be held accountable. If you have a better way around this, by all means....

I think we can agree in disagreeing.

This we can agree on.

[Jadzia]

When some tribes can be held accountable for their actions, by the player base, and others can't. There's a real problem there.

Then to say 'It's your choice if you want to be held accountable by the player base.', makes pvp a non-issue. So that tribal warfare cannot exist in an environment where one tribe is held accountable and another CAN'T be held accountable. If you have a better way around this, by all means....

No one should be held accountable for self-defense. It never happened in any society, people are free to defend themselves in case of an attack without consequences. If you don't want him to fight back, then don't attack. Calling your whole tribe on him because he managed to kill you though you were the one who attacked him first would be very cheap and ridiculous. There should not be any way around this.

Every player should be held accountable if he attacked first.

I leave it here now, I'm sure we can't convince each other.

[joexxxz]

What is the problem here. You guys saying that if im fighting for self defense, then i should be accountable for this? In real world if someone smacks me in a face, do i have the right to kill that person, or if someone tryied to kill me, do i have the right to kill that person first?

[fatboy21007]

trench, ur good dude, but this is idea is fubar. you are basicaly saying those who dont wanna pvp cant defend themselves without loosing their safe zone. and if you wanna keep it you gotta let people grief ya. THis is somthing Dev's dont want happening. it was a nice thought. but those who do not want to pvp much but get ganker alot should have a right to defend themselves uneffected. Ie they dont attack untill they are attacked. You need to move to more populated areas. Pretty sure ud change ur perspective ^^

[joexxxz]

There is 2 things to do in this game, pvp and craft. If you dont want pvp, then you have to craft. If you dont want to craft, then you have to pvp. If i want pvp, i dont get free crafting. If you want crafting, you dont get no-pvp. Some people say, if im a crafter then i have to have protection from pvp.
What if im a pvper , can i get a protection from crafting, get anything i want?? lol

[Jadzia]

There is 2 things to do in this game, pvp and craft. If you dont want pvp, then you have to craft. If you dont want to craft, then you have to pvp. If i want pvp, i dont get free crafting. If you want crafting, you dont get no-pvp. Some people say, if im a crafter then i have to have protection from pvp.
What if im a pvper , can i get a protection from crafting, get anything i want?? lol

Of course, if you are a PvPer, no one will force you to craft. You can get everything you want, you can buy it or loot it. No one will EVER force you to craft.

[Trenchfoot]

No one should be held accountable for self-defense.

So an evil tribe shouldn't have the option to hold a tribe accountable for killing one of their guys, defense or not? Sounds like you're imposing justice and fair play (good) on the evil players.

@fatboy

I'm not necessarily for any of these mechanics. I'm for the principle of player choice behind them. Change the mechanics of it however you like. As long as it's player freedom. I will admit I would prefer something different than what's proposed here. But what's proposed here does expose the motives for what people really do want. If nothing else it demonstrates my original belief. That a choice for both, is a choice for neither.