Did you know this will be a FFA PVP game?

[PeonSanders911]

The only reason im playing this game, is that it promised to be a FFA PvP game...
The second they carebear it up, im gone.....

[goodayve]

Maybe all you PVE Care Bear Crafters should stop Care bearing up all the games that keep coming out with your my way or the high way crap.

I like the option of being attacked or attacking some one, i dont like artificial limits placed on a game when im trading with some one. I like that i might have to distrust the people im meeting since they might attack me and steal my stuff.

Trade ganking is never fun. And does not need to be part of any game.

FFA pvp doesnt mean you have to have unsafe tradeing.

Edit: wanted to add that carrying the goods would always still be dangerous. But there would need to be some kind of sales, like the totem, which might be enough. Then you still have to carry your item to the totem and then carry the item you buy back to your place. Which is how all trades will mostly happen when it is unsafe.

My answer to the question of this poll would still be I dont know if they will have any kind of safe area. Being able to attack anyone anywhere I guess is what people want.

So maybe they would be happy like UO towns. Where you could attack someone or steal from them in town but every time you will get 1hit killed by a guard.

Some of my posts might look like I am agaisnt FFA pvp, but I have had a lot of fun in ffa pvp games. I dont know if people just want to be able to suicide kill people like UO, darkfall and eve. I guess suicide killing people is fun for some. So most likely that will be your ffa pvp.

I dont actually want any dev to look at my opinion and make any decisions from it though.(so i havent actually voted in any of these polls)

[ColonelTEE3]

Trade ganking is never fun. And does not need to be part of any game.

FFA pvp doesnt mean you have to have unsafe tradeing.

Heres the thing about trade ganking... the price the ganker pays is infinitely higher than whatever they acquired. The title of trade ganker in mmos is about as prevalent and socially stigmatizing as being a sex offender in reality. Everywhere you go, the word will spread, that you at some point trade ganked, and your ability to trade with anyone in game (outside maybe your trade ganking clan) will be forever heavily restricted.

In darkfall, not longer after launch, there was a clan called "macS". They trade-ganked once as far as i knew. Two years later, in the same game, someone in trade asked about buying or selling something, and their last name was "macS", spelled with the same capitalization and all. Following his message, someone called him out on being a trade ganker because he was identified with that clan. This was two years following what ever incident landed them that title.

The social penalty for trade ganking is so enormous that those foolish enough not to think about the long term consequences will definitely regret it afterward.

What im saying is that we absolutely don't need some shitty built in mechanics to prevent trade ganking or other ganking or many of the systematic restrictions placed on players from acting maliciously, because the game community will handle itself. The only people in this forum that don't believe a server community can self regulate things like trade ganking are people who never actually played games where it could happen, or saw the repercussions. The same theory can be applied to zerg forces that think they can force a server into submission and never be challenged by the oppressed.

[Book]

The only reason im playing this game, is that it promised to be a FFA PvP game...
The second they carebear it up, im gone.....

isn't that the "my way or the highway" thing Xyberviri was talking about? Perhaps he should revise the accusation to be a bit more encompassing than the carebear thing

I don't think it's really about NEVER being attacked. I agree that the uncertainty in the people I meet adds to the fun and the immersion.

The problem is with the 24/7 regardless of what others feel like doing at the very moment. It's that mentality that winds up calling for artificial intervention, which is unfortunate.

[xyberviri]

There has to be a acceptable middle ground, focusing strictly on the pvp mechanic is not really the way i think this should be addressed.

the game is FFA PVP with limited safe zones, the problem isn't that you have the mechanic its that theres no way to prevent people from abusing the mechanic that causes issues with players that dont like dieing.

there has to be a way to discourage or prevent it but not artificially like how you dont duel people in towns in UO unless you wanna die and loose your stuff.

[Dubanka]

Does anybody actually get attacked these days? or is this all hyphotheticalspeak about getting attacked?

another discussion that has been had many times. There is no common ground...there is the crowd that wants their guaranteed safe zone, and the crowd that thinks that stupid (whether the 'stupid' verdict is becaus they are a rabid pvpr, or they understand the potential exploits that come with any 'safe' bubble is a different issue).

Summary of the various discussions: It doesnt matter. It is what it is until the devs decide otherwise, and that verdict could be anything, since it has flip flopped several times in the past year.

[goodayve]

I think there is a middle ground somewhere that will work out.

A lot of people look back on UO and think that was the FFA pvp game with no safe zones but of course it was not even close to that. I started playing it in 1998.

UO from the start had safe zones. Once you were inside your house or tower and you knew no one else had a key you were completly 100% safe.(not counting exploits like going inside the house as a ghost and getting rezd inside, but even then if you had a tower you could lock yourself inside the inner rooms, or just place boxs infront of your closed door. Or killing people early on with earthquake from outside, before my time)

Sure you had to worry about people killing you and takeing your key, or hideing nearby and running inside. (this of course was before stealth which never really turned into a big house break in tool.)

If you think about eve your 100% safe when docked in an npc station.

I would like to know what ffa pvp/loot game people ever played that did not have safe zones. I am not sure there is one out there.(you could list something like darkfall maybe, but why list a game that came out recently)The only big name title that I hear people mention in this type of game, that I did not play, is Shadowbane. Maybe shadowbane was ffa pvp/loot with no safe zone?

[MrDDT]

I think there is a middle ground somewhere that will work out.

A lot of people look back on UO and think that was the FFA pvp game with no safe zones but of course it was not even close to that. I started playing it in 1998.

UO from the start had safe zones. Once you were inside your house or tower and you knew no one else had a key you were completly 100% safe.(not counting exploits like going inside the house as a ghost and getting rezd inside, but even then if you had a tower you could lock yourself inside the inner rooms, or just place boxs infront of your closed door. Or killing people early on with earthquake from outside, before my time)

Sure you had to worry about people killing you and takeing your key, or hideing nearby and running inside. (this of course was before stealth which never really turned into a big house break in tool.)

If you think about eve your 100% safe when docked in an npc station.

I would like to know what ffa pvp/loot game people ever played that did not have safe zones. I am not sure there is one out there.(you could list something like darkfall maybe, but why list a game that came out recently)The only big name title that I hear people mention in this type of game, that I did not play, is Shadowbane. Maybe shadowbane was ffa pvp/loot with no safe zone?

Shadowbane had a "newbie" area which was 100% safe, it also had a few 100% safe cities.
Also Shadowbane was NOT full loot. It was inventory looting only.

UO didnt have a 100% safe area til trammel. BTW, Even in town you could steal from others. In your house you could die from AOE attacks. A few people had castles that were safe in some parts of the castle.

[Dubanka]

I think there is a middle ground somewhere that will work out.

A lot of people look back on UO and think that was the FFA pvp game with no safe zones but of course it was not even close to that. I started playing it in 1998.

UO from the start had safe zones. Once you were inside your house or tower and you knew no one else had a key you were completly 100% safe.(not counting exploits like going inside the house as a ghost and getting rezd inside, but even then if you had a tower you could lock yourself inside the inner rooms, or just place boxs infront of your closed door. Or killing people early on with earthquake from outside, before my time)

Sure you had to worry about people killing you and takeing your key, or hideing nearby and running inside. (this of course was before stealth which never really turned into a big house break in tool.)

If you think about eve your 100% safe when docked in an npc station.

I would like to know what ffa pvp/loot game people ever played that did not have safe zones. I am not sure there is one out there.(you could list something like darkfall maybe, but why list a game that came out recently)The only big name title that I hear people mention in this type of game, that I did not play, is Shadowbane. Maybe shadowbane was ffa pvp/loot with no safe zone?

the middle ground is...a very limited 'safe' area which allows players to gain a foothold in the game, figure out its mechanics, and generally prepares them to venture out into the wide wide world...the area would be limited in size, resources (type, not necessarily availability), an production ability (quality/condition limits for gear mproduced in safe zone), all with the intent of pushing the players into the wider world, but giving them a place to regroup if something went wrong.

middle ground is a 'protected' 6 slot pouch so you can store a couple valuable things if shit goes south...it's not being able to protect any bag you make.

but like i said. whatever. devs will do what they'll do.

[Book]

the middle ground is...a very limited 'safe' area which allows players to gain a foothold in the game, figure out its mechanics, and generally prepares them to venture out into the wide wide world...the area would be limited in size, resources (type, not necessarily availability), an production ability (quality/condition limits for gear mproduced in safe zone), all with the intent of pushing the players into the wider world, but giving them a place to regroup if something went wrong.

That doesn't really sound like "middle" . Not saying it should never happen or whatever, just saying that's not "middle."

middle ground is a 'protected' 6 slot pouch so you can store a couple valuable things if shit goes south...it's not being able to protect any bag you make.

Was thinking about a similar thing a while back, do you mean a wearable pouch? That'd be cool. My understanding is that right now, any bag on my person is fully lootable no matter what the settings. Only bags on the ground have the ever so dreaded protections. Having maybe the front left pouch remain protected sure would be nice.

but like i said. whatever. devs will do what they'll do.

Yup. Ain't my mortgage on the line.