Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 104
  1. #11
    also the alignment system that is on the current totem will play into that, so if your a good tribe and you pk then you will get kicked from your own tribe if you kill to many people.

  2. #12
    They can fight for self-defense. But 'fighting' (whcih is what you people said you don't want to do) comes at a cost. And any soldier will tell you, that taking another human life, be it in justified self-defense or not, changes you.

    also the alignment system that is on the current totem will play into that, so if your a good tribe and you pk then you will get kicked from your own tribe if you kill to many people.
    I left this seperate from good and evil alignments. Maybe these could be tied together. However, I don't agree that PKing in and of itself is an act of evil necessarily. As Jadz said (a militant) can justly defend themselves through violence. Which is not an evil thing. A pacifist simply doesn't believe in solving their problems (even when attacked) through violence.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Trenchfoot View Post
    I'm not sure I follow you. Anyone can attack first. Or last or whatever. But if you're going to have a no-pvp ideology, don't you think you should stick to it or suffer the consequences? Or is it just that you want a safe zone advantage with all the benefits of joining the conflict?

    With this system, a non-pvp tribes pvp actions become almost purely diplomatic instead of physical. Non-pvp tribes don't want to fight. I say OK, so they can't fight without consequences. So that the trade off for safety is simply doing what you want to do (which is not fight). Right? What better trade off than to do what you want to do, in exchange for safety? If non-pvp is really what you want to do. Is it? Or is that something non-pvp proponents are simply hiding behind?
    I hope you stopped editing it or otherwise my answer may seems inappropriate
    I still can't see how a pacifist player could join a conflict without consequences if he can only fight for self-defense. Explain it please.

  4. #14
    Hmm I meant that pacifists players should be able to fight for self-defense.
    But pacifists don't believe in fighting, militants do.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Trenchfoot View Post
    But pacifists don't believe in fighting, militants do.
    Pacifists believe in self-defense but don't believe in aggression.

  6. #16
    Pacifists believe in self-defense but don't believe in aggression.
    That's splitting hairs really. And, pacifist tribes CAN defend themselves. If they don't want to jeapordize their safe zone though, all they have to do is not kill, stay in their safe zone where they 'can't' be attacked and ignore the pvp world around them.

    This also opens the opportunity for sibling tribes. ie. A pacifist tribe allies with a militant tribe and the militant tribe does all their fighting for them. Great for mercs, offshoots of original tribes, etc.

    And you're ignoring the part where I said players should have a way to get their pacifist tag back. Why isn't anyone focusing on that? Because that's your solution. Then a priest/shaman could become an integral part of pacifist societies. Militant tribes may find value in that as well, to know that if they need to find a priest/shaman their best bet is to look to a pacifist tribe because they'll probably always have one.

    Added after 40 minutes:

    Johnny is a young member of a pacifist tribe. After many years of the elders explaining to Johnny that the world was no longer a safe place for us peaceful folk, Johnny's curiosity gets the better of him. And one day Johnny wanders off to explore this dangerous world. While he's out he encounters a couple of bandits who attack Johnny. Johnny now has a decision to make. He can either run back to the safety of his tribe, or he can stand and fight and break tribe taboo. Johnny decides to stand and fight, and he kills one of the bandits and the other one runs off.

    Upon returning to the tribe he is confronted by the chieftain and the elders. 'It was brave what you did son, but you must understand that your actions put our tribe in jeopardy.'. They allow Johnny to stay, after all they really like Johnny.


    GAMEPLAY: At this point as a tribe leader I have to make a decision. In this scenario I like Johnny. So I decide to keep him on, and we all agree to just keep quiet about the edge of our ZoI being vulnerable. No one really knows but us and for anyone to find out they have to poke and prod.

    3 days later, a group of bandits show up at the towns gates, and they're breaking through the walls.

    GAMEPLAY: Another tough decision as a tribal leader. If I turn Johnny loose at this point, we loose territory. If I recruit another pacifist member, I can disband Johnny and save the town. Another option would be to have Johnny, 3 days earlier, head to the local priest/shaman and be absolved, thereby returning him to his pacifist tag, which prevents all of this from happening in the first place.

    Let's say I decide to stick by Johnny, and send word out to try in hopes of recruiting another pacifist player (maybe we're a starting zone and we get new players all the time). We can still build in our ZoI, we are loosing walls on the outside of our ZoS.

    Now let's say no recruits come, but I'm still sticking by Johnny. Worst case scenario the bandits break through the wall right into our ZoS and at that point all you have to do is not do anything. They can't hurt you, you can slaughter them if you want to (which would draw you further into the conflict and is probably a bad idea for a pacifist tribe who wants to remain pacifist).

    Tribe Size: 22 Members
    Zone of Influence: Size 22
    Zone of Safety: Size 21 (now that Johnny has turned, leaving only your outermost walls exposed)

    Another option would be to adjust the variables here. For example maybe you want to change the equation from 1 militant = -1 ZoS size to something like 2 militants = -1 ZoS size, thereby giving you some leeway. As long as it can't easily be exploited.

    In addition, with a handful of skilled masons you can keep them from breaching the wall easily. And they can't attack the masons until they breach the walls, allowing you to hold them off for as long as you want all things considered.

  7. #17
    You should elaborate how one can get back the pacifist tag after a fight. How long does it take ? Just go to a priest and its done ? In this case it doesn't count much. If it takes longer then it raises a lot of problem. In case of a solo player what happens with his territory meanwhile ? What if someone is out exploring, gets attacked, defends himself so loses the pacifist tag and homestead protection. By the time he gets home his camp will be destroyed ?

    In your example Johnny should have gone to the priest before their camp got attacked

    If you takes away the ability form pacifist players to defend themselves (without consequences) saying that they don't want to fight anyway, then you have to give them the ability to flee from any attack, since this is their real choice. No matter the enemy's speed, no matter if the victim carries something heavy.

    I understand your idea, but I can't really see the point of it, I mean the point of pacifist players not being able to defend themselves without an alignment hit. Your other points are fine, I just don't understand why is this good or necessary.

    I thought that the goal of your suggestion was to have more PvP in game, without harming the peaceful players, and without giving an unfair advantage to pacifists.

    If a pacifist can defend himself without losing his tag he may fight in case he is attacked. I guess a fight is more fun to a PvP player than a victim who is running away and never stops to fight back. How does it enhance PvP if you reduce the number of possible fights ? And believe me, a pacifist player will never risk losing his safe zone for a bit of fight. Actually if he is a solo player or a member of a small tribe he can't even afford to lose it, since he won't be able to stand a siege of a bigger tribe.

    If a pacifist player do fight back that makes PvP more fun ( I guess). A combat timer should be implemented so in case he did decide to engage in PvP he wouldn't be able to run back to safety for some minutes.

    You mentioned that if a pacific player could defend himself that could be exploited but I didn't see how and you didn't explain it

    Don't get me wrong, I never PvP, so I wouldn't miss it. I just don't understand why is it good to reduce the number of potential fights.

  8. #18
    You should elaborate how one can get back the pacifist tag after a fight. How long does it take ? Just go to a priest and its done?
    I stated I didn't know how. I only stated that I agreed you should be able to, and that it shouldn't be something players can turn on or off at will. Suggestions are welcome.

    In case of a solo player what happens with his territory meanwhile ? What if someone is out exploring, gets attacked, defends himself so loses the pacifist tag and homestead protection. By the time he gets home his camp will be destroyed ?
    Possibly. Although, he could have just run away. Like they do now. Already. And that's the point. Most non-pvp players aren't generally confined to their safe zones. They're confined to the area around it. All they would have to do is to not travel too far into the wilderness. Which, not so indecently, they do already.

    Are you saying solo players should have no risk or reason to band together? That they can just take their part of the game, go home, and only have risk on their own terms (which is the opposite of risk btw). And if so, why are they in a tribal MMO? I remember reading somewhere a dev said that joining a tribe should be preferable and that soloing should be extremely difficult (I'm paraphrasing of course). Should the solo player/solo group be able to escape the pressure of the necessity to work with other players? And if so, why should anyone ever work together, and why should tribes work with other tribes? Why should there ever be a reason for a non-pvp tribe to work with another tribe?

    A pacifist tribe could easily set up an arrangement with a moderate or militant tribe saying, (recruit pacifists for us, and we'll send you our militants). You don't need game mechanics to solve every problem.

    In your example Johnny should have gone to the priest before their camp got attacked
    I stated as much, I just stated it after the fact.

    If you takes away the ability form pacifist players to defend themselves
    They have the ability, all they have to do is make a stand on one principle or the other. Does leaving it to the player to choose seem unfavorable to you?

    (without consequences)
    This is the part we disagree on. And here's why. Pacifist players wander on to militant enemy ground and waits for them to attack and then kills one of them in so-called 'self defense', then runs back to their safe zone next door. Would you say that's a fair advantage? How do you propose we get around that?

    I just don't understand why is it good to reduce the number of potential fights.
    No more than the potential for pvp tribes to fight over the right to associate/trade with/protect/attack non-pvp tribes.

    Players shouldn't be able to totally isolate themselves and in essence steal their own portion of the game that nothing can effect, from the rest of us.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Trenchfoot View Post

    They have the ability, all they have to do is make a stand on one principle or the other. Does leaving it to the player to choose seem unfavorable to you?

    No. As long as you grant the ability to run away from fights hence having a real choice, I'm fine with it.

    This is the part we disagree on. And here's why. Pacifist players wander on to militant enemy ground and waits for them to attack and then kills one of them in so-called 'self defense', then runs back to their safe zone next door. Would you say that's a fair advantage? How do you propose we get around that?

    As I said, a combat timer should be implemented. Once a player engaged in a fight, his safe zone shouldn't protect him for some minutes. Thus can't run back to safety.

    No more than the potential for pvp tribes to fight over the right to associate/trade with/protect/attack non-pvp tribes.

    I don't understand this sentence, please elaborate.

    Players shouldn't be able to totally isolate themselves and in essence steal their own portion of the game that nothing can effect, from the rest of us. Why ?
    A solo players are always under the pressure to work with others. Its the big tribes who are totally self-sufficient so actually nothing force them to work with others.

  10. #20
    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.

    It also encourages non-pvp players to develop their own kind of non-combatant pvp. One that requires very little risk, and is almost purely diplomatic.

Posting Permissions

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