Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 55

Thread: safe zones poll

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by KeithStone View Post
    you should read the official faq's - it states that there will be no safe zones during prelude and that's all it says.

    However, joordi has stated in his announcments that tribes will be able to opt out of tribal warfare/siegeing, but he never say's anything about not having safe zones after prelude in those announcements.

    I think that at some point we will have the ability to lock people out of our cities so there will be no point in having a mechanism in place that doesn't allow attacking on tribal territory.
    Jordi did say that tribes will be able to keep their safe zone:
    What I imagine is:
    - Tribes choosing to become warring on non-warring, not as an on / off switch but as a permanent or difficult to reverse decision, likely based on tribal actions.
    - Warring tribes would be able to conquer and raid others, but they will also become susceptible to war. Non warring tribes would keep their area safe, but don’t gain the ability to raid or conquer other tribes.
    About the poll, the OP started his thread on this forum, so he is obviously interested in the opinion of the forum users. None of these polls are official even a tiny little bit, if Jordi ever wants to get to know his customers' opinion he needs to make a poll in game or in email, as he already did once. Personally I would be much happier if that poll showed 50%-50% about safe zones, in that case we would have bigger chance to get 2 separated servers and thats the only long term solution imo. I'm fine with the current setup, but some of the PvP oriented players are not and they keep QQing, so they should get their server if they wish so.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Jadzia View Post
    Jordi did say that tribes will be able to keep their safe zone:


    About the poll, the OP started his thread on this forum, so he is obviously interested in the opinion of the forum users. None of these polls are official even a tiny little bit, if Jordi ever wants to get to know his customers' opinion he needs to make a poll in game or in email, as he already did once. Personally I would be much happier if that poll showed 50%-50% about safe zones, in that case we would have bigger chance to get 2 separated servers and thats the only long term solution imo. I'm fine with the current setup, but some of the PvP oriented players are not and they keep QQing, so they should get their server if they wish so.
    No! Two servers should never be thought of as a solution...

    IN a sandbox we the players are the content, if you separate any type of player out of the the player base you will end up with a lack luster game no matter what. Also could you imagine the headache for the devs running what would end up being two different games? And if they weren't two different games(Different rules= different game) then what would be the point of two servers? You can't split it the servers, Jad. IF you do, you lose your monsters and others lose their knights and even more lose their prey/merchants/ and other various jobs.

    Honestly safe zones is the last thing that should be on people's mind at the moment. We don't even have a proper combat system yet, most of the features aren't turned on, and to top it all off lag/fps troubles.

    When we have what we need to even have proper and meaningful PvP that is when I'll care about safezones. Until then its a moot point at least for me.

    Oh and last note on two servers
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o19CaOSuD8
    Thank Jcatano for that bit of humor

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Jadzia View Post
    Jordi did say that tribes will be able to keep their safe zone:

    remaining safe doesn't have to mean safe zones. I still doubt you'll have safe zones after prelude unless you maybe opt as a starting city.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfmoonstrike View Post
    No! Two servers should never be thought of as a solution...

    IN a sandbox we the players are the content, if you separate any type of player out of the the player base you will end up with a lack luster game no matter what. Also could you imagine the headache for the devs running what would end up being two different games? And if they weren't two different games(Different rules= different game) then what would be the point of two servers? You can't split it the servers, Jad. IF you do, you lose your monsters and others lose their knights and even more lose their prey/merchants/ and other various jobs.

    Honestly safe zones is the last thing that should be on people's mind at the moment. We don't even have a proper combat system yet, most of the features aren't turned on, and to top it all off lag/fps troubles.

    When we have what we need to even have proper and meaningful PvP that is when I'll care about safezones. Until then its a moot point at least for me.
    I see your point, but the problem is that players insist to have fun If war-oriented players don't get what they want, they will leave. If peace-oriented players are forced into a war-type game, they will leave. You will lose the knights or the monsters anyway. Thats why I'm saying 2 servers would be good...to keep the players in the game. The current setup and what the devs plan after Prelude is a good compromise imo, still players keep QQing. These QQing ones will leave soon if they don't get their warring game...so why not to give them on a separated server ? Otherwise they leave. You can say that these ones who can't stand the current setup is a minority and they are never happy with anything, so why ruin the game because of them...thats a point too

    @orious13 : as long as tribe areas are safe I really don't care that what mechanics keep them safe, mysterious safe zones or walls and gates or NPC guards or whatever. They will be safe, that what counts.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Jadzia View Post
    I see your point, but the problem is that players insist to have fun If war-oriented players don't get what they want, they will leave. If peace-oriented players are forced into a war-type game, they will leave. You will lose the knights or the monsters anyway. Thats why I'm saying 2 servers would be good...to keep the players in the game. The current setup and what the devs plan after Prelude is a good compromise imo, still players keep QQing. These QQing ones will leave soon if they don't get their warring game...so why not to give them on a separated server ? Otherwise they leave. You can say that these ones who can't stand the current setup is a minority and they are never happy with anything, so why ruin the game because of them...thats a point too
    I hate to use this tired rebuttal since I personally can't stand the game (Time-based skilling w/o manual skilling? yuck...) but Eve has it right. It's not always feasible to compare the two but in this case I think it is. After the meat is put on w/ the potatoes we currently have those that left will return. Anyway nothing can be solved if those that like to PvP or PvE leave anyway. One thing I've noticed about Jordi is he does listen for the most part....though at times his mind is like the wind (not sure if that is good or bad yet but we'll see). Plus as long as the loyal few stay behind I'm sure the game will grow; Eve hopefully isn't a fluke.

    Honestly I think what they should do(by they I mean the devs) is buy players out of their forts/cities. Then turn those cities into places that new characters can spawn. Or even possibly turn all or most of the current area into a safe zone/high security zone after the prelude. Which would make those who like to war or want a more dangerous lifestyle can stray away from the lake.

    The world got seriously messed up after the whole doomsday thing, who knows what awaits us in the green mist. I'm still hoping for a place with screwed up gravity lol, maybe a chance to explore some bunkers or if luck has it explore area 51 and find some cool tech that survived. Ok went off on a tangent.

    TL;DR two server= bad; hopefully a compromise can be reached; adventure/omgwtfbbq is that!

  6. #16
    I agree, an Eve style system is the best solution, with a huge safe zone-huge PvP zone and incentives to go to the PvP zone. Wish Xsyon turns into that way, thats the perfect solution to provide fun to both type of players without frustration. But this is something again that most of the warring-type players hate.

  7. #17
    Xsyon Citizen joexxxz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    USA/CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    549
    I have a suggestion how to make it better.
    let say the person moves in to the tribe area. The counter starts countdown from 30 mins. When the counter reaches 0, the players save zone removed. Now he/she can be attacked. Once the person moves out of tribe area. The other counter starts countdown from 15 min. the other counter is to keep track time outside the tribe area. Once the counter goes 0, it will add 30 mins for the tribe area counter. Now the tribe area counter is above 0, this means when the person goes back to tribe area, the area will be safe zone again.
    That way players wont spend all the time on tribe area, and if they do, they are open for PVP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trenchfoot View Post
    For there to be siege warfare in any way other than a mockery of it, safe zones must be removed.

    However, you MUST also allow players to deny access to the areas they influence. Otherwise remove walls and the like because they are simply decorations. I can understand why safe zones are currently in the game. It's necessary for the devs to move forward with the improvement of the game in these early stages.

    I suspect once gates are established, and /unstuck is overhauled many peoples opinions will change. I think this question would best be asked after they implement area restrictions via player built structures. Until that is done, safe zones MUST stay in.

    And when/if they are removed, a player should be able to stay in their enclosed space without any fear of anyone getting in short of an army with siege equipment. Or maybe a burglar with some enormously high lock picking skills. But see now I've said too much, I'm getting ahead of myself.
    THank you thank you very much. This tribe area thing needs to be looked in by the devs again.



    EDIT: One more thought.
    Let say, the evil player came to someone's tribe area. and that evil player spends about 3 min on that tribe area without leaving the tribe area. Now for that evil player the tribe area opens up for PVP. Its your fault that you didnt killed him or asked him to leave within that time frame.
    Once the evil player leaves the tribe area, the counter is reset in 3 min.

    Everyone is happy now


    Player A outside the someone's tribe area. Counter=3min
    Player A moves into the someones tribe area. Counter=3 and decreasing
    Player A moves out tribe area. Counter=3min again
    Player A moves back to tribe area. Counter decreasing
    Player A stays on tribe area. counter decreasing, reached 0
    Player A now can attack that tribe members.
    Player A, scared, runs out of tribe area. Counter(b) counts upto 3mins.
    When counter(b) reached 3mins , player A counter(a) resets back to 3min, Player A, no longer can attack members on tribe area, counter(b)=0;

  8. #18
    Folks, I don't think some of you know what you're really suggesting.

    I'll restate that just to make it clear. For the time being (until other features are implemented/tweaked) we really do NEED safe zones.

    But to keep safe zones in once everything is in place literally changes the premise of the game itself.

    'Welcome to Xsyon, the harsh, brutal, untamed landscape. A post-apocalyptic world where those who are still scraping out a meager existence among the rubble are forced to band together in the day to day struggle to survive. Except over there. Oh and over there, and that one place too looks pretty unaffected.... In fact, most places are safe now. We've pushed those off into two or three locations.'

    You see how ridiculous this is? You're not adding features by promoting safe zones, you're taking them away. In fact you're literally carving them out of the game.

    And I'll tell you why we hate it. We hate it because we've had it up to here with developers who have an incredible vision and then cave in. If carving out an existence in a post-apocalyptic wasteland is too challenging for you, well you know the rest.

    I'll restate once more just to make it clear. For the time being (until other features are implemented/tweaked) we really do NEED safe zones. But if you're not preparing for the day when they're removed, you're just being shortsighted.

    EDIT: The pole should read.. 'Should post-apocalyptia begin when you log in? Or should it begin at the edge of your property?'. aka 'Why build walls to keep something out that can't get in anyway?'.

  9. #19
    Trenchfoot, you know that safe zones won't be removed, they will only be optional ?

  10. #20
    Xsyon Citizen joexxxz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    USA/CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    549
    Quote Originally Posted by Jadzia View Post
    Trenchfoot, you know that safe zones won't be removed, they will only be optional ?
    Lol you can play with dolls if u want
    U dont really know what u are suggestining.
    There is 5% of ppl like u and the rest u know what
    The game have to have challenge. So far u always suggest things for the worst. Im sorry if my message is mean. I dont mean no harm.

Posting Permissions

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