Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 80
  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Potapithikos View Post
    Will survival without hte threat of tribal warfare be challenging enough to provide incentives?
    probably not

  2. #32
    i would love to see some sort of active wars down the road and pvp but i think there should be some safe zones or either zones for pvp wouldnt be fair to everyone if there werent.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by blake378 View Post
    that would be a great idea have pvp set into an expansion area if a tribe wants to expand but dont let people lose the actual town the worked hard to build that will cause more damage than good in this game i think.
    We have a similar thinking, this is exactly what I'd like to see after Prelude. Only my opinion of course.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexTaldren View Post
    I always get a good laugh at these so-called hardcore MMORPG "PvPers." They point and cry "carebear" simply because it pumps their ego, but at the end of the day, how "hardcore" is someone who sits in front of their PC, tab-targetting other players?

    Anyway, there might be a way for both sides to be okay. If sieging tribes is ever implemented, the system should promote the annexation of smaller tribes, leaving the smaller tribe's development standing.


    Tribe vs. Tribe Example:

    Tribe A attacks Tribe B. B loses the war and their totem is conquered. Tribe A can then choose from a few options:

    1. Annexation - Tribe B becomes a city-state of Tribe A. Tribe A can initiate some form of taxation on Tribe B that lasts for a set amount of time.
    2. Assimilation - Tribe A requests that B assimilate into A. This initiates a vote among the members of Tribe B. If the vote passes successfully, all B members are moved into the roster of A, and the territory controlled by B is now controlled by A. Tribe B is dissolved permanently. If the vote fails, the conditions default to Annexation.
    3. Pillage - Tribe A receives a certain amount of resources from Tribe B, but B gets to keep its independence and territory. Tribe B may incur some building destruction or damage, but this only requires them to do minor rebuilding and upkeep, not a complete rebuild.


    This is a rough list of options, but it gives us options and political choices.

    Declaring Independence

    Also, if a Tribe is conquered by another, there should be an option for the conquered tribe to initiate some kind of declaration of independence after a certain period of time. At which point a battle is fought between the two tribes. Whoever wins gets to set the terms, whether it be indepedence or continued subjugation.

    Unfortunately, these systems could be easily circumvented by players abandoning Tribes and reforming them with new totems, or by creating new characters. So more thinking need to be done about that.

    these are great ideas!


    in response to another poster, no there shouldn't be set zones for pvp. open world pvp is why i came here and if it's not open world everywhere then i will leave. tribe lands are already safe zones. leave it at that and quit requesting to push the pvp somewhere else.

  5. #35
    Visitor BigCountry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Way down deep in a bottle of ale...
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by esudar View Post
    the point is to play together with people.
    chat and coordinate what everybodys job is... build your tribe.

    there is no competition or whatsoever atm tho.
    no rewards i think, barely interaction with people outside of your tribe
    build it to what measure though? so passerbys can look at it? what is the point (gaming aspect) of building something? does it get attacked by npcs? water? something? if not, then it's not really a video game?

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by blake378 View Post
    as far as for the carebear comment this is not true. i was top of my alliance in eve 2 years running in pvp kills and solo kills overall. in uo i lived in fel and pvped constantly. all im saying is from my experience in pvp over the years in all games its coming to the place that pvpers just want easy kills they dont want to fight they just want to gank and grief. ive been on both sides of this for instance in eve if a fight is going to be equal numbers most people wont fight because they know they might now win. same way with uo it turned into one guild on a server just ganking everyone that came to try to do spawns. there are very few pvpers that want to fight they just want kills. ive been on both sides of this and i can take a loss but yes i am a carebear at heart when the time comes.
    I placed "carebear" within quotes for a particular reason, just as I did with "PvPer". If you want to take the former as a derogatory comment, then so be it.

    I assume that's the case since you already labeled "PvPers" as people who simply want to "gank" and "grief". Your view doesn't mean anything to me because of that ignorant statement.

    If some of you people cannot see that "PvPers" are basically asking for dynamic gameplay, meaningful control of territory, and some other reasons to engage in PvP, then the discussion is a lost cause.

    If Jooky doesn't want open-PvP, anymore, he needs to man-up and just say it. Maybe, it would be because he never really wanted it in the first place, or he just can't figure out how to appease his prized pets. No idea. No hard feelings if you want to change it, Jooky.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by toddesloan View Post
    So for those currently playing, outside of PvP, what is the point of this game? Who can construct the largest house? Are there reward points for building things or something? Is it nothing but a 3D farmville or is there an actual purpose in playing the game? I pre-ordered and I am ready to try, but would like to know what I am getting into. The FAQ page made it sound like this was a sandbox PvP game, so I signed on. Not to grieve or what not, but to play/compete against other players, via solo or group (a "sandbox" should offer both) etc.
    I have found that some people who live for pvp do not have the ability to understand why anyone would do anything whatsoever if there wasnt competition behind it. The inverse question can be asked of you, what is the 'meaning' of conquring cities?

    Some people just like to smoke a cigar because its tastes good, not because of any hidden meaning.

    Having said that, I think this game should have pvp but it should be somewhat controlled in away that places context in the game world not 'just cuz'

  8. #38
    Wait, Does this mean you can't destroy player made buildings yet?
    What if you just dig under them will they collapse?

    You can still kill other players and loot them correct?

    I don't really "need" artificial game mechanics to declare war on another guild. I just don't want to see artificial game mechanics that prevent me from doing so...

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by MortalMan View Post
    Wait, Does this mean you can't destroy player made buildings yet?
    What if you just dig under them will they collapse?

    You can still kill other players and loot them correct?

    I don't really "need" artificial game mechanics to declare war on another guild. I just don't want to see artificial game mechanics that prevent me from doing so...
    If you have read the Feature page you know that it says Player Owned PROTECTED Housing and Player Owned PROTECTED storage during Prelude. No, you can't destroy others' buildings during Prelude, you can't dig under them ( you can't terraform in another tribe's land).

    You can kill and loot players if they are out of their own tribe territory.
    Hope this helps.

  10. #40
    I placed "carebear" within quotes for a particular reason, just as I did with "PvPer". If you want to take the former as a derogatory comment, then so be it.

    I assume that's the case since you already labeled "PvPers" as people who simply want to "gank" and "grief". Your view doesn't mean anything to me because of that ignorant statement.

    If some of you people cannot see that "PvPers" are basically asking for dynamic gameplay, meaningful control of territory, and some other reasons to engage in PvP, then the discussion is a lost cause.

    If Jooky doesn't want open-PvP, anymore, he needs to man-up and just say it. Maybe, it would be because he never really wanted it in the first place, or he just can't figure out how to appease his prized pets. No idea. No hard feelings if you want to change it, Jooky.
    seems i struck a nerve here all im saying is that in my 10+years of mmo experience most of the pvpers are only looking for easy ganks and griefing weaker tribes/guilds/corp whatever if you arent one of those guys then it wasnt directed at you and im sorry to have your your e-feelings internet forums are srs bsns. but anyway there should be something in place to protect the smaller tribes from "griefing" but other than that i think the game will be awesome nothing more fun than open pvp and i look forward to it.

Posting Permissions

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