Safe Zone/Free Zone ala Tribal Creeds

[Jadzia]

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.

Yes. And the alignment system the devs plan to implement is much more strict. In their plan a good tribe can chase and kill evil players everywhere without an alignment hit, the good tribe can keep their safe zone, while an evil tribe area wouldn't be safe. They want consequences for being evil, and no consequences for being good. A good player can't attack a good/neutral one without an alignment hit. This is what they plan and hopefully implement soon.

[joexxxz]

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.

I wasnt talking about this. If you are a crafter and you want safe zone. If iam a pvper i dont want a safe zone.
Same. Same, Same. And ofcourse im both,.
So why would you think that you should get what you want, and i should not get what i want.
And dont say, DEVs said this and that.
2. Im only asking for balance, those people who want safe zones, they want to disbalance this game. Thats all.
So who wins here, lol??? And dont say "i do", i mean you .

[Jadzia]

I wasnt talking about this. If you are a crafter and you want safe zone. If iam a pvper i dont want a safe zone.
Same. Same, Same. And ofcourse im both,.
So why would you think that you should get what you want, and i should not get what i want.
And dont say, DEVs said this and that.

If you are a PvPer you should have an option to turn the safety of your zone off. If you are a crafter you should have the option to keep safety on. Freedom of choice.

Edit: and of course I say what the devs said. Thats why I bought this game and thats why I'm still here, because I like what they said and what they plan. If I didn't like the setup I wouldn't have bought the game.

[joexxxz]

If you are a PvPer you should have an option to turn the safety of your zone off. If you are a crafter you should have the option to keep safety on. Freedom of choice.

If im a PvPer I should NOT have the option to turn the safety zone on/off.
If im a non-PvPer I should NOT have the option to turn the safety zone on/off.
Sandbox means less restrictions and more creativeness.

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
Work for your freadom and you will get it, but DONT hard wired it.

Like i said, right now you can be free, there is no gates in the game yet,
or there is;
THERE IS GATES IN THE GAME LOL.

[Trenchfoot]

So let me see if I have this right?

Good = Cannot be retaliated against or be destroyed.
Neutral = ?Does neutral get a safe zone too?
Evil = Can be retaliated against and be destroyed.

If this is true, unless there's more to it than this, I can see right where this game is headed.

[Jadzia]

So let me see if I have this right?

Good = Cannot be retaliated against or be destroyed.
Neutral = ?Does neutral get a safe zone too?
Evil = Can be retaliated against and be destroyed.

If this is true, unless there's more to it than this, I can see right where this game is headed.

The alignment system was announced for the Prelude. I don't know how it will work with the warfare system, but both good and evil tribes can choose to be warring tribe and in that case their area can be sieged.

Good = Can be killed anywhere outside of their safe zone. Can only kill evil players without alignment hit.
Neutral = same as good for now, differences will only be seen when religion is implemented.
Evil = Can be killed anywhere, can kill anyone.

[Trenchfoot]

but both good and evil tribes can choose to be warring tribe and in that case their area can be sieged.

So like a staged re-enactment. No one really risks anything because they agreed to it. And since nothing forces them to agree to it, they only do when they're completely prepared. That's a charade.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe the devs already have something planned but not disclosed that makes this work. But just from this, it doesn't look like anything I haven't already seen before.

[orious13]

I have mixed feelings.

Something to add to this would be the following because I also don't get why pacifists can't fight back without a problem in self-defense, but killing is a different story. In the US you can actually get off with no punishment from killing someone in self-defense. It's harder in some states than it is in others. Frankly with your current system pacifists DO have more risk since the tiny safe zone can go away or decrease and/or if encountering another militant on 99% of the map, you can either run or die. Most of the time you'll probably die if you have less fort/run/agi. Actually you might die all of the time if you're a crafter spec and can't hide. Pacifist monks do/did know how to fight back.

If you make it so pacifists cannot be looted (since they aren't a risk and can't attack back), that won't work either because then people won't care bout dying (spies running free into your town etc.).


So what one can do is the following:

1) A pacifist can attack back in self defense after being attacked, but if they kill the target, they cannot loot the target. If they loot the target, they are militant... that is just by clicking the loot button not actually be taking anything off of the target. This also goes for fish/gathering/foraging/scavenging on non-ally territory as that is an act of aggression.

2) A pacifist can attack back in self-defense after being attacked, but if they succeed in taking the aggressor down to 0% health, the aggressor gets incapacitated for xx amount of seconds before the last hit is landed or a kill/murder button is pressed, allowing the pacifist to run away or risk becoming militant. Keep in mind out of combat is supposed to be faster than in combat; however, many pvpers have 90 agi vs a lot less for many crafters, which makes that not work as well. You also can't forage/gather/scav/fish here either.

Both ways are exploitable I guess and need tweaking.

[joexxxz]

So let me see if I have this right?

Good = Cannot be retaliated against or be destroyed.
Neutral = ?Does neutral get a safe zone too?
Evil = Can be retaliated against and be destroyed.

If this is true, unless there's more to it than this, I can see right where this game is headed.

Great point. There is gonna be 1 good tribe, and 1 evil tribe. The evil tribe just gonna be a boxing pillow. lol

[Trenchfoot]

@joexxxz

You're quick.

1) A pacifist can attack back in self defense after being attacked, but if they kill the target, they cannot loot the target. If they loot the target, they are militant... that is just by clicking the loot button not actually be taking anything off of the target. This also goes for fish/gathering/foraging/scavenging on non-ally territory as that is an act of aggression.

That's not an altogether bad idea.

EDIT: Neutral = This is my alt. hehe