Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
xsyon pvp update
ubermut
Member UncommonPosts: 275
Update February 21 : Regarding recent discussions
Hello everyone!
I don't have time to read through all the recent discussions, but I want to clarify things as I see a lot of incorrect speculation.
The pending launch is for the Prelude, which is intended to last at least 6-9 months as originally planned. The Prelude is meant to be as described in the Features section. During the Prelude the game will evolve based on the community. The vision is and always has been to do this.
As those of you that have been around for a while already know, I've been paying attention to feedback and features have already changed based on what the community asks for. The tribe and rank system has changed from it's initial implementation. Combat was completely revised, though I admit it needs work and that's why we're bringing on another specialist this coming month.
The main discussion seems to be regarding safe zones. Some players are imagining 'safe switches' that can be turned on and off. That's not part of any plan. I am considering allowing tribes that want to war sooner than others to remove their safe zone if they so desire. A separate zone (as the mist clears) or server with no safe zones at all is also under consideration depending on the world's population. My goal is not to impose new limits as solutions but to give more choices.
I hope this clears things up. The game plan is to continually evolve and improve the game to listen to feedback and accomodate many types of players, and we're sticking to that.
http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/1440-Xsyon-Updates?p=46756#post46756
Comments
I dont think people are upset about the current safe zones, as the tribe defenses are not in place.
Its the idea of a consensual warfare for the warring tribes part of the game comming in about a year that worries people.
As is the feeling that NG doesnt want any or few evil aligned tribes. Balance is key. A lot of people are playing for the ffa full loot pvp, as its a rare feature and provides one of the most unique and entertaining eviroments to play in. The pve crowd will get use to it, and learn to adapt, thats all part of the fun. Gankers wont be out of control if theres a lot of warring tribe related activites, which wont happen if 1% are evil aligned.
This is why some are just suggesting a chaos server, where the players fend for themselfs, no rules, no anit-gank policy, no safe zones. However no one thinks the game currently has the pop for this.
But that is the main fear with anyone who is playing this game for the tribal warfare and the full loot ffa pvp. Will warfare be consensual? If so how advantageous will opting out be? Will safe zones (after the warring tribes is implimented) come with a balance, a sizeable disadvantage?
People want reasons to build defensive structures, and creat combat specific characters, and be able to defend claimed land without fear of being banned for greifing.
The whole draw of a sandbox is that the players are in control.
Perhaps people like me are in the vast minority, and if so we can always go back to darkfall...however we are hear in xyson for the sandbox with more sand and the ffa full loot pvp. Its just these protections and uneven play field between the pve centric players and the pvp are looking to be quite disturbing.
People do understand that things are constantly changing, its why people are speaking up and not just leaving.
Also it makes it a hell of a lot easyer to pull pvp guilds from other games into xyson, knowing that the pvp will be "sandbox" without rules and with a balanced playfield. A lot of people in other games are very interested, but are waiting to see how this all develops, along with other features not in the game yet. If people know they can get a real sandbox with more than just combat, in a ffa full loot pvp enviroment, this games going to get a lot of migration from seveal pvp focused games, which you may be interested in. Keep us updated and make sure you post here to clear up any mis understandings.
just so ya know jooky has mentioned off hand a separate hardcore pvp warfare server if the pop could support/wanted one.
edit: also mentioned destructible buildings and looting if you set your tribe as vulnerable.
this is all speculation from the dev. not in game atm
The problem is the option to set your tribe to vulnerable....who would stay vulnerable when they could skirt the need for resource draining defensive structures?
If you can in fact toggle from non-vulnerable to vulnerable, people will stay safe untill they feel they can over power everyone around them who isnt.
Once you get over the stigma of not being safe, these types of games become so much more fun. Its a learning curve that i think a lot of players never went though, they just hear horror stories about full loot pvp and apply it to losing their hard work, when there is alway a way to minimize losses.
In fact the longer you let player get use to being safe, the harder it is for them to adapt to a non safe setting, which is why darkfall removed the 24hour of in game protection time for noobs and lowerd it to 1 hour. This is why people want no safe zones right now, once the community gets over this stigma, its all good and most will love it, as it really does add a layer of complexity to all aspects of the game.
Perhaps a better compromise would be to let founders island remain a safe haven for the pve crowd, and leave the rest of the game open season. I really understand how people could not want to lose their perfectly terraformed tribe camps, however, they might find it just as fun making a new one if that is their focus in game.
The fear is the ability to be invulnerable, anywhere.
Basically speaking, I'm pretty certain it would be a "balanced" system, in which the only way to destroy someone else's stuff, was to make your stuff vulnerable.
Then to allow the people who actually want to PvP, let them fight each other and destroy each other's built structures, though not being able to "grief" the people who want to remain out of it.
Willbonney, a.k.a. William H Bonney, a.k.a. William Antrem, a.k.a. Billy the Kid
"I'll make ya' famous."
"Best dollar 'n eighty I ever spent."
Would also think it would work the same as all the "combat" stuff you've been talking about on here Snails. The people who actively want to PvP would have to set up "vulnerability" to be killed by others on their land, to be able to then kill others on the "others" land.
In other words, the people who want PvP will be able to get it, but the people who want to be "carebears" can play the way that they wish.
Edited to add: Also, what's fun for you is not necesarily fun for everyone bud. I personally enjoy "fair" PvP, in which both sides are evenly match, to have a good fight out of it.
I don't however enjoy the "swarmfest" many pvp games become, of whoever has the most people or best computer, wins.
Willbonney, a.k.a. William H Bonney, a.k.a. William Antrem, a.k.a. Billy the Kid
"I'll make ya' famous."
"Best dollar 'n eighty I ever spent."
Thats the genral idea from what i have gathered. If you remain as "safe-zone" you cant attack anyone in their respective safe-zone or conquer/destroy their stuff.
Anyway, im convinced there will be new lands and resources that will require adiitional "PvP enabled totems only" to claim, and current region will eventually deplete most resources, so if you want to advance your tribe you will have to claim those lands/resources. Ton of PvP and stuff to be had from those, with option to turn your initial area unsafe for full conquest for those who will want to do that.
Your opinion is valid for you and nobody else. How do you know there are people out there that just want to build castles for no other reason but to look pretty?
Only problem here is people pushing their opinion to be right and "set everyone straight".
In Xsyon without safe zones you will end up with no buildings and no crafters/builders.
With only one character per account, no player in their right mind would play a crafter/builder for long. Thier stats would make them absolute fodder to any character setup for pvp, thier crafting tool would be no match for a real weapon and their skill set would be geared mostly towards crafting and not pvp.
Every time they would try to build something they would either be ganked with materials and tools stolen or they just wait until they log then destroy what was built.
In no matter of time either the player would leave the game or reroll a pure pvp character. After a time all that would be left is pvp characters and no crafters/builders and no structures to speak of.
With the 6-9 month Prelude, there is time for such defensive structures to be built, alliances to be made and character reputations to be known so that even with the safezones removed, their can still be some safety and crafter/builders could still exist.
With no safe zones, how could anything survive? People will simply destroy everything.
How could anyone defend something 24/7?
You have 6 months to build, secure, ally, what not.
That is plenty of time.
If you have not done anything but make baskets for 6 months then you played the game wrong and your in trouble.
hehe
This is good news for the game. It's what he orginally sold us on, and he is sticking to his guns.
BigCountry | Head Hunters | www.wefarmpeople.com
Don't get me wrong, I welcome PVP, and the evolution that will entail.
I guess what I am not clear on is the ability of players to destroy buildings.
If players can destroy buildings, how does the game account for the fact that people cannot play 24/7?
I know some other games experimented with a kind of booking system - which may feel clunky, but at least it gave a chance for players to log on at the necessary time.
The no safe zone worked absolutely fine in Roma Victor (this games predesessor) in the barbarian lands. Lots of people went crafter and had other players to protect them.
I think no safe zones anywhere would be the ideal and the guy above is right once people get used to it they would be fine. What is the point in building something if there is risk it gets destroyed? The risk element makes things more exciting. Do we just want a crafting MMO? No way,
Exactly. If a building gets destroyed, then rebuild it. It keeps the crafters busy. Just think of it as building durability.
Actually I would dig a crafting mmo.
No really, imo at the moment the greater problem in the game is that there are no strong crafting motivators, especially on tribe level...
(on the individual one you'll have item decay, but that's more of an economy sink than a proper thing to strive for)
If they want to make it really craft-centric they should add big projects that tribes can compete for... something like world wonders or something that are unique. Just imagine 2 tribes racing who is going to complete the Lighthouse first.. or the Pyramids. Now you'd have much better motivation for group play and even PvP over scarce resources than simple trying to take over other tribe's camp or whatever.
With this model you'd have plenty of motivation and stuff to do for the PvP crowd without actually making the game "PVP-centric".
I wonder if they already have something like this planned...
"safe" players should not be allowed to trade with "unsafe" players to prevent the game from becoming unbalanced.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Again, this is all fine - but what's to stop people logging on in the middle of the night and wrecking everything with noone to defend it?
While i am all for battles over territory, I am not sure how to avoid the problem of uncontested destruction due to the fact that we all have lives outside this game.
Hopefully there will be mechanics in place to have the risk vs reward balanced out.
The problem is, everyone takes the safest route ALWAYS. If people have the option to not participate in pvp, most will take it. Just as if there was an option to purchase finished goods via an NPC...no one would craft.
You knew the game had full loot pvp, you knew they were planning tribal warfare conquest. Its why i joined, and a good portion of the game came from darkfall.
Look everyone respects your PVE, its would not be hard at all for someone like you, or ANY pve only players to find a happy home in a tribe that not only would be able to protect your work, but also find you new land though conquests to terraform.
Im not sure if your surprised yet that all these "griefers" in game steal your pants and move on...rather than take things you really value....
The PVE crowd is stuck int heir stigma over full loot pvp, the horror stories from darkfall, mostly told by people who were unable to adapt to the settings.
People who wish to avoid pvp can do so in a tribe where people whos job is nothing more than to protect your work. Theres plenty of these people.
However giving the option to stay safe will mean a majority will, untill they feel strong enough to conquer those around them, thats the problem.
Im not trying to force crafters into pvp combat with pvp focused characters, just dont give everyone the option to nullify my work.
You will find out soon enough, that the full loot pvp (hopefully with no rules) only brings another layer of complexity. At worse it give you the reason to pve where without such a system, you would only get to do it once.
I would also like to point out that i have yet to hear ANYONE in game actually get griefed, and those who lost it all quickly learned how helpfull people were.
So lets drop the lable to pvpers, its an old label, and darkfall wasnt some cesspool of griefers and gankers, it just required you to be social, plan ahead, and be aware at all time. You could play darkfall while relaxing and drinking a beer, you just needed to be around people you trust, and aware of your situation and what you carried on you.
I know not all people prefer what i like, however a no option ffa full loot pvp worls with no optional saftey zones not only prepares the community, it also helps the community get over the learning curve involved with it.
I was once like this, for fear of losing pixels, my work, or even just death in a videogame. Once you get over it, the system unrestrained adds so much to the game...i dont think people quite understand how fufilling accomplishing pve acts of greatness is in a world like that.
I reccomend jumping into this world asap, a few advertisements from willbonney requresting combat protection pvpers to protect works of art is all it would take to gather an army that could defend.
Right now this community is torn between those who get it, and those who just want to be left alone, this needs to change fast. Even if the pvp crowd loses, it needs to happen fast so we can all move on or adjust accordingly. There is little compromise, giving the option to be left alone means a vast majority (even the pvpers) will take that route, as it instantly becones the most advantageous route. That is the problem with optional safe zones.
You do realize this is how it is going to be after prelude right>? So no need to have two servers the same. There is no anti-gank policy merely a griefing policy which is don't camp someone for hours with no gain. Common sense really...
Turns out, im talking about the tribal warfare installment not yet in game....
its common sense...really...
Way I figure it would be most balanced: make PvP switch a one way street. Once your tribe choose (with proper confirmation dialogue up warning!) to be vulnerable, they are vulnerable forever - no running to claim resources and then suddenly going peaceful, no attacking and then hiding yourself afterwards, just a one-way toggle. This would let new tribes get established later in the worlds development (vs say a timed removal of safezones) too.
Also note, Jooky plans to have Good villages able to become starter areas for new players, so being a safezone is almost a necessity there. I'm fairly sure a majority would not like to get ganked on their first spawn into world, and any fair PvPer wouldn't really want to target them.