A peaceful mode...

[Lurux]

will build wall around your claim wall gg

[Valgar]

will build wall around your claim wall gg

What's the point if all your effort are erased with 2 clicks by moderators and all your account banned ?
You'll do it once, possibly twice, and you'll not repeat cause it's useless.
Griefers aren't dumbs, they just have to be trained like animals.

[animary]

Sounds great in theory, but how will you deal with people stealling your stuff, destroying stuff you built and building shit to block you in, you can't fight them, so they can just stand there and be annoying. Also no you can't walk past them like in other mmos. So what non pvp gonna solve in this case if all actions are available minus the killing other player part.

Your stuff would be inside your pali, how would anyone steal it? And your pali would be on your claim; no PVP could also mean no trespassing so destruction is no longer an issue. (And even in the current game I've proposed that claims should not cover rivers or resources, so an "honest" citizen wouldn't need trespassing to travel on rivers or get to a quest giver.) As for creating alts to block you in, a simple solution would be a steady but low hp drain on anyone not on a claim; this would not be enough to pose a threat to normal active players, but low hp alts would be killed in a day from it (it would still be possible, though hardly feasible, to resort to such tactics).

Eliminating PVP would also mean tracking down and eliminating any loopholes for which PVP would be the only solution.

I doubt any of this will ever transpire; the PVP proponents are too vocal, the devs have no interest, and I think neither wants to see which server would attract the most players. I've long stated there are enough ways to get killed in this game without having to worry that any other player you encounter will kill you for no reason other than you are there; I'm not against PVP as such, but am against a system which condones serial killers because "it is fun" (the same mentality that runs down a beach destroying everyone's sand castles "because it's fun" with no regard to ruining everyone else' day at the beach). A non-PVP server would promote interaction, cooperation, and a less paranoid gameplay.

Just my opinion, and we know what those are like.

[gravesmerch]

a curious experiment would be full hermit server: remove all cooperation mechanics, no friends, no kins, no parties, no village claims, no permissions, only claim owner can use it, etc, etc... if successful, all industries would be slowed down, including pvp industry, but theres a chance programmers would get around these restrictions, with lots of work tho

[aikidragon]

a curious experiment would be full hermit server: remove all cooperation mechanics, no friends, no kins, no parties, no village claims, no permissions, only claim owner can use it, etc, etc... if successful, all industries would be slowed down, including pvp industry, but theres a chance programmers would get around these restrictions, with lots of work tho

You cannot remove cooperation by removing coop mechanics without moderation.

You can only enforce solo play by having gm's that ban players who break the no-coop rules. If you want solo experiments in a survival game go ahead and play Rust on solo servers.

[gravesmerch]

a curious experiment would be full hermit server: remove all cooperation mechanics, no friends, no kins, no parties, no village claims, no permissions, only claim owner can use it, etc, etc... if successful, all industries would be slowed down, including pvp industry, but theres a chance programmers would get around these restrictions, with lots of work tho

You cannot remove cooperation by removing coop mechanics without moderation.

You can only enforce solo play by having gm's that ban players who break the no-coop rules. If you want solo experiments in a survival game go ahead and play Rust on solo servers.

how you going to coop if you cannot share claims, and you have no kin info, nothing? maybe with lots of extra mods, but thats not a given

[Reiber]

wtf even is this threat.

just say that you want a fully client side single player/p2p coop version of the game, no need to cope up retarded scenarios where there is actual gms, trying to enforce your specific breed of retardation on the whole playerbase.

if you remove any player interaction there is no need to have this game be an multiplayer experience with an consistent world.
i have like 4 different minecraft singleplayer worlds in my saves, that is what you want,

[Avu]

The PVE mode should not be the same as the actual gameplay.
...
The problem is that will cut a good chunk of the already tiny population on actual server.

I'm not scared about a private PVE, more about the death of the PVP server if a such server comes to life.

...

And this is the meat of the issue. It scares the shit out all the cancerous ganker-raider types that their prey will run away (as anyone sane would given the choice). So they scream and cry and bitch to keep things as shitty as they are. Unfortunately jlo agrees with them and would rather have the equivalent of 10 year olds causing drama than you know be successful.

[MtPillow]

It would be interesting to have a world where PvP was disabled, run that world for awhile and see what comes out of it.

Do we get a thriving world with high retention? Will the LARPers actually start terraforming wars?

Will the HnH community detox because all the PvP bois lose interest?

[Unfug]

there's a chance, that W16 is becoming more non-PvP friendly as soon World S1 starts - at least is was the plan of jorbtar to start new worlds more frequently and W16 shall remain for longer