PvP, PvE players and interactions - Suggestions

[yuuya331]

Creating new characters and village/claim and grinding stats and lp to get it able to gank other people could be cumbersome enough to deter a large amount of ganks.

You don’t seem to understand anything about "true player malice." You're just complaining after being beaten by stronger players without grasping the bigger picture. You’re too bound by the notion that crime = evil.
In reality, harassment can be carried out without spending
Your suggestion would only work as a solid mechanism if players were restricted to one account and one character per player. Also, being ganked doesn’t inherently make the victim a "good person" or someone who deserves to be protected.

[Lojka]

ganking need to stop be lethal, it is ok if someone stole all your items, even if aggressor dosn't need them.
But removing character... it is "quit" for many players

[yuuya331]

If losing your character makes you quit, you'd probably end up leaving the game for some other reason, even if you weren't killed.

When I first started this game, getting knocked out usually meant being killed outright. I’ve been shot dead by arrows flying like catapults while farming inside walls. I once lost a character during a massacre orchestrated purely for amusement by higher-level players. I literally lost everything, including my entire base.

But I didn’t quit. In fact, I upgraded to a Gold subscription.

Games that overprotect or overly guide players aren’t fun, in my opinion. This game already provides enough protection for its players. There are plenty of easier games out there for those who want them. This game doesn’t need to imitate that.

[loleznub]

ganking need to stop be lethal, it is ok if someone stole all your items, even if aggressor dosn't need them.
But removing character... it is "quit" for many players

Ganking is already non lethal.. these Sprucey's today just don't know how good they have it

[jpjpjpppjp]

Creating new characters and village/claim and grinding stats and lp to get it able to gank other people could be cumbersome enough to deter a large amount of ganks.

You don’t seem to understand anything about "true player malice." You're just complaining after being beaten by stronger players without grasping the bigger picture. You’re too bound by the notion that crime = evil.
In reality, harassment can be carried out without spending
Your suggestion would only work as a solid mechanism if players were restricted to one account and one character per player. Also, being ganked doesn’t inherently make the victim a "good person" or someone who deserves to be protected.

Even if I was "complaining after being beaten by stronger players", it wouldn't validate any of the points I am bringing here. I have neither claimed that crime = evil at any point. The premise, once again, is that in the majority of cases, ganking is one sided harassment, a negative interaction with little to no gain, causing immeasurable damage.
I don't understand why you feel the need to antagonize me when you are not even defending ganking. You are just yelling to a wall that everything is impossible without providing any clear reasons, scenarios. It would be much more productive to instead of trashing away any suggestion, try to build and supply new ideas or nuances that address edge cases. Again, if you can't bring anything constructive to the table and are just spouting "it's impossible", "you don't understand" with a childish attitude, you probably shouldn't even be allowed to be writing here.

While ganking doesn't inherently make the victim a good person, the vast majority it happens, it's towards a newer player or a player that has never touched criminal acts.

If losing your character makes you quit, you'd probably end up leaving the game for some other reason, even if you weren't killed.

Probably? This is highly subjective. Besides that, the logic of: "'x','y','z' cause players to quit. Since 'y' and 'z' also cause some players to quit means there is no point in fixing or improving 'x'" is retarded logic.

[yuuya331]

Again, if you can't bring anything constructive to the table and are just spouting "it's impossible", "you don't understand" with a childish attitude, you probably shouldn't even be allowed to be writing here.

Well, since Reiber has already covered most of the points, there's no need for me to go out of my way to respond
Unfortunately, overall, it's a bad idea.

[Kaios]

Games that overprotect or overly guide players aren’t fun, in my opinion. This game already provides enough protection for its players. There are plenty of easier games out there for those who want them. This game doesn’t need to imitate that.

They are available, but would you also say that they are obvious and well explained? If many players die because they fail to lower their openings at all in the 5-10 seconds before they are killed/knocked out, where was it explained to them that they should be doing that prior to it happening? Did anything even offer a hint that the combat skills need to be set or will just end up as a jumbled mess of random hotkeys when combat occurs?

[yuuya331]

Games that overprotect or overly guide players aren’t fun, in my opinion. This game already provides enough protection for its players. There are plenty of easier games out there for those who want them. This game doesn’t need to imitate that.

They are available, but would you also say that they are obvious and well explained? If many players die because they fail to lower their openings at all in the 5-10 seconds before they are killed/knocked out, where was it explained to them that they should be doing that prior to it happening? Did anything even offer a hint that the combat skills need to be set or will just end up as a jumbled mess of random hotkeys when combat occurs?

f I remember correctly, quite a while ago, Loftar mentioned that "games that are too explanatory aren't fun," so this is likely the result of that.

[jpjpjpppjp]

Again, if you can't bring anything constructive to the table and are just spouting "it's impossible", "you don't understand" with a childish attitude, you probably shouldn't even be allowed to be writing here.

Well, since Reiber has already covered most of the points, there's no need for me to go out of my way to respond
Unfortunately, overall, it's a bad idea.

Dunno what you are talking about, it's just "bad idea bad".

Games that overprotect or overly guide players aren’t fun, in my opinion. This game already provides enough protection for its players. There are plenty of easier games out there for those who want them. This game doesn’t need to imitate that.

They are available, but would you also say that they are obvious and well explained? If many players die because they fail to lower their openings at all in the 5-10 seconds before they are killed/knocked out, where was it explained to them that they should be doing that prior to it happening? Did anything even offer a hint that the combat skills need to be set or will just end up as a jumbled mess of random hotkeys when combat occurs?

f I remember correctly, quite a while ago, Loftar mentioned that "games that are too explanatory aren't fun," so this is likely the result of that.

There are ways a game can teach without being explanatory, soft tutorials exist and are the best way of teaching a player. That is still another thing that should be improved.

[loleznub]

Dunno what you are talking about, it's just "bad idea bad".

If you can't bring anything constructive to the table and are just spouting "it's impossible", "you don't understand" with a childish attitude, you probably shouldn't even be allowed to be writing here.