Sanctuaries

[Erik_the_Blue]

Sanctuaries without some sort of "higher power" rationale to back them up don't seem like a good idea.

why? dont use the sandbox excuse, things can still be dynamic without players directly affecting them

Sanctuaries, in the absence of all this "greater authority" stuff, would simply be arbitrary player- and/or dev-created claims that prevent players from performing a certain action. It'd be like a limited but more absolute version of the claims we already have. It doesn't match up with current game mechanics, it's unimaginative, and it's heavy handed. It is minimally sufficient, but through a direct and arbitrary manner. The sandbox excuse still applies. Note I suggested a mundane approach without referring to it as a "sanctuary".

for that matter, why do things need to be incredibly complicated all the time? K.I.S.S.

Some of us like complexity. I'll agree that solutions to problems should be simple, though.

also note that the original sanctuary suggestion would solve RoB type problems as well

Yes, as would diplomacy. A solution to the tragedy of the commons brought about by the players would be far more interesting than one brought about by the devs.

[Jackard]

also, why do you keep asserting that sanctuaries must be related to religion?

without referring to it as a "sanctuary"

that's good, because your idea where this sort of area could be destroyed wouldn't actually be a sanctuary. aside from the possibility of some slightly stronger animals that would still be destroyed with ease, itd be exactly the same as every other single area and therefore pointless

[Yolan]

I certainly would love to see non-player controlled forest sanctuaries, which strongly resist civilisation updates (hence stronger animals). These could represent the 'hearts' of identifiable forest areas.

How about this?

A great, freaking huge tree. Chopping it down would require several strong players hacking away at once, as it regens, and that is _after_ getting through whatever high-level forest creatures are defending it, including, maybe, the corporeal form of a forest creature. If the tree is gone, the 'god' which associates with it is banished. Trees within the radius of the great tree could grow at a faster rate, but also, if are chopped down, bring the attention of strong aggressive creatures.

[EveryTimeV]

A great, freaking huge tree.

Deku tree, guarded by a band of ents.

[Yolan]

Perhaps players with druid skills, whatever they might be, could even imbue a regular tree with 'great tree' status (inviting a god to associate with it) using a complex/difficult rite. There would need to be some kind of serious limitations on how many of these could exist/how far interspaced.

[EveryTimeV]

Perhaps players with druid skills, whatever they might be, could even imbue a regular tree with 'great tree' status (inviting a god to associate with it) using a complex/difficult rite. There would need to be some kind of serious limitations on how many of these could exist/how far interspaced.

Or even a time limit to how long they are imbued. For what purposes besides being a godly ally these would hold I have no idea.

[Jackard]

I'd actually like to see both - a forest guarded by crazy tree people, a quiet old memorial that traditionally acts as an neutral ground between parties. (You'd need an ingame mechanic to represent the weight of tradition - if it was in name only, no one (aside from the few suckers) would follow it.)

Sanctuaries without some sort of "higher power" rationale to back them up don't seem like a good idea.

why? dont use the sandbox excuse, things can still be dynamic without players directly affecting them

Sanctuaries, in the absence of all this "greater authority" stuff, would simply be arbitrary player- and/or dev-created claims that prevent players from performing a certain action. It'd be like a limited but more absolute version of the claims we already have. It doesn't match up with current game mechanics, it's unimaginative, and it's heavy handed. It is minimally sufficient, but through a direct and arbitrary manner. The sandbox excuse still applies. Note I suggested a mundane approach without referring to it as a "sanctuary".

The original post could be summed up with "maybe we should have areas that the players can't fuck with." Call it unimaginative, arbitrary, heavy-handed, whatever - but you should have made a new thread instead of hijacking this one with unrelated religious stuff.

Also you haven't given any reasoning behind the thinking "players must be able to change everything in a sandbox game!!" other than "well it's a sandbox!!! lol"

[Caradon]

man cant we just steal ideas from cool movies like highlander it would be totally sweet

Yes, whenever any one of us dies, Lightning should tear through an area and add that persons stats to the other.. Very good game balance.

[Erik_the_Blue]

The original post could be summed up with "maybe we should have areas that the players can't fuck with." Call it unimaginative, arbitrary, heavy-handed, whatever - but you should have made a new thread instead of hijacking this one with unrelated religious stuff.

The devs have said they don't like the idea of absolute protection, period, which is exactly what the original idea was. I'm trying to find a way to make it less absolute. Also, the OP introduced the religion idea in his second post, and every time I use the religion idea, I point out it leads to a divergent line of thought.

Also you haven't given any reasoning behind the thinking "players must be able to change everything in a sandbox game!!" other than "well it's a sandbox!!! lol"

Because it's not quite a sandbox if some of the sand is actually cement. I suppose there has to be a deeper reasoning behind why players must go around killing each other in a deathmatch game? You haven't given any reasoning behind the thinking that "any area that could be destroyed wouldn't actually be a sanctuary" other than "well it's a sanctuary".

[Jackard]

Also you haven't given any reasoning behind the thinking "players must be able to change everything in a sandbox game!!" other than "well it's a sandbox!!! lol"

Because it's not quite a sandbox if some of the sand is actually cement. I suppose there has to be a deeper reasoning behind why players must go around killing each other in a deathmatch game? You haven't given any reasoning behind the thinking that "any area that could be destroyed wouldn't actually be a sanctuary" other than "well it's a sanctuary".

"maybe we should have areas that the players can't fuck with"

*posts a dozen ways to fuck with said areas*

good job

the entire point is that it's absolute. if you're going to talk it down from that you might as well make a new thread. if people can screw it up, they will - for the challenge, the reward, or just for shits and giggles - nothing could stop a highpowered character from destroying a "protected" forest. And so you end up with "sanctuaries" that aren't, really - because not only are they hostile towards players, any player with enough stats can come along and obliterate them. just like every other area.