No more PK'ing and trust groups

[joojoo1975]

Bringing exciting NPCs, backstory, procedurally generated content, artwork etc costs money.

That sounds like every other MMORPG out there. Maybe it's just me, but I actually prefer the complete lack of NPCs. NPCs don't fit into the mindset of giving an empty world to the playerbase and have the "actual world" emerge from that.

Add an Axe - Add a Defence.
Add a Wall - Add a way to destroy it.
Add Horse - Add Pike to kill horsemans.

Rock/Paper/Scissors-Gameplay may be balanced, but incredibly stale.

but do you still play R/P/S ??

I do

now would u play Rock, paper, AK-47? if the other guy was only allowed to use the AK?(yea over the top, but u get the idea)

I just want . . . http://playoverdrive.files.wordpress.co ... avalry.jpg


pic says it all

[Elirian]

Why would you add artificial restrictions to player activities in a game like this? You're missing the whole point of a sandbox.

That said, having lived through the slow death of one game due to harsh death penalties combined with open pvp and the steady increasing skill among the playerbase, it is something to be aware of. Eventually the sheep leave and the wolves turn on each other. Then the weak wolves leave and the strong wolves turn on each other. Then the strong wolves leave, and the strongest wolves turn on each other. Until there are 20-30 guys left playing your game who have been spending more hours on it than their day jobs for the last 10 years, and woe betide the newbie who stumbles into their playground.

Keep in mind too that your most vocal players are the ones who tend to be the most experienced, and thus have most to lose/least to gain from any change that would stop such decay. Nor will they be able to see any benefit to such changes from within their own perspective. They and all their friends will typically be screaming 'THINK THIS IDEA SUCKS IT WOULD KILL THE GAME' .

So while artificially limiting the 'permitted' actions of players is a terrible idea, you have to be prepared to do something about the consequences, despite the most vocal 1% of your playerbase screaming that what you are doing heralds the apocalypse, making it look as though the playerbase is unanimous in their hatred for the idea.

Oh, and all that said, it took 15-16 years for that other game to get to the sad state it is in now, but then again, it was more forgiving than this one.

[Sidran]

The "good" need to have lots of way to defende. Dogs, guards, traps, and so.
The "evil" need to feel the game dangerous, to have a challenge.

A player that grind all the night while he sleep, and the morning he is Superman...well, honestly it isn't an Evil player but only a lamer nerd.
Give to the Griever, a sense of the danger, the game will be really more interesting, and it stop the boring kids that wanna simple Win Easily.

We dont want to take the PvP element out of the game. if we did, the game would be boring. We all love reading the posts in Congress and we all love it when the "badguy" gets it in the end.

it's just the fact that there needs to be balance.

I would like a system where it would be harder for the attacker to attack a village. basically something that your village can invest in(defence buffs, Movement buffs, movement debuffs, attack debuffs) where the attacker has to really consider if his group of merry men, should go against this village.

Thats why I have proposed change of claim intrusion mechanics - here
I believe it brings exactly the balance you two are talking about.

[Flame]

Why would you add artificial restrictions to player activities in a game like this?

No. Look the real thing.
The griever can easily kill you, all the game give him tons of possibilitys.
To defende yourself you can build a wall AND become a griever.

What this mean? That is exactly inverse.
The GRiever HAVE possibilityes, the "good" Nope. So Let's Add Some Possibilityes of Defence to the "good" to let this game FREE for everyone.

The Smarter win, but each side Can Potenzially be strongh. This is.

(probably you'r answering to the first post and i agree with you. Not artificial block but Artificial Possibility of defence his liberty of Attak And defence.)

[jorb]

Pvp will, unsurprisingly, not be removed.

[Thijssnl]

But, jorb, will things be changed? More options for carebears/good guys/whatever?
It would be something else if everyone could defend themselves, if only a bit, and if grievers had to actually do something challenging.

[Flame]

and yes, pvp need to exist.

And it is PLayer Vs Player, not Griever vs Unarmed Farmer.

Give a Balance between the Attakker and the Defender, putting dogs or traps or things like this, please.
An Active defence.

[Wipfmetz]

but do you still play R/P/S ??
[...]
now would u play Rock, paper, AK-47? if the other guy was only allowed to use the AK?(yea over the top, but u get the idea)
[...]

Sorry, i didn't mean to sound dismissive. And yes, i also see a need for balance. I just think that the Weapon<>Counter - style is a rather stale balancing paradigm. It would still be better than no balance, though.

[Prism]

Pvp will, unsurprisingly, not be removed.

PvP is goofy and weird the way it is, and has a spectacular ability to turn otherwise dedicated and eager players off the game in droves. It's not good game design.

[sabinati]

Pvp will, unsurprisingly, not be removed.

PvP is goofy and weird the way it is, and has a spectacular ability to turn otherwise dedicated and eager players off the game in droves. It's not good game design.

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010