Originally posted by hinge645

Safe zones are not needed. What is needed is a self policing system where you are free to attack whoever you want but there are consequences. Even a ganker will think twice about killing people in cities if the result of doing so is themselves getting swarmed by elite guards every time they enter said city.

Isn't that what a safe or safer zone is? you could kill someone but you get owned by guards or whatever.

In Eve if you kill someone in Empire space you get blown up and lose everything.

Originally posted by JGMIII

Originally posted by hinge645

Safe zones are not needed. What is needed is a self policing system where you are free to attack whoever you want but there are consequences. Even a ganker will think twice about killing people in cities if the result of doing so is themselves getting swarmed by elite guards every time they enter said city.

 

Isn't that what a safe or safer zone is? you could kill someone but you get owned by guards or whatever.

In Eve if you kill someone in Empire space you get blown up and lose everything.

 

/nods It's simply a difference between a hard coded prohibition, you literally cannot attack another player, and a soft coded one, attacking another player has dire consequences. If the consequences are dire and sure enough you may as well have hard coded it. It gets fuzzy when they try to offer some protection and still allow players to succeed in attacking others. You'll find though that when that happens the protection often ends up getting exploited. Like tricking other players into turning red.

but look at EVE.  safe space was never perfectly safe.  even before people learned to tank concord (fixed quickly) they could kill you with a kestrel fitting with cruise missiles.  they lost their kessy, you died.  what this meant is no one picked on noobs, they didn't gank random players, because it wasn't worth losing the kestrel and taking sec status hit.  but freighters filled with goods? that was worth it.

so a safe zone is.. safeish in EVE.  best system i've seen so far.

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by JGMIII

Originally posted by hinge645

Safe zones are not needed. What is needed is a self policing system where you are free to attack whoever you want but there are consequences. Even a ganker will think twice about killing people in cities if the result of doing so is themselves getting swarmed by elite guards every time they enter said city.

 

Isn't that what a safe or safer zone is? you could kill someone but you get owned by guards or whatever.

In Eve if you kill someone in Empire space you get blown up and lose everything.

 

 

/nods It's simply a difference between a hard coded prohibition, you literally cannot attack another player, and a soft coded one, attacking another player has dire consequences. If the consequences are dire and sure enough you may as well have hard coded it. It gets fuzzy when they try to offer some protection and still allow players to succeed in attacking others. You'll find though that when that happens the protection often ends up getting exploited. Like tricking other players into turning red.

For me personally I always liked the fact that I had to actually play smart even in safer zones.

for a couple months I stayed in high sec in Eve and I liked that if I played stupid and feel for pirate tricks I would get blown up or forced into an engagement.

Imo even in a safe zone If someone loots my stuff or tries to attack me in someway they deserve to turn red.

I prefer soft coded tbh but thats just me and If a game was hardcoded to not let people get attacked at all in safe zones it wouldn;t bother me much since im more of a low sec kinda guy.

Originally posted by Majinash

but look at EVE.  safe space was never perfectly safe.  even before people learned to tank concord (fixed quickly) they could kill you with a kestrel fitting with cruise missiles.  they lost their kessy, you died.  what this meant is no one picked on noobs, they didn't gank random players, because it wasn't worth losing the kestrel and taking sec status hit.  but freighters filled with goods? that was worth it.

 

so a safe zone is.. safeish in EVE.  best system i've seen so far.

Yeah I agree the way Eve has handled "Safer" areas in game is much better imo.

I don't like the idea of safe zones. I would rather impose restrictions on levels when it comes to pvp. Like 4 levels below or above you only. That way you don't see level 90s ganking level 10s. Whatever pvp you encounter will be more fair plus you have a chance of ganging up on bullies and actually defend yourself

I think that walking around in a shady part of town after dark when the guards are thin should have a bit of risk to it. So in the so called "soft" safe zones you still have an element of risk if you wander off on your own but you are relatively safe if you stay in the populated areas which is usually where the majority of shops etc are located. Want to venture down by the docks in the middle of the night? Do so at your own risk.

And even if you do manage to get ganked down by the docks, if the game employs a bounty system then you can just put a bounty on the head of your killer. Then he'll get his just desserts.

I think there are lots of creative ways in which to handle this rather than just punting and disallowing it all together.

Originally posted by Fibsdk

I don't like the idea of safe zones. I would rather impose restrictions on levels when it comes to pvp. Like 4 levels below or above you only. That way you don't see level 90s ganking level 10s. Whatever pvp you encounter will be more fair plus you have a chance of ganging up on bullies and actually defend yourself

In Open ended games you really have power levels, so I don't really know how that would work tbh.

Honestly the fair part of Opened ended MMos Pvpwise is actually having a safer zone that doesn't let you get ganked 24/7.

People that cry for "Fair" or Pvp on equal terms really don;t understand Open ended pvp games. If ya want fair or equal try regular MMOs with instanced pvp mini games.

Originally posted by hinge645

I think that walking around in a shady part of town after dark when the guards are thin should have a bit of risk to it. So in the so called "soft" safe zones you still have an element of risk if you wander off on your own but you are relatively safe if you stay in the populated areas which is usually where the majority of shops etc are located. Want to venture down by the docks in the middle of the night? Do so at your own risk.

And even if you do manage to get ganked down by the docks, if the game employs a bounty system then you can just put a bounty on the head of your killer. Then he'll get his just desserts.

I think there are lots of creative ways in which to handle this rather than just punting and disallowing it all together.

The one thing I do know about FFA Open ended games is people are pretty messed up and will take any advantage you give them.

If you let people gank others in "Lightly guarded areas" they will exploit that. Give these guys an Inch and they take a mile.

I prefer the way Eve does things, I don;t agree with making everyone just unattackable either.

Ultima Online handled this with the best and simplest solution. Two mirror worlds. New players start in the safe world with the easier monsters and freedom from gank. Players can graduate to the "hardcore" world at any time when they are ready for harder mobs, want to loot player corpses and hide, or are just wandering into a gate and have no idea what theyre getting themselves into.

Having two worlds also benefits a problem that I have heard Darkfall having (and only heard about so dont blast me on this) the scarcity of land now. When you double the space you can put buildings on, higher end and more serious guilds can have their bases in this harder world with greater benefits (resources,loot, ect).

Agree/Disagree?

Originally posted by jevtyrn

Ultima Online handled this with the best and simplest solution. Two mirror worlds. New players start in the safe world with the easier monsters and freedom from gank. Players can graduate to the "hardcore" world at any time when they are ready for harder mobs, want to loot player corpses and hide, or are just wandering into a gate and have no idea what theyre getting themselves into.

Having two worlds also benefits a problem that I have heard Darkfall having (and only heard about so dont blast me on this) the scarcity of land now. When you double the space you can put buildings on, higher end and more serious guilds can have their bases in this harder world with greater benefits (resources,loot, ect).

Agree/Disagree?

No Way!!!! a Safe or Safer zone is usually only 10-20% of the gameworld. If you make an entire gameworld just for pve you can completely ignore any risk at all.

That can easily destroy a pvp focused game imo.

You put safer zones in the game and you make it possible to live out a characters life in that safer area but you give incentives to actually travel into the harsher zones. You don't just set up a mirror world and totally ignore pvp mechanics.

Trammel was a terrible, terrible decision they would have been better off just expanding the original map to include a good size safer area.

I think some of the pve posters in this thread are doing what the pvpers usually do in my MMOs. I give you an inch (safer zones) you wanna take a mile (Mirror pve worlds) thats a little much.

Originally posted by JGMIII

I think some of the pve posters in this thread are doing what the pvpers usually do in my MMOs. I give you an inch (safer zones) you wanna take a mile (Mirror pve worlds) thats a little much.

It seems to me that if someone just likes PvE, there's nothing wrong with just letting them PvE.  Characters who can't be attacked are just minding their own business, doing what they enjoy and not interfering with anyone else.

Originally posted by MudHekket

Originally posted by JGMIII

I think some of the pve posters in this thread are doing what the pvpers usually do in my MMOs. I give you an inch (safer zones) you wanna take a mile (Mirror pve worlds) thats a little much.

 

It seems to me that if someone just likes PvE, there's nothing wrong with just letting them PvE.  Characters who can't be attacked are just minding their own business, doing what they enjoy and not interfering with anyone else.

These games Im speaking of are Pvp focused games. I want people to have safe areas so they could learn the game without being owned every ten seconds. maybe even give them an option to live peacfully in that enviorment. I don't want these people to be god like an totally unattackable, sitting in game like fat cats having access to the best shit and destroying player markets.

Im sorry but if you want a totally Pve experience with no harassment from pvpers you might want to look else where.

Like I said, I give and Inch, you take a mile. Why don;t we just get rid of pvpers altogether.............

Im starting to regret putting this thread up, Even with majority of people agreeing with me some of you are just not built to handle even a little resistance in your game play.

Originally posted by JGMIII

Originally posted by jevtyrn

Ultima Online handled this with the best and simplest solution. Two mirror worlds. New players start in the safe world with the easier monsters and freedom from gank. Players can graduate to the "hardcore" world at any time when they are ready for harder mobs, want to loot player corpses and hide, or are just wandering into a gate and have no idea what theyre getting themselves into.

Having two worlds also benefits a problem that I have heard Darkfall having (and only heard about so dont blast me on this) the scarcity of land now. When you double the space you can put buildings on, higher end and more serious guilds can have their bases in this harder world with greater benefits (resources,loot, ect).

Agree/Disagree?

No Way!!!! a Safe or Safer zone is usually only 10-20% of the gameworld. If you make an entire gameworld just for pve you can completely ignore any risk at all.

That can easily destroy a pvp focused game imo.

You put safer zones in the game and you make it possible to live out a characters life in that safer area but you give incentives to actually travel into the harsher zones. You don't just set up a mirror world and totally ignore pvp mechanics.

Trammel was a terrible, terrible decision they would have been better off just expanding the original map to include a good size safer area.

I think some of the pve posters in this thread are doing what the pvpers usually do in my MMOs. I give you an inch (safer zones) you wanna take a mile (Mirror pve worlds) thats a little much.

The issue wiht UO/Trammel was that when the game came out  the devs did not really understand the long term implications that their system entailed.  As such they were developing both a PVE and a PVP game in the same package.  We now know that certain elements of each design simply cannot coexist in one game.  As such you have to make a design decision on which side you want to concentrate on. Otherwise one side will overwhelm the other and push it out (eg gankers pushing out PvEer or too many anti-PvP protections making PvP have little impact on the gameworld)

The main issue of safe zones in PvP games is that they simply cannot contain the level of content and resources that the un-safe areas do otherwise there will be no reason to go into the un-safe zones exept for some casual PvP.  A non-PvP player who 'outgrows' the content of a safe zone either has to switch to a different gamestyle or quit the game.  They are not the target audience of the game and thus 'second tier'.

If the UO devs went with a 'good size safer area' it would either be just like having Tremmel or it would be inferior non-PvP content.  SInce the intent behind Tremmel was to help them keep the non-PvP players an inferior safe zone would not have worked.  The people Tremmel was targeted at were the ones who wanted to play UO but without the FFA PvP.  They did not want UO-lite where they would be barred from the better content since that is the UO they were already unhappy with. 

---

Originally posted by JGMIII
Im starting to regret putting this thread up, Even with majority of people agreeing with me some of you are just not built to handle even a little resistance in your game play.

---

You say that as if it was a character flaw. MMOs aren't about "handling" anything. They are about seeking out entertainment. The greater portion of the MMO player population prefers to cooperate with other players instead of fighting against them. In fact, given the current crop of games, MMO players seem to prefer to completely ignore other players as they pursue their next personal goal.

If other players are anything like me, when they want to fight against other people, they go where they know there's a fight on all the time - FPS games. I find it a far more entertaining way to fight because I'm ready for a fair fight and I can get one. And I find the fights more entertaining than in any MMO I've played.

Originally posted by JB47394

 

---

Originally posted by JGMIII
Im starting to regret putting this thread up, Even with majority of people agreeing with me some of you are just not built to handle even a little resistance in your game play.

---

 

You say that as if it was a character flaw. MMOs aren't about "handling" anything. They are about seeking out entertainment. The greater portion of the MMO player population prefers to cooperate with other players instead of fighting against them. In fact, given the current crop of games, MMO players seem to prefer to completely ignore other players as they pursue their next personal goal.

If other players are anything like me, when they want to fight against other people, they go where they know there's a fight on all the time - FPS games. I find it a far more entertaining way to fight because I'm ready for a fair fight and I can get one. And I find the fights more entertaining than in any MMO I've played.

Of course MOST people are rational and enjoy fighting others when everyone actually wants to fight.  That makes complete sense=)  Until PKer types can find a legitimate justification for finding ENJOYMENT in fighting people who don't want to fight back or can't, they'll be ignored by developers till the the end of time.   UO's original design was a flawed concept.  Origin just didn't understand it until a couple of years later.

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by JB47394

 

---

Originally posted by JGMIII
Im starting to regret putting this thread up, Even with majority of people agreeing with me some of you are just not built to handle even a little resistance in your game play.

---

 

You say that as if it was a character flaw. MMOs aren't about "handling" anything. They are about seeking out entertainment. The greater portion of the MMO player population prefers to cooperate with other players instead of fighting against them. In fact, given the current crop of games, MMO players seem to prefer to completely ignore other players as they pursue their next personal goal.

If other players are anything like me, when they want to fight against other people, they go where they know there's a fight on all the time - FPS games. I find it a far more entertaining way to fight because I'm ready for a fair fight and I can get one. And I find the fights more entertaining than in any MMO I've played.

 

Of course MOST people are rational and enjoy fighting others when everyone actually wants to fight.  That makes complete sense=)  Until PKer types can find a legitimate justification for finding ENJOYMENT in fighting people who don't want to fight back or can't, they'll be ignored by developers till the the end of time.   UO's original design was a flawed concept.  Origin just didn't understand it until a couple of years later.

These are Open ended games, Not something like WoW where you all queue up for a Ctf session with equal numbers.

In these games you never know who maybe around the corner, could be one guy or maybe its 40. These games are pvp focused games with risk. "Safer" zones are fine, people should learn the game without being ganked 24/7 within reason. As a ganker and pirate myself If you took away my ability to even attack someone even if attacking someone ment my death you're limiting me.

If I want to crush your skull I should be able to if im prepared to deal with the consequences. If you wan't it hardcoded so you can't be touched and are playing in god mode you can easily play WoW or WAR or one of the more timid MMOs.

Safer zones give new players time to learn and players that decide they dont want to actively PVP a place to live but there will always be something luring them to the more dangerous areas like Rare materials, cooler dungeons and stuff like that. There will always be a slight risk even in "safer" areas, if you don't want that risk and want complete safety or to even ignore the pvpers completely this is obviously not the type of game for you.

Bottom line is Should a Open ended MMO with a pvp focus give players  safer area? yes   Should this safer area hold no risk for the players? no. It wouldnt be much of a pvp focused open ended game if it was.

Originally posted by JB47394

 

---

Originally posted by JGMIII
Im starting to regret putting this thread up, Even with majority of people agreeing with me some of you are just not built to handle even a little resistance in your game play.

---

 

You say that as if it was a character flaw. MMOs aren't about "handling" anything. They are about seeking out entertainment.

You already know that these games hold real in game risk. If you can't handle that then don't play.

In these types of games not being able to handle risk is a character flaw.

Sure games are supposed to be fun, If you don't want what a game has to offer don't play.

You say more people like to work together than fight eachother, Well I agree go play those games.

Safe zones keep you from getting ganked while learning thats all. Ina  game like DF you don;t have that luxury in Eve you do but still have the risk to deal with.

Eve is a superior game with more freedom because of this.