+- +-

+-Admin

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 2531
Latest: NeedGamesNow
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 12059
Total Topics: 1981
Most Online Today: 40
Most Online Ever: 46635
(September 27, 2023, 12:23:37 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 25
Total: 25

Author Topic: Should cities be PVP?  (Read 4220 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline imamthorburn

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +5/-0
Re: Should cities be PVP?
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2015, 01:00:14 pm »
 Well I have not been on for while since recently for those that don't know ive been on this server since alpha 8. I remember back in the day where the whole map was pvp with stop signs. It was fun but frustrating at the same time. I have no problem with pvp itself. The one thing that I don't like that comes with the pvp is the raiding aspect.

 Me personally theres no point. You mainly raid a base when the other player is not online, then it becomes pve you vs the base. Me and Hotrod have debated that very in depth about that in the past  :). I don't wish to turn this into that type a discussion im just voicing my opinion. Witch leads to my suggestion.

 If you open pvp to cities (any group of structures that is outlined by a road) in the north then it should be strictly pvp no raiding. and both players must be with in the road limits of the city.


  All in all i do agree with madman i think the split map is what keeps people coming here and that's good to see. I also agree opening up pvp in the north cities is starting  to go in the grey area. Its pve in the north....Well except in cities..........and don't raid player bases with stop signs. it starts to get blurry.


 The bottom line is this, Those that want pvp and raiding will be in the south those that don't will be in the north. Those that want to interact, will. those that don't, wont. That's how it is. Im not sure if introducing north cities pvp would encourage anyone in north to interact, probably drive them further out because if they wanted to pvp they would move south or  closer to ground zero where pvp is allowed.

 Its a fine line. There is no right or wrong answers but there  is my 2cents so there you go.

 




 

guest215

  • Guest
Re: Should cities be PVP?
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2015, 01:45:26 pm »
There is no raiding any more thor. I haven't outlawed it, but the modifier is 100x protection when players are offline.
Steel has a hardness of 80 versus tungsten at 30, or iron at 5.
Raiding is nigh impossible unless very early on, when you don't have anything but faulty tools. And remember raiding was easy to stop with stop signs.

It used to be that GZ was large with quite a few prime POIs that weren't as readily found elsewhere. Remember...you would have to travel 20k to have a chance of another city, which made GZ a prime spot for possible PVP. What exists now is there are are little cities every few km, and additionally prime POIs all over not in cities, and as a result GBZ is no longer "GZ". It's a footnote now. The PVP dynamic lost huge when cities sprung up everywhere.

People that talk about cities being PVP will hurt them may be neglecting these factors. Instead of a 9x9 city 20 km from the nearest city, now you have a what, 2x4? city with multiple cities 2 km away or less in every direction?

If anything, making cities PVP could provide PVE players some excitement. One, there aren't enough PVP players to spring up and make bases in and guard every city all the time. There should be no fear of cities being "denied access." Do you honestly think 40 PVP players will spring up and take over every "city" and be able to guard them 24/7? Or that the few we have will be able to gather enough resources to dominate every city?

The PVE-choosing players far outnumber PVP players and have incredibly more resources. I would wager they could cordon off or run off any PVP player rather easily. As it stands now, "I can go south" for PVP is lip service. It isn't about making more areas "less-PVE friendly", it's about allowing for the possibility for the dynamic of PVP to occur organically.


I am simply trying to add the possibility of a new dynamic. The notion that every city would somehow be "off-limits" to players is not a realistic interpretation.

So please don't worry or fear that the game will be ruined or PVE players are being targeted so others can hunt them down like dogs. Just the chance for another player shooting at you can heighten the experienceand you don't encounter many others often as it is.

I have seen encountered one person (when not doing admin visits) since the first week and that was Mr. Bloodbank yesterday. This isn't a 2km by 2km map.

And allow me some disclosure:

Last week (I believe) I had to take action as an admin because one PVE player intentionally shot and killed another PVE player well into the PVE side.

What happened? It seemed the shooter was clearing zombies so they could safely enter and loot a prime POI (I believe a Working Stiffs). The second PVE player entered and looted as the first did the killing. So the first player shot and killed the second. Why? Because they were frustrated that they were doing the killing and someone else just waltzed in and looted. Problem is, PVE players have no recourse in such a moment. So then I get called in to police things and rules come about.

But I didn't make a knee-jerk change. I didn't adopt some new blanket policy. This all had occurred after I declared you couldn't land claim certain POIs.A rule I implemented b/c PVE players aren't thinking about sharing and cooperating as Players Versus Environment and I had to come up with another rule to force PVE players to play nice. So I thought the past week about making changes.

Administrative action and restriction have always revolved around players not playing nice with other players. In my experience as mod/admin most of it started when we divided the map into halves. Now this had reaped benefits and has possibilities, but it requires a great deal of oversight and administration. This doesn't frustrate me, what is frustrating is that it is the PVE players who are supposed to be anti-hurting another player who require this. Yesterday I spent over 6 hours investigating an issue where PVE players had been raided...by PVE players.

I'm not getting called in to check on any PVP player breaking rules or griefing someone, it is all PVE-sided. Granted that is where the vast majority lives, so it make sense from that perspective. But shouldn't that side be where a certain type of person exists who wouldn't be doing these things? Now this is not to say everyone does it. I am not labeling every North-based player selfish and unruly.  But it is worth noting as an admin. Too often players confuse administrator with police officer. True, some policing falls within the purview of an administrator, but there can be a distinct difference. Too often people clamor for me to police things and then raise concern about restrictions. It is not the administration that causes this, but the citizens.




I am also frustrated at what seems to me an unwillingness to try a new dynamic. Things change build to build, and most of what I try is due to changes in the game and how it affects players. When the developers change the world, how we live in it changes. How players behave and how they choose to play changes.

This game is in Alpha, and changes sometimes more rapidly than we would like as maps are reset constantly as a necessity, more oft than not. Why can we not all embrace the chance to at least try a new dynamic with reservations, but with an open mind? Instead of thinking of every change as something which negatively affects me. We try this for A13, see how it goes, if it is an abject failure we ditch it. And who knows for A14 they may change more (imagine all cities/wasteland biomes being radiated like the borders of Navezgane). Or what if the only crude oil blocks existed under wasteland biomes?

I wanted to allow (and hoped) people would voice their thoughts and I do not want to discourage this. But there will be changes that come that we will not have the chance to deliberate over for months. If there is indeed a new "build" every month, with A13 being Aug, A14, being Sept, than the possibility exists we try something a little different each month. The goal is to work towards finding something that is a good healthy balance, and on that road sometimes it will swing one way versus the other. But wee have to try different things to avoid stagnation and virtual death. Some things that we like we will keep, parts of other things we do not like, we will discard.

This is what I view as being an important part of a responsible admin. Helping us change and grow as a community, not just policing an isolated and secluded community who wants everyone to "get off their lawn." This isn't so much about "cities" being PVP, because realistically they all won't be. It's more about allowing for the possibility by being willing to embrace trying new things. Remember...this N/S divide I argued against strongly, but agreed it was worth a chance to try and see if it worked. Because after all, shouldn't we?


Relax. It's part of a process.


Offline disguised zombie

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Karma: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: Should cities be PVP?
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2015, 03:22:08 pm »

The cities are spread out quite a bit. What I am hoping is that even PVE players up north will be able to do PVP if they choose, up north. Or at least be forced to be a bit more alert wherever they are.

The closest city to GZ is 2k away, and there are many cities. No one really needs to go to them anyway.

because as it stands no one is even choosing to come down south to PVP and there is stagnation.

People choose to play a certain way and trying to force your way of playing the game on to those people is taking that choice away from them.  If a pve person chooses to solely pve they should not have to deal with areas in the north suddenly becoming pvp.  If pve'ers want to loot a city in pve, they should be able to do that without the worry that someone is going to kill them.  If they want to light a bunch of fires and attract a bunch of zombies to kill they shouldn't have to worry about someone watching and waiting for just the right moment.

It doesn't matter if you think my play style is invalid or not, it is purely your opinion.  If no one is choosing to pvp, then forcing the issue by trying to make areas in pve into pvp will just anger those that don't want to and may motivate them to play the hermit game much farther than typical if not play on a different server all together.

I agree that we don't really need cities to survive in the game.  However, they are part of the game and it feels like that part of the game will now be unavailable to pve players unless they add pvp to their playstyle.  Forced you could almost say.



Quote
And the solution for more intense pvp is not to remove areas from pve and effectively make the pvp area on the map larger.  A better solution would be to decrease the available area in pvp thus having pvp players closer to one another.  With the possibilities limited then resources will have to be fought over, or raided from other players.   

Don't remove areas from PVE players...a better solution is remove areas from PVP players. This is another example of what I see as illogical.

Limited resources is key, but there is no way to do that without restrictions. There are currently no limited resources because players can travel infinite distances and half the map and there is no recourse.

I'll figure something out. One may be to limit the entire map, not just where the PVP players can go. There are 2 sides to every coin.

I could also make certain items only available through PVP action. It might not be feasible, b/c it would probably come down to me placing structures around the map and requiring people to raid them, in an effort to simulate NPCs you could attack.

Maybe I could defend one per day, and if I am killed you get the reward. Kind of like the Black Fortress in Krull, every day I am somewhere new and if the players in the area come best me, they get the prize.

There are 3 ways the concentration of pvp players can be increased.
1) Pvp players willingly move closer together and fight over smaller areas
2) Get more people to join the pvp area (this only works if those players don't play the hermit game)
3) Decrease the area of pvp
My suggestion was logical whether you would like to see it or not.

All of the ideas you had after that are great ideas to promote the pvp aspect of this server.  To be honest, the infinite map thing is nice but now that people can't claim POIs in the north and we can buy lootable containers in both the vote and zcoin shops we don't need an infinite map.  So limiting the map all around will increase the concentration of all players which will create more interaction on both sides. That is a great idea.

As far as trying to take on the responsibility of increasing pvp activity yourself by signing up to defend a base everyday, seems like more work for you.  And it seems like you have a lot on your plate already with the server let alone regular everyday real life bullshit.  I'm not trying to say you can't handle it, if that's what you want to do that is your choice.  Just saying you seem overworked as it is.

I think if cities become pvp and players want to avoid pvp, it will simply force pve players to move farther and farther out into the map.  I'm not sure it will increase pvp, interaction or interest levels unless the map is restricted in size.

It would be interesting if they implemented contested territories you could take over and defend. 

It would be great if we had a big community project like building a city or doing something cool together.  I understand h0tr0ds desire to bring people together.

Contested territories would be a cool addition but then you still have to have the players to pvp.  I don't know if it would be possible either in the state the game is currently in.  I would definitely play the territory game.

I had suggested an arena which could be built by server volunteers and then utilized by the server to run games of all sorts.  I will not rehash this but I bring it up to make the point that offering some kind of activity other than just surviving may be a better motivator than forcing anyone to something they don't want to do.  Just look at Zidac's post, he wants some group activity other than survival and I know he's not the only one.

guest215

  • Guest
Re: Should cities be PVP?
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2015, 03:33:19 pm »
Dz, I feel as if you are misconstruing things. Forgive me, but this is my take.

You state that I stated PVE is invalid as a playstyle...or that you inferred that. This is untrue.
You keep using the word forced, as if the more you say it the more it becomes true. No one has "forced" anything.
You keep repeating that your playstyle should be untouched and not forced but players choosing pvp should be forced to condense more. I see that as ironic.

I would concede that if 90 pct of the server is PVE, the server should focus on that and make sure that remains the focal point. I am just trying to inject something in addition to enhance our server, not detract from it.

I respect your opinion, but feel you are doing yourself a disservice by sticking on these points in this manner.

I agree with about you the last half.

I may have too much to do as it is.
It may be a pipe dream to try and have PVP the way the game is structured.
Hermits can be a detriment to change.


Would you concede that people didn't denigrate any PVE players when half the map was conceded for PVE only, restricting PVP and forcing them into a condensed area? I didn't see PVP players on the forums taking shots at anyone. You could probably find some posts where I argued against it, but acquiesced to giving it a shot. I would challenge people to find posts negatively aimed to PVE.

No one complained when I  added what I have to the different zcoin and vote stores ( so that players don't have to travel for certain things). Do you think those additions favors PVP playstyle, or PVE playstyle? The ones who remain at home, or the ones travelling looking for other players?

I draw issue with being accused of somehow attacking a PVE playstyle when the majority of my time is spent preserving your right to have peace of mind in that playstyle.

I also have consternation with the fact that I allowed for what was the largest change we had and any small change back is met with such resistance and so few open minds. We went from 100pct PVP world, to 50pct.  I said, "It's worth a shot, despite my objections." I didn't blast PVE players, I didn't attack their character, I didn't malign their intent. It was worth a shot at least, despite my reservations.

Object if you please, be entitled to your opinion, but don't say things such as "It doesn't matter if you think my play style is invalid or not, it is purely your opinion."


Because I never stated that. If you can find where I said that I will apologize. If not, please recognize this is an inference by you, not a fact or reality from me.

Offline imamthorburn

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +5/-0
Re: Should cities be PVP?
« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2015, 05:18:43 pm »
 So what pois can you not take over its not on the rules page? I always took over pois and modify because I suck at building ground up.
 
  We have always tried improving player interactions with pvp since I started on this server. Remember when there was only 2 pvp areas before random gen. Then we opened the entire map to pvp .then with random we had ground zero non pvp. Then we opened it to pvp. then we opened it to the ground zero bio pvp. Mad put loot containers in caves on the pvp side.
 
  I don't think its not having an open mind its mater of looking in the past and opening up areas for pvp just doesn't seem to  work. The only ones that want it will be there.
 
  Theres more I want to say but got to go to work.





guest215

  • Guest
Re: Should cities be PVP?
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2015, 06:29:50 pm »
let me find...http://kamcraft.createaforum.com/general-discussion/claiming-pois/


And everyone who says it is right. Only those who want it will go.

The trick for me is finding incentive for people to interact without negatively affecting those who do not.

Offline disguised zombie

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Karma: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: Should cities be PVP?
« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2015, 06:34:40 pm »

1) You keep using the word forced, as if the more you say it the more it becomes true. No one has "forced"   anything.

2) You keep repeating that your playstyle should be untouched and not forced but players choosing pvp should be forced to condense more. I see that as ironic.

3) I would concede that if 90 pct of the server is PVE, the server should focus on that and make sure that remains the focal point. I am just trying to inject something in addition to enhance our server, not detract from it.

4) I respect your opinion, but feel you are doing yourself a disservice by sticking on these points in this manner.

5) I may have too much to do as it is.
It may be a pipe dream to try and have PVP the way the game is structured.
Hermits can be a detriment to change.

6) Would you concede that people didn't denigrate any PVE players when half the map was conceded for PVE only, restricting PVP and forcing them into a condensed area? I didn't see PVP players on the forums taking shots at anyone. You could probably find some posts where I argued against it, but acquiesced to giving it a shot. I would challenge people to find posts negatively aimed to PVE.

7) No one complained when I  added what I have to the different zcoin and vote stores ( so that players don't have to travel for certain things). Do you think those additions favors PVP playstyle, or PVE playstyle? The ones who remain at home, or the ones travelling looking for other players?

8) I also have consternation with the fact that I allowed for what was the largest change we had and any small change back is met with such resistance and so few open minds. We went from 100pct PVP world, to 50pct.  I said, "It's worth a shot, despite my objections." I didn't blast PVE players, I didn't attack their character, I didn't malign their intent. It was worth a shot at least, despite my reservations.

9) Because I never stated that. If you can find where I said that I will apologize. If not, please recognize this is an inference by you, not a fact or reality from me.

1)  If you notice the quote from your original post, you are the one that originally used the word forced in relation to changing how pve works in the north.  The quote below shows you saying you are looking to make all the cities pvp in response to a stagnation problem within pvp.  That has nothing to do with fostering interaction with players.  And as far as opening up more pvp choices for pve people, we have a choice already, half the map is pve, the other is pvp.


The cities are spread out quite a bit. What I am hoping is that even PVE players up north will be able to do PVP if they choose, up north. Or at least be forced to be a bit more alert wherever they are.

(my interpretation)--Players are forced to deal with pvp when they choose pve.  It's not that we are unable to pvp, it's that we choose not to.  I have walked from my base which is at the top of the explored area in the north and it only takes 15 or 20 minutes when running with grain alcohol.

The closest city to GZ is 2k away, and there are many cities. No one really needs to go to them anyway.

(my interpretation)--Minimizing a feature of the game to justify changing them to pvp.

because as it stands no one is even choosing to come down south to PVP and there is stagnation.

(my interpretation)--The original reason you want to change the cities


2) I didn't say they should be forced, I was pointing out that it is counter-intuitive to increase an area when there are so few people in the original area to begin with.  Out of the 3 options for increasing player concentration that one was the most likely work in my opinion.  And then in the next post I had agreed with your idea of limiting the map all together.  If that's the only thing that can be done, then so be it.

3) Why the idea to make part of the pve area pvp?  I like having cities that are not pvp, it's nice to get some kills and some loot without worrying about people wanting to kill me.  The real problem with people is that they are people, they will wait until the most inconvenient time to try to kill someone, that's not really a fight.

4) Because they haven't really been addressed.  No where in your posts are you recognizing your original words and intent which I have quoted twice.

5) It's not a pipe dream, I just think it shouldn't fall on only you to make changes.  The fact of the matter is, people are going to make their own choices even when presented with changes.  There will always be that hermit that chooses not to be around people regardless of the changes made to the map.  But providing changes that give people no choice but to pvp if they would like access to certain regions in the north is, in my opinion, not going to solve the problem you are looking to solve.
I felt like I was playing single player when I first came here, but this is because I wasn't actively looking for people to play with until I wanted to join up with you, Braizd, and BT.  The point is people are going to make their choices and if they don't choose to be social, well, they get out of it what they put in and they will soon be bored.
There needs to be some kind of goal that people can work toward other than survival.  It doesn't matter what part of the map you choose, that gets boring after a while.  If people are more involved in objectives other than just playing the base game they may very well choose to interact.  Myself and the guys I play with were preparing to come hunt you down when you announced the prize for killing you.  We were making plans for various traps and **** for you to fall into.  I even watched the videos you make when pvping to try to ascertain the best way to lure you in.  For me it wasn't about the prize, it was about hunting you down.  Not meant as a personal attack, but it was an objective I could work toward that was outside the norm of killing and looting.  My passion for this game was re-ignited and I was prepared to make the choice to go to the pvp area.  You might be thinking that I could set my own objective in pvp to kill lots of people but it's not the same.  It felt like a server wide challenge and we could compete with everybody, pvp and pve alike, to see who could get you first.

6) I would concede this, but I have not blasted the pvp way of life either.  Me stating that people seem like they are pretending to play pvp when they are far enough apart that it might as well be pve isn't a lie.  Also you have misunderstood my point with player concentration.  I was not saying it because I felt pve was being wronged and I needed to somehow strike back.  It was purely an opinion based on some math know-how and a bit of southern exploration throughout the time I have been here, that was it.  The hermit comment in my original post still stands.  You can't expect to have awesome pvp experiences all the time when people live farther from one another. 

7) This really comes down to what kind of player you are.  If you are a builder in pve then yes it benefits tremendously.  If you are more of a wanderer or explorer then no.  It can benefit people in pvp if it is used in the right way.  Putting your lootable containers inside an obvious base with no attempt to hide them is a bad idea, yes.  But if you take the time to think about your base layout and construction you can easily use these containers just as much as a builder in pve.  So I don't think it favors one over the other.  It's just another tool to be applied, and it's overall usefulness is contingent on how its use is adapted to the chosen play style.

8)  It must be difficult.  But this is a general thing that does not characterize my attitude because I have been receptive to almost every change you have introduced, even when I had my doubts.  I tried out the changes and liked most of them.  And the ones I still didn't like, didn't have the effect I thought they would so I adapted.  It's unfair to pin that on me.

9)  It was inferred by me.  The real problem is I am going through a bunch of **** right now and I'm very angry over things that have nothing to do with you.  As a result I am letting my bias and anger amplify my opinions around this and that anger is being directed at you which is unfair.  I apologize for the baseless comments contained in my posts and will remain calm and respectful throughout the rest of the discussion.

Offline disguised zombie

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Karma: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: Should cities be PVP?
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2015, 06:52:48 pm »
the smiley is supposed to be an 8, the first numbered list corresponds to the second numbered list which is my response to each point.  Can't seem to find the edit button :(

guest215

  • Guest
Re: Should cities be PVP?
« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2015, 07:04:15 pm »
I don't see the original post, and player vs player is a form of interaction. I use the word to mean anything involving players interacting with one another. This could be friendly, or non-friendly. Co-op or shooting them in the head.

Forcing people to be alert is not the same thing. Again, I feel that is misconstruing my use of the word.

I did not say "forcing people to pvp." Note the sentence before that.

Quote
What I am hoping is that even PVE players up north will be able to do PVP if they choose, up north.

Then... in context...
Quote
Or at least be forced to be a bit more alert wherever they are.

I feel disheartened here. I used the words hope and choose in regards to PVE players and PVP in the north. This was my intent, and it I feel like it is being twisted into "h0tr0d is determined to force this upon us".

I would ask that the picking apart of messages and trying to analyze each word on both sides end. I am starting to feel like I am watching some biased "news" channel twisting things up and do not want to believe anyone here, including myself, is going to try and pick apart things in order to discredit intent of another.

We are getting off-point with making this a h0tr0d vs. PVE or h0tr0d vs dz

Offline disguised zombie

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Karma: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: Should cities be PVP?
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2015, 07:17:08 pm »
I addressed the context and the sentence with a response with respect to the whole thing.  All of those points except the last have to do with this topic and is a response to what you have said.  It was civil and factual, where it was not purely factual I provided the wording to indicate that it was my opinion.

So I'll sum up and whatever happens, happens.

Changing the area will do nothing but push pve further away.  We already have a choice, the real problem is there is no extra motivation to go to pvp.  We are not unable to pvp because we live in the north and moving pve areas closer to us under the condition that we are unable to pvp is false.  If you want more player interaction introduce some objectives other than survival and you will see your problem solved.


Offline KaRnAgE

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 198
  • Karma: +20/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • No matter where you go there you are AKA ApexMerc
  • Location: Indiana
Re: Should cities be PVP?
« Reply #25 on: July 23, 2015, 08:09:59 pm »
I seen someone asked what makes a pve player want to play on this server my reply is i will pvp when i want and only when i want not having a choice is what the other servers offer  so when I feel I have the gear to pvp I will go pvp if I want to that is what this server offers.

As far as the cities being pvp, because i do want to pvp some times, I dont see a problem. I will add that it does change the way a pve player plays in the way they have to watch out for players in the cities as well as zeds. For someone who does not want to pvp at all, this does effect their play style they will no longer be able to go into a city without the fear off a pvp player stalking them in a tower or just following the zeds death groan sounds  to a pve player.

I think making the map smaller would go a long way towards more player interaction both for pvp and pve if that is an option.   

guest215

  • Guest
Re: Should cities be PVP?
« Reply #26 on: July 23, 2015, 08:18:16 pm »
You both make valid points, and I do take care not to negatively affect playstyles.

But...it is impossible to not affect someone. Any change affects someone.

The key is what you both mention, how to offer an incentive to encourage PVP. And that may be nigh impossible until the developers add things.

And I will limit the map next build, need to learn how. Think 10k in all directions? I've seen few people go past 10k, 10k.

Offline KaRnAgE

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 198
  • Karma: +20/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • No matter where you go there you are AKA ApexMerc
  • Location: Indiana
Re: Should cities be PVP?
« Reply #27 on: July 23, 2015, 08:26:00 pm »
10 k sounds more than big enough for both main play styles

guest215

  • Guest
Re: Should cities be PVP?
« Reply #28 on: July 23, 2015, 09:16:52 pm »
C'mon folks, more votes pls on the poll.

I want more opinions!

guest215

  • Guest
Re: Should cities be PVP?
« Reply #29 on: July 23, 2015, 09:46:07 pm »
This would change as well.

Currently PVE players cannot land claim certain POIS. If cities became PVP they would them be open to PVE players land-claiming them, wherever the city was. This includes special POIs in the city.

 

+-Recent Topics

im finally back by glumbud
March 25, 2022, 03:11:06 am

Hows everyone been doing what games have you been playing by KaRnAgE
August 28, 2020, 04:21:17 am

Anyone have modding suggestions? by Rabid
July 19, 2020, 06:59:09 am

The south lands explained ? by EatMoreLead
June 18, 2020, 04:55:15 pm

Should we make the server public? by Wipeout
May 22, 2020, 04:59:07 pm

Incentivizing PvP and the South by KaRnAgE
May 07, 2020, 11:15:16 pm

disconnection issues by KaRnAgE
May 06, 2020, 10:22:19 pm

Stuck at "connecting to server" by Dene
April 21, 2020, 04:58:40 pm

Texture Glitch? by MADMAN
April 03, 2020, 12:35:11 am

Steam updated me to 18.4 and now I can't connect by MADMAN
March 04, 2020, 04:10:51 pm