DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Ground Zero Gaming Forum
HTML https://kamcraft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Polls
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5569--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should cities be PVP?
By: guest215 Date: July 22, 2015, 7:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Prior to A10.x or 11.0 (somewhere around there) the entire map
was PVP.
We had stop signs you could place around your base to state
whether you were a raider or not. If you had the signs you were
protected from raiding, but you could not raid. But the entire
map was PVP.
A player named Aknot (you can find these discussions if you
browse) championed the dividing of the map as it stands now.
I fought against it because I saw it as dividing our community.
Now let me state it has reaped benefits, but it also
accomplished things I feared.
The majority of the server is PVE-minded players, and I respect
and support this. As such I keep in mind our server, despite any
wishes, is primarily PVE and I admin accordingly.
I agree with you about single player, and this build they have
been better as far as co-op.
What I try to keep from happening is all the negative views
towards PVP. if it is mature, friendly-pvp, as it used to be and
always has been, there be no need to fear. With stop signs, you
don't lose your loot.
I am constantly striving to change people's minds b/c I feel
player vs player ads so much more to the game. I have had
horrible PVP experiences most of my life and in other games, but
it is mainly due to immature jackasses. I figured if we kept
that out, we could have PVP here.
Quite a few PVE players are't opposed to it, I have had run-ins
with Grim and garth, Grem, Bio, to name a few here and nothing
bad has happened.
But I respect that most of our players prefer PVE, so I don't
want to remove that. I just am looking for ways to avoid
stagnation, and there reaches a point where the only way to
avoid that is to have players challenge other players.
I would wager our PVE players play here for peace of mind, esp.
as it pertains to the immature players/griefers/hackers.
#Post#: 5570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should cities be PVP?
By: Zidac Date: July 22, 2015, 7:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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 implement contested territories
you could take over and defend. Or added more of a reason to
pvp.
I joined the server because it was top rated, had a good number
of available slots for players, and had a clear rule set. A lot
of my friends like to pvp so if they ever joined me they would
have the option to go down South and have a good time. Instead
of complaining to me about being stuck on a pve server. I like
having the option.
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.
#Post#: 5571--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should cities be PVP?
By: Mr.Bloodbank Date: July 22, 2015, 8:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The clear rules argument is probably the best one.
There is a strict divide where you can do what.
Making all cities PVP gives a lot more grey zones - what is a
city, how far does a PVP zone extend from a city, can I hide in
a tower outside and just snipe people away?
For me I'm pretty new to the server - only since A12 came out
and my plan is to build up a good base materials and then move
down south.
I keep hearing while playing that a larger area discovered on
the map puts more stress on the server so driving people farther
out doesn't sound like a good idea and unrelated I'd like to see
an option to limit map size even just for my single player map.
#Post#: 5572--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should cities be PVP?
By: guest215 Date: July 22, 2015, 9:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Less grey area is good.
Again, thank you for comments, the more feedback we get the
better it is.
I'm just trying to find ways to un-stagnate things, not force
anyone to do anything. It may very well be futile as we are at
the mercy of the game evolving.
#Post#: 5574--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should cities be PVP?
By: mman69 Date: July 23, 2015, 5:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am a PVE mainly but i would like to see the pvp in cities we
need to encourage more interaction i believe both between PVE
and PVE ...PVP and PVE we need to keep the nrth south divide as
others have said and from my point of view it was the main
attraction to the server all though i have found so many good
things on the server since .
To me the base game is too easy the server at the moment feels
pretty good balance for difficulty after playing for a week RL
im just about set up but by no means rolling in resources.
I plan to head south more and hunt be hunted for a laugh when
fully set up as once you got everything what else is there to do
zombies are not much of a threat in a fortified established
base.
cheers mman
#Post#: 5576--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should cities be PVP?
By: imamthorburn Date: July 23, 2015, 12:00 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.
#Post#: 5577--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should cities be PVP?
By: guest215 Date: July 23, 2015, 12:45 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.
#Post#: 5578--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should cities be PVP?
By: disguised zombie Date: July 23, 2015, 2:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=h0tr0d link=topic=768.msg5562#msg5562
date=1437584354]
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.
[/quote]
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 author=h0tr0d link=topic=768.msg5567#msg5567
date=1437608334]
[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. [/quote]
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.
[/quote]
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.
[quote author=Zidac link=topic=768.msg5570#msg5570
date=1437611757]
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.
[/quote]
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.
#Post#: 5579--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should cities be PVP?
By: guest215 Date: July 23, 2015, 2:33 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.
#Post#: 5580--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should cities be PVP?
By: imamthorburn Date: July 23, 2015, 4:18 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.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page