Should Player vs Player be allowed, and should Player vs Towns be allowed?
Closed for set-up.
Edited by Rainbow Dash McStarley, 10 April 2016 - 10:28 AM.
Posted 07 February 2016 - 06:50 PM
Should Player vs Player be allowed, and should Player vs Towns be allowed?
Closed for set-up.
Edited by Rainbow Dash McStarley, 10 April 2016 - 10:28 AM.
Posted 07 February 2016 - 07:06 PM
I'd like to suggest a system where there would be a specific area (not unlike Cyrodiil in ESO) in which different factions, or towns in this case, would be able to fight for control of different provinces or something alike. These areas that towns hold could make them gain benefits, (ex. mineral generation, some buff, maybe examples from the town perk section)
Here, people who would like to PVP would be able to. But if others wouldn't like to do that, they wouldn't need to. I'm sure the PvE sections of the world would have many resources anyway.
So to sum this up in bullet points
- Separate area specifically for PVT/PVP. Only it wouldn't affect capital towns, towns could build outposts or whatnot in the PVP/PVT area
- Resources and special items/other goodies that towns could fight for and take over.
- Completely optional. Shouldn't affect players back in the other sections of the world/main world.
- Resources/power ups/whatever could be decided by admins/col devs
Posted 07 February 2016 - 07:08 PM
Add a dueling system for freindly duels where you could /duel another player and be locked in combat until one dies, but doesn't loose any items and gets teleported back to the same area.
Posted 07 February 2016 - 07:13 PM
Depends. Do you want nice builds akin to the previous Cols, or do you want mass efficiency PvP bases that are effectively floating platforms covered in obsidian and water? PvT in any circumstance for me goes against the server's idea of "nice builds", since there is no point in making a build look nice if it runs a risk of being taken away by actions beyond your control.
To take the Col2 PvT laws into comparison, I believe the main rule was that a raid could be declared on a town as long as one of its residents was online. Assuming then that you were a player looking to build a decent house, but couldn't clock enough playtime to catch most of the server activity, coming back online only to hear your house had been razed to the ground because someone else failed to defend your town generally doesn't settle down well.
PvP on the other hand is fine, but it has its own fair share of issues. The main points have probably been recanted time and time again, but I'll place them here just for convenience's sake.
1. If PvP results in the destruction of property not belonging to either party, it's generally no better than PvT. Innocents will suffer losses.
2. Having said that, PvP without destruction of property and the looting that results may as well be pointless, as either party will be taking a risk for little reward. People won't fight given a chance to opt out, especially when losses are involved.
My own idea revolves more around a capture the flag system, where players who want a challenge or a fight can attempt to claim certain "capture points" during fixed periods of the day. The rewards to encourage such activity could be to get a town perk, a steady source of resources, or even monetary rewards. This has the effect of placing separation between the players who want to fight for rewards and those who simply want to exist in peace, as neither side will suffer losses more than what they accepted in the first place.
Of course, this would require more plugins to manage such zones, which could be an issue, but the system it self should very much be automated.
Posted 07 February 2016 - 07:53 PM
Posted 08 February 2016 - 11:06 PM
I feared a great amount of time in col2 for my city to be destroyed. I don't mind if we would have a pvp capture the flag as Ymlong put it. Total PvE with some blood moon and such would be awesome to have, I would enjoy such event(unless it is as insane as col3 surface).
But i do like the 'player created story' with admin events, I like to open op for my RP handbook and start a new adventure, I would like the ability to pvp if i and my opponent find that to be the only way.
So the option should be there to use.
Pip_DK agreeing on all the fronts ;P
Posted 08 February 2016 - 11:36 PM
Posted 09 February 2016 - 03:24 AM
Since it's actually buried in the Map Dev thread (it came up from resource distros & fighting for them), I'm going to copy a few posts into this one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the more relevant section of the plugin for most people reading. Basically, if set up so, there can be capture points like Ym suggested.
Everyone would have their own claim (where sharing permissions with others can be limited or completely shared by the individual owners. There can also be instances of people attacking other's claims to capture them (or segments of a 'town'), but that can only be done while the claim owner is online, and only specific blocks can be damaged. The whole area can't be razed.
Edited by Rainbow Dash McStarley, 09 February 2016 - 03:36 AM.
Posted 18 February 2016 - 08:25 PM
Posted 18 February 2016 - 09:19 PM
How about having lifes like we all start with 5 lifes and if we die we lose 1 life etc. once it hit zero lifes we lose our stuff and the only way to get that lifes back up is by eating gapples
Posted 18 February 2016 - 10:45 PM
pretty much its like having livesI dont quite understand, you man you want keep inventory for 5 deaths?
Posted 28 February 2016 - 08:56 AM
okay so here's just a vague idea for ship to ship PvP, We could have a sort of Devil's triangle in the map between three selected points inside of which any ship is susceptible to attack without warning. These would be a kind of Pirate's waters where strange vessels would lurk along with some player warships. Along with more frequent storms and other things to make life more interesting for the adventuresome sailor. Could perhaps mark it off on the map with buoys but it would need to be large enough for at least several ships to maneuver.
Posted 22 March 2016 - 08:48 PM
So what are we agreeing upon?
Posted 23 March 2016 - 03:14 AM
There was no agreement. There is now a poll to track choices in an easier manner.
If there's no consensus and/or no decision made in experimenting on a test server, arbitration by dictation will decide.
Posted 23 March 2016 - 09:45 AM
too many options imo, im still going with my original idea
Posted 23 March 2016 - 01:38 PM
I voted as close as I could to my idea which can be seen listed in rules in this post: https://www.brohoof....adows-of-equus/
Posted 25 March 2016 - 10:10 PM
can we move this to the public section so people can actually get their votes in other than builders?
Posted 25 March 2016 - 10:48 PM
Posted 25 March 2016 - 11:14 PM
I recommend camouflaged passages, becoming a changeling and posing as a mob, or joining a town for protection. There are lots of ways to avoid PvP, and most players are reasonable and won't attack you on sight. Though perhaps some exceptions.
Posted 26 March 2016 - 05:53 AM
I recommend camouflaged passages, becoming a changeling and posing as a mob, or joining a town for protection. There are lots of ways to avoid PvP, and most players are reasonable and won't attack you on sight. Though perhaps some exceptions.
i don't ever quite leave my own towns, i'm normally attacked by a person using potion of invisibility and an OP enchanted sword lol. but that was col 2
can i just check, we'd be able to ACTUALLY toggle PVP in towns, yes? it won't be something like "oh yeah pvp dissabled but you can somehow still kill eachother" sort of thing? because i remember at one point it was like that. tsar had all pvp on compulsorry or something.
anyways, i'm just rambling. as a bat i've got pretty good abilities i might say so. yeah.
Posted 26 March 2016 - 06:44 AM
Bat ponies are not currently a class in the new system, still working on adding them, they'll probably appear sometime after launch of col4. We are going to implement them, but we decided to go ahead with only four classes to open with. Also expect things to be very different so far as your and other's abilities... The new system has much less emphasis on PvP as the old one. Though we've add many new unique features to explore, I'll post a guide to it sometime once we finish final polishing on the four main classes.
Posted 26 March 2016 - 10:20 AM
If the result is always, there will be no toggling anywhere.
If the result is * with safezones, then it's technically toggled in towns, but it's at the town's level - no duels unless the town decides to forego PvP protection while it happens.
If the result is toggled, then we'd force PvP protection off everywhere (including towns) since players would have control of themselves.
Posted 26 March 2016 - 07:24 PM
Honestly, despite the col 2 raiding system backfiring on me (seeing on how I was raided the most), I actually sort of liked the idea of it. Staging player and/or town raids would require a specific amount of people to be online at once. And honestly, I wouldn't see how defending wouldn't be so hard. Depending on where you situate your town, it could be impossible to attack via airship/ship (like marcus's Shiver City, which was placed ontop of a snow covered mountain).
At any rate, it could give people something to do. If you don't want to PVP, then maybe there could be a pay-to-be-fully neutral system. (I think towny has a system for that). I just think it would be fair in the sense that instead of just blind PVPing, people would have to announce it, a certain about of people would need to be on, yadda yadda yadda. That's my opinion, of course, but it's what I liked about col 2.
Posted 10 April 2016 - 10:27 AM
Poll closed.
Always PvP (outside safezones)
Always PvT - Only one vote difference between CTF and ColII, so we'll stick with the old system.
Using Towny
Edited by Rainbow Dash McStarley, 10 April 2016 - 12:10 PM.
Posted 10 April 2016 - 04:08 PM
Posted 13 April 2016 - 07:02 PM
some times when i pvp it makes want to add the old hurt sound
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users