Archived Safezone Survival

This suggestion has been archived / closed and can no longer be voted on.
Mecharic

Mecharic

I'm tempermental, deal with it.
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
7,046
Points
0
Age
30
Location
United States, East Coast
Faction
Al'Darub
Roleplay Guilds
Emerald Alliance
TL:WR - PvPers have Warzone for PvP among themselves, RPers should get Safezone for roleplay in survival.

Long Version:

The biggest gripe roleplayers have with the survival worlds is the fact that they can, at literally any time, be attacked and ruthlessly killed by PvPers. In order to avoid such a horrid death, they need to invest is massive (often ugly and immersion-shattering) walls to keep PvPers out - or they can just stay in Regalia where it's safe. There are probably dozens of Roleplayers who would much rather design their own towns in survival than be stuck with Regalia's style (not saying Regalia has bad constructs, just that not everyone likes the style). People who'd like to roleplay as races not accepted in Regalia, but don't want to spend the entire time hiding or in the sewers. Well, why not allow factions to buy Safezone Chunks the same way they can buy Warzone chunks?

Doing so would finally provide protection to roleplayers in survival worlds, enticing them to leave Regalia and actually, you know, survive. They'll need to pay upkeep tax on the faction that controls the Safezone, and like warzone it would need to be entirely surrounded. It would also have an initial expense (I think 5k is a good price, same as Warzone) which would require they earn money to pay for it or get together into factions to pay for it. Furthermore, they would need to gather or buy supplies to build the safezone area, be it a single building in a faction or an entire town protected by a wall.

Now, I know that this would give the advantage to Roleplayers in their safezones, but considering they can currently go to Regalia and roleplay there in security even more complete than anything a safezone could offer, I feel this is a good way to expand Roleplay beyond Regalia, out into factions.

Rules List:
  1. Must be completely encircled/contained by a building. Building must have doors or gate that can be closed. Cannot be more than 1 building.
  2. Maximum of 8 chunks of safezone per faction. (Enough for a single decent building).
  3. Safezone must be surrounded entirely by Faction Claim.
  4. Safezone cannot be the only building at the location (must be part of a town that exist outside the building).
Ok, discuss! What can be improved? What flaws are there? If you're a roleplayer, would you be interested in having safezones in faction-built & run towns? If you're a PvPer, do you think this is tolerable, and what rules would you put in place to prevent safezone abuse? Staff, is this even doable, logistics wise?

Thanks for reading! Sorry if I missed any details :)
~ Mecharic, Casual Gamer

EDITS: Added Rules List
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
PurgingFlame said:
Woah there buddo. Now you're just twisting my words. I never said anything about recording, I said that if this were to be abused you should create a ticket
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Okay then still you are putting the responsibility on the other person. What i said still applies

PurgingFlame said:
implemented they'd have to be strictly regulated. E.g. Any form of antagonising coming from the safe-zone towards raiders will result in punishment and in more severe cases the safe-zone being disbanded, regular checks to make sure that the safe-zone is actually being used for it's intended use. You get the idea
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think you are idealizing a little bit how much time the staff actually would be able to have to put into this
 
Zacatero said:
Okay then still you are putting the responsibility on the other person. What i said still applies


I think you are idealizing a little bit how much time the staff actually would be able to have to put into this
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Aren't you just a big bundle of enthusiasm.
 
PurgingFlame said:
Aren't you just a big bundle of enthusiasm.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I do not like this idea. I am trying to be productive here while maintaining my stance.

Im sorry that you expect me to be enthusiastic when i dont favor this idea. I'd suggest being slightly grateful that i have the common decency to actually engage respectfully. We know thats not always the case on these forums.
 
Zacatero said:
I do not like this idea. I am trying to be productive here while maintaining my stance.

Im sorry that you expect me to be enthusiastic when i dont favor this idea. I'd suggest being slightly grateful that i have the common decency to actually engage respectfully. We know thats not always the case on these forums.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The comment was directed towards your approach on staff work.
 
FireFan96 said:
Fair point, but it seems highly situational if all I need to do to be safe is hide behind a door with all the walls fully built.

And if raiders appear, I can also just as easily tp to Regalia and go about my RP there, something which seems to piss PvPers off, from the amount of threads that keep popping up.

The way I see it, the safezone has the following benefits:
  • It's a money sink. And with the current inflation, any money sink is a good money sink.
  • It keeps the player count in faction worlds up. Of course Regalia has the largest player count, but that doesn't mean factions can't have 100 people online at the same time. A safezone allows RPers (and pacifists) to enjoy Massivecraft the way they want to.
  • It makes the survival worlds more inclusive. There's more to factions than just potting up and killing the first person you see. Some people prefer to play Massive, and even Minecraft in general, in a peaceful setting. Maybe all someone wants to do is have cute little garden or plant crops all day long, all while looking at the sun shining down on them. A safezone would allow these sorts of pacifist players to enjoy the survival worlds, which as a result might persuade other players to go to them as well. Sure, a lot of you guys prefer to PvP and raid, etc. But guess what, not everyone likes to play the game that way.
  • It literally doesn't make that big of a deal. People will still hide in buildings. People will still go to Regalia. And people will still leave the server and play peaceful in single player.

Here is an idea which aims to not only bring more people into the survival worlds, but also bridges the gap which is the PvP/RP community split. This is one server, so why the heck do we have a polarized community? Half of the problems here come up because nobody bothers to think about adding anything to the conversation. Here I am typing this long worded explanation to provide my own take on the matter as objectively as possible, yet the majority of the responses are "This idea is stupid, because of x reason." I don't see any suggestions to try and improve the idea, just giving some hypothetical outcome that has little backing to it.

So, I'll stand by what I said. This idea is a great idea. It is an attempt to try and bring two opposing sides back together. Yet this is becoming like every other survival thread, and slowly descending into an argument rather than constructive feedback.

Everyone keeps bitching that there's a million problems, yet when an idea like this comes a knocking to help rectify some of them, it just gets thrown into the fire before it has a chance to grow.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

With teleporting to regalia, there is the teleport delay that effectively protects it from being abused in the way a safezone could. There is no portal cooldown which would serve as a similar protection, no door access cooldown, etc. Teleporting is a well protected action. Bringing people back into the survival worlds means absolutely nothing if we are making it just like regalia. By this point, you might as well just stay in regalia.

And do not assume that PvPers know nothing other than war. In case you haven't realized, a lot of us have decent bases with nice looking builds.

And this is not bringing them together any more than a PvPer going through regalia.

Did it occur to you that the reason that we resist these ideas is because the way it prioritizes the goals is considered counterproductive to us?

Did it occur to you that an argument can be productive? The term "argument" does not entail immaturity, disrespect, or unreasonableness. When lawyers speak in court, what they give is an argument, do you want to say that doing so is also unproductive because they aren't just giving constructive feedback? Fact is that there are a lot of people who don't like this idea and are strongly opposed to the concept in general.
 
I would like PvPers to suggest ways to prevent abuse via this feature, rather than to just shout that it'll be abused and therefor shouldn't be implemented. I have already suggested some ways to prevent abuse with this feature (on page 1 & now in the OP), why don't you guys take a moment to read those and add your own?
 
Mecharic said:
I would like PvPers to suggest ways to prevent abuse via this feature, rather than to just shout that it'll be abused and therefor shouldn't be implemented. I have already suggested some ways to prevent abuse with this feature (on page 1 & now in the OP), why don't you guys take a moment to read those and add your own?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because we don't feel it is worth it for us to bother trying to make it work as we don't want the feature.
 
Mecharic said:
I would like PvPers to suggest ways to prevent abuse via this feature, rather than to just shout that it'll be abused and therefor shouldn't be implemented. I have already suggested some ways to prevent abuse with this feature (on page 1 & now in the OP), why don't you guys take a moment to read those and add your own?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are no ways this could not be abused without a tech implementation, and you shouldn't need them anyways. Make a house you can't pearl through and you're just fine.
 
jes_ said:
And the staff are going to figure out that they safe zone abused how?...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Back when I was staff it was a simple task of vanishing and watching. This does bring up the problem of the abuse needing to be continuous, though. Unfortunately there is no way to tell it happened without video evidence.
 
PurgingFlame said:
Back when I was staff it was a simple task of vanishing and watching. This does bring up the problem of the abuse needing to be continuous, though. Unfortunately there is no way to tell it happened without video evidence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah. So again. Still have to have evidence. You were staff well over 2 years ago, as I remember, and back then ticket response times were much shorter. At this point getting a ticket picked takes an hour, minimum. After that, the staff have to sit there and watch until/if they do it again, which isn't guaranteed. Staff watching would fix next to nothing.
 
I agree with @jes_. Tickets sometimes take upwards of 10 hours to be answered, if its during the staff off hours. This will need a major redesign to prevent abuse.
 
This thread has derailed into a "why the ticket system isn't the best" and less on suggesting ways to improve this suggestion.

I'll try and get this back on track: I see a lot of comments revolving around the abuse of this system. I'd like to ask, how much abuse comes from the warzones? I don't hear a lot about those being abused, yet here's a hypothetical feature that is getting slammed because of it.

There's ways to regulate the safezones. Mech put them in the OP. I don't think there needs to be some super large code that has 50 different scenarios to make a safezone a safezone. The people who are going to use it aren't the type of people (I'd assume) who are going to be dancing around in diamond armor armed with pots while raiders are just outside the chunk.

I still think this idea is a great way to introduce people into the survival worlds. But the way the posts are going, it almost seems that we should just let survival die out and call it a day.
 
Because Warzones, you have 0 benefit from being inside. it doesnt affect PvP at all. Safezones do. You could hide in there, and it would be impossible for raiders to get you. That isnt the case with Warzones
 
falconhand said:
Because Warzones, you have 0 benefit from being inside. it doesnt affect PvP at all. Safezones do. You could hide in there, and it would be impossible for raiders to get you. That isn't the case with Warzones
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
but on the same note, the faction worlds aren't 100% about PvP. else they would be called the pvp worlds. Yes it's a large part of it, but shouldn't be the only factor in determining what's best for survival.

Yeah you can hide in a safezone, but you can hide behind a wood door also. At least the safezone takes away 5000r from the economy. I'd also argue that you have limitation being in a safezone as well. You can't spend your entire time in one chunk, so eventually people will need to leave, in which they can happily pay max tribute and then go on their way.

The idea has potential, and I think we should all try to look at both sides of the argument when we comment. I'll accept that I'm not a PvPer on this server like I was on others, but I still understand where some of the arguments come from. I just believe the safezone does more good than bad.
 
Zacatero said:
More like.. suggest ways to prevent this from being abused
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If someone keeps hopping in and out of a door, then all someone needs to do is call them out on it and make a ticket. If they keep doing it, then the safezone can go bye bye and the fatcion can kiss 5000r out of their bank.

I agree the ticket system isn't the fastest, but sometimes we have to be able to police ourselves.
 
I just realized something that nobody has brought up yet.

Say these safezones are set up exactly like warzones (meaning seperate faction with the PVP flag off)

That means that WHATEVER is claimed with that will be unusable. No chests, no building permissions. Now that makes sense for a warzone.... would that make sense for a RP tavern or whatnot?
 
Zacatero said:
I just realized something that nobody has brought up yet.

Say these safezones are set up exactly like warzones (meaning seperate faction with the PVP flag off)

That means that WHATEVER is claimed with that will be unusable. No chests, no building permissions. Now that makes sense for a warzone.... would that make sense for a RP tavern or whatnot?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
masivelocks to bypass chests and whatnot. Good catch though.

I think that should also be mentioned. Once a safezone is made, that's it. No building or anything happens to it. This means a faction will have to determine if they can afford the permanent build of a chunk, on top of the 5k.
 
I like the idea. I like what you're trying to accomplish. I'm just not sure if I want to agree to it. It just seems. Redundant. If roleplayers want a safe place to RP in factions, they simply build a building as they would need to for the safe zone. It is pointless unless it is open air.
 
Know how I survive in the factions world despite being terrible at pvp? I make connections. I have a strong network that can back me up if I'm in trouble. I spend time in darkrooms, I actively seek non pvp relations with other people who use those facilities. I can go out with my shovel and go stock up on sand just fine without constant fear of being attacked. If I can do that and still be terrible at pvp, why should RPers not be able to make their own networks for security and follow similar paths?
 
We make safezones: Players spend more money and stay in the survival worlds, making the worlds appear more popular. To counter this, we would have the same ammount of pvp going on, which is none, and end up with less factions to raid, when nobody is raided anyway.

We don't make safezones: People stay underground or stay in regalia, no real pvp happens, survival numbers stay the same, but we get to have more empty factions to raid than versus adding safe-zones.

The problem of a lack of pvp won't be solved by this, but it will artificially increase numbers and might entice noobs to wander into the survival world because they see higher numbers, or might get one or two new players to join the PVP scene since there are people "surviving" there. But that isn't going to cause a huge boom in PVP, so either way the idea does nothing positive or negative to the current pvp scene, while adding a money sink and new role-play hotspots for the rp scene. The idea that it will cause "more regalia's" or lead to abuse of safe-zones is practically moot, because you can already teleport to regalia from anywhere at almost anytime infinitely, or lock yourself in one of your faction's houses anyway. The only difference here would be the fact that people can't betray their faction by opening doors, which was something that only created more drama and boring one sided pvp than anything else.

I see no real reason not to do this, seeing as the effect would keep the current state of affairs constant, though it will probably also upset pvp players because it will probably appear as if they are being repressed or ignored. Even though staff can't really do anything to fix the problems the pvp scene has.

From a entirely logical perspective the only thing making this idea bad was that staff promised years ago that they'd never allow people to have pacifist factions. Which is at it's core, what this idea is. But you can't hold them accountable for promises made so long ago, things do change.
 
Caedit said:
snip
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The issue at hand, that idea was suggested to help fix, was to make the survival worlds more appealing to the other gamemodes on Massive. However simply BEING in the survival worlds dont matter unless you are participating in the survival worlds. Whether your safezone is in ur faction or in regalia is no diference at all
 
Zacatero said:
The issue at hand, that idea was suggested to help fix, was to make the survival worlds more appealing to the other gamemodes on Massive. However simply BEING in the survival worlds dont matter unless you are participating in the survival worlds. Whether your safezone is in ur faction or in regalia is no diference at all
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I kind of already pointed that out in the comment. This idea won't solve the lack of pvp, and will only give bonuses to role-players and the server's numerical values.

It also doesn't hurt the pvp scene either, so there is no reason not to do it, with the best reason to do it being a new money sink and role-play opportunities.

Honestly if you want to fix the PVP scene, without mentioning the issue of standing out from every other pvp server out there. This is what you need to do: The whole of PVP needs both attitude and mechanics adjustments, you need incentive to join survival worlds, a more welcoming attitude in the community, and most importantly, you need to break open the gate of entry. Right now joining a survival world is like joining a competitive game and being put up against professional e-sport players out the gate. It doesn't matter if both sides have equal equipment of god tier level (though on massive they usually won't), the new players joining the scene just won't be able to compete. You need to find a way to give these new players equal footing with the players who've been pvping for literally years.

Here's a good video on it:

The current PVP massivecraft employes, that being the vanilla 1.8 variant, has no noob tube or high power low skill move. All it has are the base mechanics that are honestly, terrible at balancing around skill. PVP prior to 1.9 is pre-preperation and out gearing your opponent, that's why the hunger games inspired game modes do so well, it's about surviving and getting gear, 1v1 fair fights just aren't fun in minecraft pvp unless both sides are also equally skilled, anything short of that and it's just a curbstomp. Meanwhile 1.9 pvp removes a lot of the aspects skilled players enjoy about minecraft PVP, be they well designed or not.
 
Last edited:
Caedit said:
The current PVP massivecraft employes, that being the vanilla 1.8 variant, has no noob tube or high power low skill move. All it has are the base mechanics that are honestly, terrible at balancing around skill. PVP prior to 1.9 is pre-preperation and out gearing your opponent, that's why the hunger games inspired game modes do so well, it's about surviving and getting gear, 1v1 fair fights just aren't fun in minecraft pvp unless both sides are also equally skilled, anything short of that and it's just a curbstomp. Meanwhile 1.9 pvp removes a lot of the aspects skilled players enjoy about minecraft PVP, be they well designed or not.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Was wondering when you were going to turn this into advertising 1.9 pvp.
 
jes_ said:
Was wondering when you were going to turn this into advertising 1.9 pvp.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Was wondering when someone was going to get upset about me bringing it up.

1.9 PVP would make the situation worse before it got better, and I don't know if it even would make it better. It'd absolutely kill pvp, even more than pvp has been killed already, and anyone brought in by 1.9 pvp would not be the people the current pvp community wants. Then again, the current pvp community would be dead by the switch anyway.

I'm not advertising it, i'm bringing up reasons as to why 1.8 pvp isn't well designed, while also stating that switching to 1.9 wouldn't carefully solve the issue, and more or less just nuke the issue and everyone affected by it from orbit. I was making sure that this option was given proper warning against it before anyone got crazy ideas.
 
Just gonna jump in again and move this back to the safezone discussion. IF anyone wants to bring up a 1.8 v 1.9 pvp system debate, that's worthy of its own thread.

I don't really have any other input, other than @Caedit 's first post follows the same thought process I've had on the topic.
 
Mecharic said:
What do people think of rules like so:
  1. Must be completely encircled/contained by a building. Building must have doors or gate that can be closed. Cannot be more than 1 building.
  2. Maximum of 8 chunks of safezone per faction. (Enough for a single decent building).
  3. Safezone must be surrounded entirely by Faction Claim.
  4. Safezone cannot be the only building at the location (must be part of a town that exist outside the building).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Claiming that 8 chunks is enough for a small building proves to me that you know nothing about Factions. with 8 chunks you could claim the entire Magnanimus castle.
 
Synthesia said:
Claiming that 8 chunks is enough for a small building proves to me that you know nothing about Factions. with 8 chunks you could claim the entire Magnanimus castle.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I would like to take this moment to point out, Synthesia, that I have been playing in survival worlds for over 5 years now on MassiveCraft. I have built cities, castles, and even an island once. I know exactly how large 8 chunks is. For a PvPer, 8 chunks is everything you'll ever use. For literally everyone else on MassiveCraft, 8 chunks is nothing. Hell, my castle in New Ceardia is 48 chunks for just the castle. The entire town is 108 chunks. 8 chunks to a roleplayer? That's a tavern/pub with a garden in the middle - maybe.
 
Honestly, if PvPers are so against it they can just go back to bitching constantly that survival worlds aren't used. I don't have the obligation to help you people, especially if compromise just isn't on your To Do list. The way things are right now, the survival worlds are dead. There is no reason for full-time roleplayers to even acknowledge their existence outside of the occasional mention in roleplay. None of your factions matter, and they never will unless you do something to actively entice people into the survival worlds.

You won't be able to force them - make it impossible to earn money without leaving Regalia, most of them will either leave the server or just not have housing anymore (they don't need housing, after all). Delete Regalia and they'll move to the safezones in spawns. Remove feed traits and they'll all band together, get a faction of 10 chunks, and put a farm underground there and then never get near the surface. If you can't give them a reason to build towns, maintain large factions (which will give them a reason to darkroom and participate in trade) they won't do it.

So you either need to accept a compromise you don't necessarily like or you'll need to stop trying to force roleplayers to play your game style.
 
Mecharic said:
Honestly, if PvPers are so against it they can just go back to bitching constantly that survival worlds aren't used. I don't have the obligation to help you people, especially if compromise just isn't on your To Do list. The way things are right now, the survival worlds are dead. There is no reason for full-time roleplayers to even acknowledge their existence outside of the occasional mention in roleplay. None of your factions matter, and they never will unless you do something to actively entice people into the survival worlds.

You won't be able to force them - make it impossible to earn money without leaving Regalia, most of them will either leave the server or just not have housing anymore (they don't need housing, after all). Delete Regalia and they'll move to the safezones in spawns. Remove feed traits and they'll all band together, get a faction of 10 chunks, and put a farm underground there and then never get near the surface. If you can't give them a reason to build towns, maintain large factions (which will give them a reason to darkroom and participate in trade) they won't do it.

So you either need to accept a compromise you don't necessarily like or you'll need to stop trying to force roleplayers to play your game style.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You do understand though that if they're sitting in a safezone they're not actually adding anything to the survival worlds as far as we're concerned right?
 
Mecharic said:
Honestly, if PvPers are so against it they can just go back to bitching constantly that survival worlds aren't used.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Okay let me give an analogy. PVPers complain that the survival gamemode seem like less of a priority in the grand scheme.

We want.. this is gonna be a terrible analogy but just go with it.

We want vegetarians to try to eat meat. Now this idea... is basically saying "Lets have the vegetarians eat a salad, but in the steakhouse, you wanted them to try meat right!" Well... they might be in the right location, but they are still eating salad. They might be IN survival, but they might as well be in Regalia.

We dont want to FORCE anybody to do anything because that will just make things worse.
 
jes_ said:
You do understand though that if they're sitting in a safezone they're not actually adding anything to the survival worlds as far as we're concerned right?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But they won't be. 5,000r per chunk of safezone. A 2 chunk building is 10k just to buy the chunks. Before they can do that, they need to construct the tavern, or pub, or ship that will be their Roleplay Hub. Then they need to build a town/dock/city/ext around it, since Roleplayers may SEEM like they can stay in one dull place forever, but in reality they can't. Then they need to furnish it. Finally, upon completion of the safezone & the faction around it, they need to maintain whatever tax payments are made daily.

And to add to this, while most will probably never really become 'part' of the survival worlds, some may find that they enjoy building, or exploring, or even PvP more than they enjoyed Roleplay (or even just as much). Some of them will become part of the survival worlds in truth, rather than just in name.

It's certainly not a perfect system, but considering that right now Roleplayers are already safe, already not part of survival, and already have plenty of reason not to be part of survival, this can literally do nothing but improve the situation.

Zacatero said:
Okay let me give an analogy. PVPers complain that the survival gamemode seem like less of a priority in the grand scheme.

We want.. this is gonna be a terrible analogy but just go with it.

We want vegetarians to try to eat meat. Now this idea... is basically saying "Lets have the vegetarians eat a salad, but in the steakhouse, you wanted them to try meat right!" Well... they might be in the right location, but they are still eating salad. They might be IN survival, but they might as well be in Regalia.

We dont want to FORCE anybody to do anything because that will just make things worse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ok. Don't force anyone to do it. Without a reason, Roleplayers will stay in Regalia. You either entice them to leave Regalia, or you force them to. If you can't do either, they will never leave Regalia. Or to use your analogy: Give them a reason to visit the steakhouse.
 
Im actually on board with this if you require like. An entire town to be built, like you said. Also if the safezone faction gets taxed like a normal faction.
 
Mecharic said:
Honestly, if PvPers are so against it they can just go back to bitching constantly that survival worlds aren't used. I don't have the obligation to help you people, especially if compromise just isn't on your To Do list. The way things are right now, the survival worlds are dead. There is no reason for full-time roleplayers to even acknowledge their existence outside of the occasional mention in roleplay. None of your factions matter, and they never will unless you do something to actively entice people into the survival worlds.

You won't be able to force them - make it impossible to earn money without leaving Regalia, most of them will either leave the server or just not have housing anymore (they don't need housing, after all). Delete Regalia and they'll move to the safezones in spawns. Remove feed traits and they'll all band together, get a faction of 10 chunks, and put a farm underground there and then never get near the surface. If you can't give them a reason to build towns, maintain large factions (which will give them a reason to darkroom and participate in trade) they won't do it.

So you either need to accept a compromise you don't necessarily like or you'll need to stop trying to force roleplayers to play your game style.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This doesn't help anyone but the Roleplayers who want a decaf version of Factions. You've taken this from a level-headed discussion to an expression of your own hate towards PvPers. What the hell do you think will happen if this is implemented? They'll make a faction that is just those 8 chunks, and sit there, without ever going outside. Implementing a zone where they are invincible won't entice them to darkroom. In fact, I would actually like this to be implemented just to see how much it would be abused and how little it would actually bring to the server.

"So you either need to accept a compromise you don't necessarily like or you'll need to stop trying to force roleplayers to play your game style." Lol what? This safezone idea is the first step in removing the teeth from Factions as a whole, and you accuse me of trying to force roleplayers to play my playstyle. What a joke.
 
Synthesia said:
This doesn't help anyone but the Roleplayers who want a decaf version of Factions. You've taken this from a level-headed discussion to an expression of your own hate towards PvPers. What the hell do you think will happen if this is implemented? They'll make a faction that is just those 8 chunks, and sit there, without ever going outside. Implementing a zone where they are invincible won't entice them to darkroom. In fact, I would actually like this to be implemented just to see how much it would be abused and how little it would actually bring to the server.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually the idea revolves around a strict rule that you have to have like, a real town. AND you have to have the safezone surrounded by faction claim of your own so you cant JUST have a safezone.
 
Synthesia said:
This doesn't help anyone but the Roleplayers who want a decaf version of Factions. You've taken this from a level-headed discussion to an expression of your own hate towards PvPers. What the hell do you think will happen if this is implemented? They'll make a faction that is just those 8 chunks, and sit there, without ever going outside. Implementing a zone where they are invincible won't entice them to darkroom. In fact, I would actually like this to be implemented just to see how much it would be abused and how little it would actually bring to the server.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Have you read ANYTHING posted in this thread? In order to get a Safezone, an actual town needs to be built around it. Faction chunks need to be claimed. It costs 5,000r a chunk, so 8 chunks is 40,000r. They'd need to pay, say, 8r taxes daily on the Safezone, plus 2r daily for the min 16 chunks claimed around it - much more since they need an entire town, lets go with 60 chunks around 8 chunks of Safezone. That's 20r a day to upkeep, which is currently about 2/3 of John's offering daily. For cities or larger it would be more. And of course, resources are needed to build the town, so they need to participate in survival in order to do that.

As for how it could help beyond just initial costs? Perhaps some roleplayers will find that they actually prefer building, or exploration, or even PvP. So long as they are never even exposed to it, they will never develop and interest in it. If they are exposed, they may develop interest. Most of them certainly won't, but some will, and that's better than the current "zero" that develop interest.

Synthesia said:
"So you either need to accept a compromise you don't necessarily like or you'll need to stop trying to force roleplayers to play your game style." Lol what? This safezone idea is the first step in removing the teeth from Factions as a whole, and you accuse me of trying to force roleplayers to play my playstyle. What a joke.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well I suppose instead we can keep it the way it is, and let the survival worlds slowly fade into oblivion because so few players use them. I'm honestly fine with the server as it is. You want more people to be in survival. That means YOU need to take the effort to get them there.

-----------------------

That said, I'm out. You can do your thing, I'll do mine. I've lost interest in working to bring life back to the Survival Worlds. In fact, it's more fun for me if there are less people, because then I can build in peace.
 
Mecharic said:
Have you read ANYTHING posted in this thread? In order to get a Safezone, an actual town needs to be built around it. Faction chunks need to be claimed. It costs 5,000r a chunk, so 8 chunks is 40,000r. They'd need to pay, say, 8r taxes daily on the Safezone, plus 2r daily for the min 16 chunks claimed around it - much more since they need an entire town, lets go with 60 chunks around 8 chunks of Safezone. That's 20r a day to upkeep, which is currently about 2/3 of John's offering daily. For cities or larger it would be more. And of course, resources are needed to build the town, so they need to participate in survival in order to do that.

As for how it could help beyond just initial costs? Perhaps some roleplayers will find that they actually prefer building, or exploration, or even PvP. So long as they are never even exposed to it, they will never develop and interest in it. If they are exposed, they may develop interest. Most of them certainly won't, but some will, and that's better than the current "zero" that develop interest.



Well I suppose instead we can keep it the way it is, and let the survival worlds slowly fade into oblivion because so few players use them. I'm honestly fine with the server as it is. You want more people to be in survival. That means YOU need to take the effort to get them there.

-----------------------

That said, I'm out. You can do your thing, I'll do mine. I've lost interest in working to bring life back to the Survival Worlds. In fact, it's more fun for me if there are less people, because then I can build in peace.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If they have no interest already in Survival, they won't be enticed by a safezone. At most they will sit in the safezone and use it as an RP location away from Regalia. I think you lack empathy and so you can't put yourself in a Roleplayer's shoes, but I can, and if I were a roleplayer that wasn't interested in Survival, a safezone wouldn't change it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom