Alignment Changes & Race Wars! [Archive]

View Full Version : Alignment Changes & Race Wars!

Lord Zeb

07-27-2009, 06:40 AM

I do believe is now time for a new thread regarding Alignment, to see if sentiments have changed since I first posted Poll: Alignment reviewed (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=184343), which already then stated that of the 145 Voters 56% wanted improvements to the Alignment system (58% of those liked all that I had written in that post), and only 17% thought it was fine as it was. I apologize for the massive wall of text below, but that is just because I am thorough in my description of how things should be, as well as that there is many details in what needs to be done.

Since the patch 24/4 there have only bee one single change made in regard to what could be construed to help the Alignment system, and that is to add Rider Names to Mounts which was done in the “Expansion”. This is nice, but does not help since one can still attack Mounts without any system consequences.

There has been a lot of discussion since then, and obvious holes in the system and the consequences thereof have been seen:

Nearly all clans are ARAC clans, and there are NO race wars. There is hardly even any Clan wars, as people that are interested in such are just running around trying to find ANY PvP they can get in random encounters. And hunting miners is NOT what I would call proper PvP. Conquests are either too hard to do (numbers needed for city-taking too taxing on the Servers) and Hamlets lack any defensive structures at all and do not have much worth owning anyway since one can always go there mining/harvesting when no one is looking.

People getting raped in frustrating ways by people exploiting Tower protection, making newbies getting disillusioned in the game system's integrity very quickly. And those who stay have taken it to be the norm that there is NO working alignment system and solve it by ignoring it and moving out to Chaos cities or getting their own.

The soul of this game is rotting in it's core, as Lore means nothing and ethics are twisted into Might is Right and Loot is All that matters. Purpose of violence is either greed or violence itself, as the Alignment system does not support vengeance and protect thieves. In the beginning, if I got killed, I RAGED, wanted revenge and justice each time. Now... I get killed nearly every fucking day and simply don't give a shit. Don't even care about gathering a few friends to kill them back, even if they stick around.

Something needs to be done.
And this is it:

System changes:

A new Alignment status added, similar to Rogue, need to be put in, that I would label as "Suspect", and players have their names coloured Yellow. Attacking people of this alignment should not draw the attention of Towers, nor have Alignment consequences. They would not be attacked by Towers though, and may hence enter NPC cities without any greater consequence than it would be entering a Chaos city.

The information window showing Health, Stamina, Mana and Alignment should be re-designed:
Bars showing levels should be thicker, with a properly distinctive "empty" colour, so one can see one's levels better.

A Rogue timer should be added, that ticks down to show how long time one have left as a Rogue. (Especially important if the below suggestions of "addable time" to Rogue status is put in.

A gem should be added on the bottom, just below the Alignment status, that show the colour of Blue, Red, Grey or Yellow, based on the current general status of the player.

Mount/Ship/Warhulk Owning System Changes:

Mounts, Warhulks, Rafts and Ships need to be labelled with the name, alignment and clan of the person who summoned them from the figurine. This way people (1) cannot shoot and kill mounts without consequences, as well as ownership is established so that (2) people both easier know who is riding the Mount as well as (3) a basic function for Mount-theft consequences can be programmed.

Any attacks on a Mount, Warhulk, Raft or Ship should count as attacks on the Player sitting on it/steering it, in regard to Rogue status. (No alignment hits for killing Mounts though.) Mount label colour should be the same as if looking at the Rider. :DThis has been implemented 2/9-09!:cool:

One should not be able to shrink anything to a figurine that is being operated by the helm or have a rider in the seat.

If you sit on a Mount belonging to someone else you are classed as a possible horse thief as long as you remain in the saddle. You will gain Suspect Yellow status, which will be shared by the Mount, which still will be labelled with the name of the proper owner though. You do only go Yellow if the proper owner is a Blue player of your own faction that is not in your Party and so on, as described under Alignment loss above. The same goes if you take command of the helm of a warhulk/raft/ship you (or a party/alliance member) have not spawned.

As described above, attacks to Rider or Mount (or rafts/ships) are as if they were Rogue in all aspects except that Towers won't shoot at them, as it is possible that someone just lent them the Mount as well as that it will be hard to remove Mounts cluttering up cities if you get shot when trying to move them.

Alignment setup:

As before: +1 for Ganking Racial enemy or Red (Criminal) player, that do not belong to your Clan, not to your Alliances Clans, that is not in your Party, that is not on your personal Friends list.
Change needed: that you do not gain any Alignment from people you have Ganked before that day, so you cannot "harvest alignment" by ganking the same player over and over.

Added: +1 for Reviving a "Stranger". (Only once per day per stranger, not in own Party/Clan/Alliance/Friends list nor a Racial enemy or Red player.) A person who has been Forgiven for downing someone within the last 24 hours should not gain any Alignment for Reviving that same someone. And should he have downed that person, then Revived him, then been Forgiven, the +1 just gained should be retracted as well.

As before with slight modification:
-4 for downing someone. And it should not be called Killing someone.
-4 more if that someone dies. (Just standing and watching someone die is also cruel, and a decapitating strike is little different from a Ganking but at least done in the heat of the moment.) Then it is Killing someone.
-4 for Ganking someone, making sure he dies quickly and have less time to decide whether he is to destroy his equipment. All three of the above are cumulative, making it be -12 Alignment to kill and Gank someone.

Addition:
-1 for taking something out of someone's Gravestone. Only once per Gravestone.
-1 for reducing a Mount, Raft or Ship that do not belong to you into a Figurine (which then ends up in your backpack).

Possible new content:
Adding killable NPCs belonging to factions, that one can gain and lose Alignment by killing, such as NPC Guards and soldiers in certain fortresses, so people raiding the Racial enemy territories always will have something Alignmentworthy to kill while visiting.

The NPC Mobs should however not be easy to kill, and respawns should not give more Alignment so that it cannot be "harvested" so easily. (Only getting Alignment once for killing the same Guard, even if he resurrects... as one should do with Player Characters.)

Rogue timers:
If you hit someone you go Rogue for 10 seconds, as now. The definition of hit is any melee, arrow, or spell that damages or debuffs you. That is: they need to include Curses in the attacks that make people go Rogue.

If you hit someone with a Special Attack you should go Rogue for 30 seconds.

If you have been Rogue within 2 minutes, but is now no longer Rogue, and hit someone you go Rogue for 30 seconds.

If you hit someone while you are Rogue your Rogue timer adds 2 minutes, up to max 15 minutes (from now, not from when you started being Rogue).

People hitting on you should not prolonging the Rogue timer. Only your own actions should affect it.

If you down someone, and that one does not hit the Forgive button before it disappears, you go Rogue for at least +5 minutes, up to max 15 minutes. Or possibly +2 hours, if one wish to have Rogue as a safeguard on top of the Red alignment penalty, so that people that have killed others will still be Rogue if they quickly get back to Blue again.

If you Gank someone you go Rogue for 15 minutes, or until they push the Forgive button, whichever happens first. Or possibly up to +4 hours, if one wish to have Rogue as a safeguard on top of the Red alignment system.

If you take something from someone's gravestone, or reduce a Mount that do not belong to you into a Figurine putting it in your backpack, you go Rogue for 4 minutes, or until they push the Forgive button, whichever happens first.

[Edit: There have earlier been talks about using the settings for Tower defences for the access of Banks... so why not Resources as well. Hamlet/City Mayor decides whether their resources are free for all, free for everyone but Enemies or only for own alliance. And repercussions will be being shot by towers if coming into range, not having access to Banks and turning Rogue for 30 seconds if one use City Resources, which is cumulative for each Resource gained up to 15 minutes, if one is deemed a threat by the security rating. But not Workbenches or similar, as they pay a fee to use those.]

The above is only regarding getting Alignment penalties or Rogue timers if the someone is a player with positive alignment of your own faction (not dark red or Red) that is not Grey (Rogue) or Yellow (Suspect), that is not part of your Clan, Alliance, Party or on your personal Friends list. And not at War with you.

They will always get a Forgive sign to click if they wish to, which lasts for 5 minutes or until a choice is made. Possibly an option to "Always Forgive" should be included in Options. If Forgiven, they take no penalty and any Rogue timers based on actions against the one forgiving is removed.

The above should make Robbers think twice before ganging up on someone, but not always stop them. And make Ninja looters and Horse thieves think twice before stealing from others. There will most probably still be plenty of ways to circumvent the system, but at least it will be far more troublesome for them to do it, as well as fixing some of the more blatant holes in the current Alignment system.

But there still remain one problem with Alignment: People do not have anything to win by killing Griefers, as they have maxed their Alignment. As long as one is of Decent Alignment status, one can stop caring for others, which is not very "good" of people, as all Evil need to succeed, is for Good to do nothing!

I think that having a bit more complicated system for Good and Evil would be in order:

Separate Alignment and Criminal status into:

Criminal status: As Alignment is now... or rather, after the above changes so that it won't be as hard to "skill up" the Good & Evil skills.

Good Alignment "Skill" vs. Evil Alignment "Skill" - Each Criminal Status hit will affect Alignment. A lot of Evil actions build up, and will be harder to wash off... Not to mention one could add into skilling up in Necromancy and such to add to the Evil side, but not more than can be overcome by Good actions for those who wish to be "Saints".

Not to mention that it would be increasingly more needed to "skill up" the higher the level, as usual for skills. Also let the Good/Evil status have some implications in the world. What we would have for starters would be the Human Lightbringer racial Greatsword bonus damage based on Alignment. (Is supposed to give bonus Holy damage for high alignment people and bonus Unholy damage for those with Negative alignment... but as it is now it is too easy to "fix" that.)

Race Wars and other Wars

The War system is the main system design to make Clans circumvent the Alignment system, to enable proper Clan Wars, but it is not used properly. As discussed in Give us Race Wars and War Fees. Save our Noobs (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?p=3530465#post3530465), there needs to be some system changes to make the Wars work properly:

War declaration against a Clan containing members of the same race as some members of your own clan should cost a Gold fee, so that the War function will not be used to circumvent the Alignment system for simple miner robbing. This fee should be consisting of a base of at least 250 Gold + 25 Gold per member of your own Clan. (The fee is a Gold sink.) Also, clear out all ongoing Wars before implementing this, to not give people too much of “resources”. There should not need be any cooldown periods for declaring Wars against multiple alliances though, so anyone that wish to take up all the Wars they earlier declared will get to do so… at a cost.

[Edit: Every 24 hours a War upkeep fee of 100 Gold is to be paid per active War, automatically deducted from Clan Bank. If no Gold is found, the War declaration is withdrawn and the status revoked to Wary. The War upkeep fee is there to dissuade people to just stock up on hundreds of Wars and not pursue them properly, declaring Wars for long-term robbery profits.

If the targeted clan accepts the challenge by counter-declaring War, paying a War declaration fee of their own, the War is now an established Feud, and do not need any upkeep fees for the War.]

The Kill-On-Sight clan list should be the same as a War, so that one can call a Vendetta on any single player by declaring a Personal War against him. Same fee as declaring a War on a Clan, to avoid exploitation. Clean out all current Kill-On-Sight lists before implementing this, and then implement that all on the Kill-On-Sight will be seen as Dark Orange as all other War declared people, and free to kill until you remove the player from the list. The Kill-On-Sight-listed person will of however be able to kill everyone in your alliance freely now, but at least they cannot hide behind being non-clanned... or behind large clan-names if they do not have proper backing from them.

[Edit: However, for this not to be exploited, the player should get a notification of them being on the Kill-On-Sight list, have their own list of alliance they are on the Kill-On-Sight list, as well as have at least 20 minutes of in-game time from first notification to know they are on the list. Not to mention that a notification and list of Kill-On-Sight statuses should exist in Clan journal as well.]

[Edit: As one could have Personal Wars, for a true Sandbox notion one should also have Personal Allies, so one is able to ignore Race on Friends, seeing them as Green regardless of their alliance or Redness. (Alliance name colour should still be in Orange colour if one is at War though.) This could be easily handled by a choice box ticking off people as Aquaintances (default, and as now) or as Battlebrothers/sisters (allies=LightGreen)]

There should be a Clan-rejoining cooldown time, that should be at least 24 hours, to avoid tampering with Gold fee and Alignment system by jumping out and into clans.

To make Wary a useful status, one should only be able to declare War upon clans who either declared you as Wary, or whom you have declared Wary. And that one should only be able to change clan relationship status once per hour. If 2 clans want to "duel", one of them can make them Wary and the other declare War, so they can start right away, but if they do not wish to do War, it will give the defenders a 1 hour respite.

[Edit: Would be nice to have some kind of sign on people declared Wary. Right now, only way to know, is to memorize the list of Wary alliances one have access to in the alliance page... I think a Sword over the head, instead of a Shield for Party or Invulnerability, would be a good sign to clearly mark out people who are Wary towards you, and hence a possible threat. And having a lot of silly swords hanging around would also make people thinking twice about declaring everyone Wary, keeping the world more beautiful without them. ;)]

To make Friendly a usable status, one could also state that anyone that is Friendly toward an alliance should see at least the Clan name in Green, if not the Player Name. That way one could avoid a lot of troubles, while still letting each player stand for his own actions if one is not a true Ally.

[Edit: Furthermore, non-clanned Solos should be able to be on a Friendly Clan List, in the same way as the Kill-On-Sight list... but reversed.]

[Edit: Enable people to defend their Cities and Hamlets without risk of Alignment hits: Every Blue player who crosses city boundaries who are NOT part of the owning Clan, their Alliance, part of a Party with such clanned members in them, or is of Friendly status to the owning clan (getting true value for the Friendly status) should be marked Yellow as they are trespassers!

Any clan containing Racial Enemies, is considered a Traitor Clan by the factions involved. All Blue member of ARAC clans are hence Suspect and marked Yellow. This overrides Darkred against racial foes of the races, so for example a Mahirim that meets a Mahirim and a Human of another clan, will see both as Yellow, while an Alfar would see both as Darkred if the ARAC clan did not contain any Alfar. (The "Gem display" would show as Yellow regardless, as the player is "watching it himself", reminding him of what others of his race would see him as. )

All Blue members of clans with Clan Alignment below 0 should be marked as Suspect Yellow. That will not only reduce the exploitation possible by mixed Blue/Red clans, but also make people mind their Alignment a bit more, as it will have effects on other people. Green, Lightgreen, Darkred and Red overrides such a classification.

[Edit: Holy shrines or similar in the Border territories that each is fought over by 2 races, and only grant a bonus to Clan Members of that specific Race if the clan that Owns it at the moment do not contain members of both races in question. Bonus granted by the Holy Places should be minor but still worthwhile, such as higher Mana Regeneration or even an Alignment bonus for the honour of holding a racial monument for a number of days.]

[Edit: The only functioning alternative to War Declaration Fees and War upkeep fees, as well as the Wary requirement to declare War, would be that a War would not absolve any Alignment loss or avoid Rogue status, unless accepted by the targeted alliance counter-declaring War. That would severely limit the War function, and make it into a Dueling system between clans, and bring a true need for functioning Race Wars and cleaning up most of the ARAC mixing of clans.]

[Edit: And one more, that is needed to improve the World and make it work, that is part of the Alignment system as well:

Add Peace-keeping forces to Chaos Cities, with a modified Rogue system triggering Towers/Guards, but ignoring Reds (and Darkreds as there is no racial alignment in the city).

Within City Limits of Chaos Cities, everyone, including Reds, will go Rogue for hitting other people... even Reds. And anyone downing(=killing) or Ganking somebody impose a cumulative 24 hour Rogue status within that specific Chaos city and if the offender is bound to that Chaos city's bindstone that bind is removed to the nearest Chaos stone. (On top of losing Alignment as usual if the target is Blue... or gaining if it is Red/Darkred.) This Rogue status will trigger peace-keeping forces, driving the offenders out of the city one way or the other.

This will make Chaos Cities havens for Reds of all clans, and proper trade hubs for everyone, especially Red and ARAC clans, to work as proper cities instead of just being dominated by gangs as a territory or just be a PvP spot.]

Vote as you please, and add to the discussion below to keep this subject alive!

Lord Zeb

07-27-2009, 07:04 AM

As for a further comment:

I am not telling people they should not PvP. I am encouraging it, as long as it is proper PvP, and not just robbing people of your own race just because they are weaker.

And even IF all you want to do is go around robbing people whoever they are, I am not telling you that you cannot. You will still be free to kill whoever you like. You are just more likely to become Red, and after that it doesn't matter if you do Greyable offenses or not. ;) Those who are Red "permanently" by choice, don't need to worry a bit, since they don't go Rogue. :p If you want to be a criminal, go Red, take the consequences. If you wish to live a life of crime, little will be stopping you, and you can live your life in Clan cities quite comfortably instead. Everyone else who wishes to take advantage of the broken system are either con artist thieves or cowards.

The same go for the ARAC and Red-aligned clans. Remain a Yellow gang of pirates (as Yellow alignment will not affect the Red players) or go clean, purging your member lists from unwanted subjects. If you really want to keep fighting with the same people on your side, you can always separate into sister-clans within the Alliance. Just have the clans remain Allied, and you will have no greater problem, so one can spare the Lore and encourage Race Wars, despite all the intermingling that has happened. It is NOT TOO LATE.

Now, the very soul of Darkfall is poisoned. The Lore is fading, the Newbies fleeing, and people remaining cares less and less... when they need to be INVIGORATED by the game's spirit!
That very spirit that has been built up during the years of development is now dying...

I want to save it. Do you?

Cuferedir

07-27-2009, 07:33 AM

I totally agree with your post.

The Lore in the game is pretty nice, but about noone cares about it.

Now with the Houses and the trading window, reds/criminals have a place to trade now.

I would like to add, that there need to be more reasons to leave the guardtower protected cities, or have i just overread this part?

How about a little voting system, for good things, like you revive someone who got killed by mobs, or you help someone with a quest or give some armor or weapons?
-just one vote every24h
-cant vote if on friendslist, same clan, same alliance.
-only one vote per character every 48h

this doesnt have to be added to your alignment, but instead shows on the targetbox when someone targets you.

Regarding leaving and rejoining the clan, you wrote atleast 24h, you are right.
Keeping in mind that alot of clans have their crafters untagged, or made a new crafter clan that they join if they want to craft, i think the rejoin any clan should be atleast a couple days.

Regarding suspect status, how about they can still enter cities as you wrote, but as soon as they draw a weapon, they getting zapped?
Because a supsect drawing a weapon is no longer a suspect, right? ;)
If they someone hit them first, they are allowed to draw a weapon for self defense though.

Lord Zeb

07-27-2009, 07:55 AM

Yes, definitely need to be done. And not just because of the Villages, as Reds had places to trade from even before: towerless banks, clan hamlets / Cities, Chaos cities and such.

Regarding the needs to leave Protected Cities... that should not need to be inbuilt in the Alignment system... We only need to make sure people do not stay there to exploit the towers, stealing Mounts and harassing people by jumping in front of them, or declaring War on Crafters that is standing by the Workbench and such.

Suspect system lets them to have Drawn weapons inside the cities, but does not let them use them. But, it lets others use weapons against them, without letting the Suspects have the right to defend themselves.:sly: So, I think the system is fine enough by saying no to both those suggestions regarding that. ;)

A Voting system for "good deeds", leaving things in Player hands would probably be a bit too exploitable, but... Alignment rewards for good deeds could be interesting... killing bad guys should not be the only way to be Good.

What do you think about getting +1 Alignment if one Revive a Stranger? (May not be of own Party, Clan, Alliance, Friends list, Racial Enemy or Red, and only able to gain +1 Alignment from a single person per day.) A person who has been Forgiven for downing that person within the last 24 hours should not gain any Alignment for Reviving him. And should he have downed that person, then Revived him, then been Forgiven, the +1 should be retracted as well.

Could be a bit exploitable by people having Alfar doing the kills on Mirdain newbies, and then have their Human friends come along to Revive them... And then have the Alfar kill them again, and Gank them to take their Loot. But, still a nice idea. Think it's worth it? Should I put it into the above now while the thread is still fresh?

Cuferedir

07-27-2009, 08:12 AM

Sure, sounds good, add it :)
regarding alfar and human working together..
since only +1 alignment per character per day, that isnt a huge problem.
if they are in the same clan the problem is even further reduced, since the suspect status.

Thus leading to another problem, people that are not clan'ed together and of different races working together, so your KOS-list fix is needed, to prevent this.

Lord Zeb

07-27-2009, 08:39 AM

Added. And only one person apart from us have had time to Vote on this yet, so no biggie.

And if they implement the above, including adding "+1 for Reviving a Stranger", then people who mistakenly hit someone so they go down, and who do not get Forgiven, at least only lose 3 Alignment. ;)

darkpyro

07-27-2009, 09:35 AM

I aggree 100%

Leg enD

07-27-2009, 11:29 AM

refused to vote.

you sir, are a tool.

Lord Zeb

07-27-2009, 12:06 PM

Which of us, and why?:sly:

Prathion

07-27-2009, 02:50 PM

How about boons for guilds who do follow the current race/alignment system.
Alliances should also effect boons. Implement shrines or something similar to Shadowbane. Single race guilds get bigger boons, ect..
There should be a penalty for ARAC guilds.
While i'm on the subject DF should also borrow the idea of capturing mines or locations for clan/city gain. Give players something to fight over.
To further use the alignment system makes these aquisitions based on race/alignment.
my 2 copper peices

Cuferedir

07-28-2009, 06:16 PM

I really like the idea with boons.

For example: If you have a church or temple you can build a statue, but in each city only one.
and there is one statue for each race (or race alliance), the statue can you you a little, let's say 10% bonus to your damage but only if you have the appropiate race(race/alliance).

Lord Zeb

07-28-2009, 11:12 PM

One could have a system where one fight over Holy places, which mean a lot to certain races, but nothing to others.

Mirdain and Alfar should probably have a lot of those... and the Humans are a religious bunch. Not to mention that the Orcs have their dragon god that probably would wish to despoil neighbouring races holy places.

General idea would be that they should be set in the border territories between 2 races who are the only to get any bonuses, and only non-ARAC clans of the right races should get the bonus. Maybe even Pure race clans should be given even higher bonses, despite having only members of the same Alliance (Dwarf/Mirdain/Humans or Orc/Mahirim clans having at least one less benefit than others).

I think that greater Mana Regeneration for all in the Clan would be a good bonus... magic is boosted by holy sources, as in DF all Gods are essentially only great and powerful mystical=magical beings.

Lord Zeb

07-30-2009, 01:13 AM

Thought a bit about it and added the Holy shrine idea to the above, to encourage Race wars:

[Edit: Holy shrines or similar in the Border territories that each is fought over by 2 races, and only grant a bonus to Clan Members of that specific Race if the clan that Owns it at the moment do not contain members of both races in question. Bonus granted by the Holy Places should be minor but still worthwhile, such as higher Mana Regeneration.]

If anyone is up for discussion on the specifics, or wish to add to it, I am open for discussion.

Cuferedir

08-02-2009, 07:32 AM

Î like the Idea so far, i am thinking more about it during the day, and maybe i get some nice ideas, too.

We really need more pvp hotspots, and something meaningful or this game will die slowly but surely.

Lord Zeb

08-10-2009, 02:41 AM

Only 33 Voters so far and 7 of those don't even count?

Well, can at least bump this up at a 1/3 of a hundred votes analysis, by only counting the 26 that did read the suggestions to be able to Vote properly, in the percentages:

I don't like horsethieves, so I like the suggestion that lets me kill them while they ride away, without Tower interference! 42,31 %
Popular, but not supported by the majority... yet.

Don't like ninjalooters or people taking stuff from my friends Tombstones, so please make them go Rogue so I can kill them and retake it! 46,16 %
Seems people wish to kill Ninja-looters slightly more than Horse-thieves... despite that the Mounts most often are far more valuable than some random Mob loot.:confused:

Alignment should not be easy to farm, one should not be able to "milk" it from friends/AFK people! 53,85 %
Seems like a majority at least wish to have some kind of non-exploitation functions implemented.

Rogue timers should definitely be a bit harsher and not as easy to exploit. Please fix as below. 38,46 %
Most people seem to think that the Rogue system is fairly well balanced... even if more than a third doesn't.

A more intricate Good & Evil system would be interesting... 50 %
Interesting... that so many wishes for this little idea to be implemented.

Wars should not be as exploitable as they are, let's have War fees! 42,31 %
Apparently most people like their money enough to the point of letting othets be able to take advantage of the War Declaration to rob people easily. Well... at least it is close so a couple of more Votes would bring it into the majority wanting to curb Wars in another way than just 1/day.

Would LOVE to be able to "Declare War" to individuals, to have the Kill-On-Sight list truly be something of value! 65,38 %
Most popular suggestion on the board! :cool:

Put in some uses for Wary (and Friendly) to be a buffert time for War declarations. 34,62 %
This is the least wanted fix included in this suggestion... and still more than a third want it!

Let ARAC clans have their Blue members be Perma-Greyish Yellow! They are TRAITORS! 53,85 %
Looks like people don't like the ARAC clans, despite that nearly everyone are part of them. Majority says: fix it AV.

Those bandit clans with lots of Red players in them are definitely suspicious... let Clan Alignment have a use and have them be Perma-Greyish Yellow too. 42,31 %
Decent amount of people don't like the bandit clans... or wish to be branded such properly. :ninja:

I hate people exploiting Alignment holes and ARAC alliances, and think anything to stop it would be good. These suggestions should be a Priority to implement, AV! 46,16 %
Not a majority, but interesting enough more than some of the above, even if this is in essence covering all the above.

I'm Red, and like it. Don't care about ARAC clans or Alignment, but others that do may have these changes if they want. 3.86 %

Do not like Alignment systems... but don't like ARAC clans either. Posting alternative solution below. 3.85%

I don't want no stinkin' alignment or War declaration system, not the current or the one below or any other system. Just remove it! 3.85%
Very few opposing it, or not caring... guess those that didn't care dropped off early on. Is a bit of a wall of text, but sadly enough, the game needs it.

Well, the number of Voters are fairly small at the moment, so the above sentiments could change... if you want them to.

Go Vote!

Lord Zeb

08-10-2009, 09:08 PM

Have been thinking a bit about the War fee.

First of all, I wish to point out that I still believe that:

War Fees should be Gold Sinks, removed from the game to combat inflation
War Fees should be paid by the person that declares the War, so that they need to have Gold in their pockets as they do it.
War Fees should be according to number of Clan Members in the Clan that declare the War, not it's Target.
War Fee cost should be high enough to make it non-profitable in most situations to attack Newbie players... those who attack others beware.:p A few hundred Gold are hence a good starting point. (250+25/member of own clan)
If War Fees are implemented, War Timers of 1 War per day are not needed, even if a timer function of that one need to be Wary to declare War before one can declare it properly, so that the 20 minute political change timer come into play.

If any of the above has been obscure in the starting text, please tell me so that it may be corrected.

Now, as for my further thoughts:

Should there only be a one-time War fee, or should it be needed to be paid again... let's say every 3 days? This isn't to protect Newbies from getting robbed in Tower Towns, but more for the integrity of the system.

My opinion is that there need to be some kind of limiting function so that there are not loads of Wars running around being non-tended to. A WAR should be something proper, something one need to attend to!

So, how should Wars be able to be ended? Need there be a Peace treaty from both sides? Or should it just lapse? Or be allowed to lapse, if one or the other side wish to end it?

Do we need to either have that a "continuance War fee" ever 3 days to keep fighting?

Or should we have that any part can End the War if they so wish, if no one have killed anyone on the other side for 3 days or more, and the other does not object for... another 3 days? (Message sent to the Generals that the War is lapsing and the others are avoiding it, and that they need to push a button to keep the War alive.)

Please comment.

stingerII

08-17-2009, 05:41 PM

great post ... just don't agree with war fees

lkx

08-17-2009, 05:47 PM

Faulty poll, there isn't any option against the ARAC change without disapproving your entire thread.
I agree with most of your allignement changes, but would be insane to change arac behaviour at this point.

Lord Zeb

08-17-2009, 07:33 PM

Faulty? No.

It's a multichoice-poll, so each option is essentially a Yes/No vote for that component. One can then vote ONLY for the anti-ARAC option and no other option if one wish... or for several options, but not all.

And if one do not like any of them and wish to show an alternative against ARAC clans, there is "Do not like Alignment systems... but don't like ARAC clans either. Posting alternative solution below." Apart from just posting here.

If you still think it is faulty, please explain why it would be so, despite being a multi-choice poll.

Elindor

08-17-2009, 10:14 PM

I like MUCH of your post. I do think the alignment system needs help, and like you said - not because i dont like PVP, but rather because I DO like pvp.

My thoughts:

- Attacking someone's mount needs to grey you.

- Stealing from someones grave (not looking but actually taking) should be a CHOICE. It should grey you for a minute or two. This would solve a lot of things including the 2 man teams that have 1 red and 1 blue and the red kills a clanmate and all you can do is "loot faster" than the blue who is taking your clanmate's stff. This is just silly and makes me want to /signoff. It will also encourage teamwork between victims when attacked by higher level players instead of what I call now the "drop of blood in a room full of vampires"

- Add a BACKGROUND COUNTER for greying. You hit someone once, you grey 10 sec...rinse repeat, nothing ever happens. If you go grey 3 times within 2 min or something like that, you should go 2 min grey. Current system just encourages pointless mouth breathing annoyances from bored 12 year olds.

- Have roving guard groups in the areas around the main racial cities and patrolling out to the surrounding starting cities..that makes ganking in these areas more of a risk.

The KEY is not to STOP PVP, but to supply the proper RISK to infaction pvp so that its a CHOICE someone makes to do it or not...not something that is done quite so lightly now. Also, the system tends to work against those who seek to uphold justice and tends to aid gankers.

Lord Zeb

08-18-2009, 04:44 PM

Seems like Ikx had no comeback on the counter-arguments, so I declare the Poll still good, until he does come with something valid. ;) As I hve actually done this for a living it would be embarrassing for me to post such things thoughtlessly, always do try to make the Polls valid.

Also, good that you like the suggestions, Elindor, even if I think they won't put in any Guards into the game. (Would be great to have them though, even if they would just be stationary Archers and Cannoneers on the Walls or something, to preserve power...) It's hard to think that it would take so much computer power with all the Mob Spawns running around that one cannot even have hirelings or summons (Necro is wanting...) but well, AV should hopefully know best.

Not that Guards have anything to do with the Alignment or even War function system, but is nice to look at the big picture where such secondary systems such as Guards in regard for Town and Newbie help would at least have a role to play.

silver khan

08-19-2009, 01:18 PM

Lord Zeb

08-20-2009, 09:42 PM

After reading The system of stealing rafts and i guess boats etc (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=210052), I realised: It's the same as is needed for Mounts!

Added raft & ships details to the Mount changes above and added Warhulks too, completing this suggestion a bit more. With the detail that one should not be able to reduce it to a figurine if anyone is at the helm.

Lord Zeb

08-22-2009, 09:16 PM

In the discussion players need to stay grey for longer time after attacking blue players! (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=210779) there was a notion that Debuffs/Curses needs to be considered attacks.

After all, a person that starts to Curse a target to weaken it, and then attacks, should be a suspicious target. Even if just temporary, the Debuff is a debilitating attack, so it should not be possible for a Blue Witch to help her Red friends rob someone without even becoming Grey. (Will still be difficult to lose Alignment by Curses alone though, since Debuffs are not designed to kill by themeselves.)

Hence, I have entered this definition of attacks that make people go Rogue:

...
Rogue timers:
If you hit someone you go Rogue for 10 seconds, as now. The definition of hit is any melee, arrow, or spell that damages or debuffs you. That is: they need to include Curses in the attacks that make people go Rogue.
...

Lord Zeb

08-25-2009, 09:50 PM

Have been thinking a little bit about whether allowing ARAC Alliances, while putting ARAC Clans as Yellow, is good.

My conclusion is that... yes, ARAC alliances should be allowed, as it is congruent with the vision described in the Darkfall fiction writing The Mage's Hand-Guide to Agon (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=98070), where both Orc and Mahirim clans help the Human/Mirdain alliance to strike back the Orcish hordes... and where a few Alfar go around killing the Orcs as well, but not killing the Humans/Mirdain.

ARAC Clans should however be handled as above, turning them perma-greyishly Traitor Yellow.

Diminished

08-26-2009, 01:59 AM

Man... the KoS system is if you own a city and you dont want someone in your clan alliance IN THAT CITY. Do you even know all of what youre talking about?

Diminished

08-26-2009, 02:09 AM

This suggestion is terrible... You try to give pvp some sort of purpose that YOU think is suitable through game mechanics. I see this as very shortsided; after I read it, I realized you hadnt been in many fights. This suggestion takes away from end game play, which in my opinion is what the game is mostly lacking. I see this as trying to supress people from getting killed, not the other way around.

Terrible.

Diminished

08-26-2009, 02:16 AM

Also... the poll was made badly. Too many choices, there are no true YES/NO options to choose from, the only so called "NO" was saved at the bottom, almost hidden from all the rest which looked like you needed to choose something. Then... even the "NO" button had its own suggestion added onto it. So either way Yes or No you added your own words to what people were voting on to. Impossible to vote on that poll, if you dont want words put in your mouth.

Lord Zeb

08-26-2009, 02:52 AM

Man... the KoS system is if you own a city and you dont want someone in your clan alliance IN THAT CITY. Do you even know all of what youre talking about?

To be honest, I have not checked exactly what the KoS system does, but that it makes Clan City Towers attack them is good to know. Does it paint them Orange as well? Probably not. Why this should be done. If your Towers can shoot at them and even kill them, but you cannot without at least going Rogue, then there is a discrepancy in the system.

Have to confess that my clan have never owned a City, why I haven't been able to experience the KoS list's use myself. But it is always good to learn new things, why these discussions are so important. Do however not think this revelation of the KoS system will warrant any editing in the above post. (Which I will readily do by adding comments about it, if you manage to convince me of it's flaws.) So, please, if there are any aspect of the KoS list that I have missed that would influence this system, please teach me how it works and we can discuss the above in more detail.

This suggestion is terrible... You try to give pvp some sort of purpose that YOU think is suitable through game mechanics. I see this as very shortsided; after I read it, I realized you hadnt been in many fights. This suggestion takes away from end game play, which in my opinion is what the game is mostly lacking. I see this as trying to supress people from getting killed, not the other way around.

Terrible.

No, I am trying to fix a system that AV tried to implement, but as I assessed, have failed to do. This based on my understanding of their vision as have been painted during the years I have followed the game.

PvP is to have consequences... and what those consequences are depends on who you kill. And as I stated in my second post, this has NOTHING to do with HINTERING people to kill people. The Yellow status even allow you to kill MORE, without interference of either Towers nor Alignment penalties!

As for "End game play"... there is no "End game", there is only play. This is a Sandbox game, you can do whatever you want at any time of the game. Newbies can partake in Wars, Conquests, PvE, PvP, Crafting, Gathering, Trade and whatever... even if their efficiency in it will be lacking in the beginning. And those that you probably label as being in "End Game Play" probably don't bother much about Alignment and races nowadays anyway... which is BAD for the game, as then they not only go against the Lore, poisoning the game immersion, but they also bring about a boring world without meaning to it's conflicts... or even devoid of conflict!:ohno:

After all, it's more fun to kill someone if there is a reason to kill them.:p

Also... the poll was made badly. Too many choices, there are no true YES/NO options to choose from, the only so called "NO" was saved at the bottom, almost hidden from all the rest which looked like you needed to choose something. Then... even the "NO" button had its own suggestion added onto it. So either way Yes or No you added your own words to what people were voting on to. Impossible to vote on that poll, if you dont want words put in your mouth.

It's a multi-choice poll, so EVERY question is a Yes/No question.

As for the other questions, including the one that you think is the "No" question, they are about other things, to determine what kind of person is voting. What drives you to vote like that. First one is whether you read this or not, and those clicking that one are to be disregarded as they have essentially said: No thanks, I won't fill in this poll.

#2-#11 are components of the suggestion, which allows people to vote for the parts of the suggestion they think is good. (Have tried to break it down to good pieces.) Also give a tool in analysing what parts are most appealing to people.

#12 is an "Intensity question", that show if implementing all of this is an important thing for people. (Could be made better, but this is a budget version as I only got 15 slots in the Vote.)

#13 a classification issue: If the voter is not affected by this, and hence do not care. Also good to know how large that population is.

#14 another classification: Negative to Alignment system, but seeing the problem with ARAC alliances.

#15 a last classification: Negative to both Alignment system and ARAC alliances.

(Didn't have room for a 16: Positive to Alignment system, but also positive to ARAC alliances... but that can be construed by analysis of #10, which is the sole classification of ARAC fighting, why it was not really necessary.)

Do this for a living, and even if I have had a bit of fun and been a bit wordy here and there, I deem that these questions as well as their structure are quite sound. If there is anything about this that you deem is faulty, please come and critique it, but be specific. This is what I have done for a living, so if I am making mistakes, it would be good to improve my skills.

And... regarding number of fights I have been in? Can say that I have been of a somewhat peaceful nature at times, but have still been killed and tried to kill more time in DF than I can count... and it is not PvE I am talking about. Have to admit I have more often been on the losing side, but I have ample experience... as for other kind of fights? Have led alliances to War in other games, fought both on the winning side as well as the losing side, and never surrendered... have played a multitude of wargames of both strategic, Roleplaying and FPS nature. Have also trained martial arts of many kinds, as well as used them... I know how to throw a battleaxe and hit a target, I know how to shoot a bow, how to fence with light foils, broadswords and two-handers, with or without shield. Not to mention that I can handle a polearm quite well, apart from other skills regarding combat... and know a lot about the crafting of both weapons and armour in RL.

Heceldi

08-26-2009, 07:35 PM

I dislike the idea that yellows can't fight back in towns. I REALLY dislike that idea.

Lets say an action that would flag a player grey on a blue aligned player is a 'criminal action' (theft, attacks, debuff, etc).

Anyone who performs a criminal action against a yellow-aligned player should become 'yellow-aligned' to THAT player for the same duration as they would suffer grey from your system.

Thus, if a yellow enters town, they cannot attack anyone, but if someone attacks them, they can defend themselves. Others will see the 'yellow' as yellow and can jump in and help in the attack, but would see the 'blue' as blue, so could not help against the non-ARAC. The friends of the 'yellow' who may also be yellow will see the attacking player as blue UNTIL that person attacks them as well.

No penalties (or bonuses as per your example +1 for reviving) should occur for either side in the event of downing, reviving, death, ganking, looting, or stealing from either player against the other. If the blue-turned-yellow returns to blue status, then all penalties should go back into effect (but corpse should retain status as yellow-at-death to the player that was attacked, to allow looting... you wouldn't want them to be able to come back, grab their gear, and immediately attack again!)

To not allow them to defend themselves -at all- is to 'find them guilty', even though they are only a 'suspect' per your system.

Azraine

08-26-2009, 08:06 PM

to be honest, i think red people need more punishments, that is people evil to their own race.

If someone goes red, they should get a key placed in their inventory (like starter items, that they cannot but, but it can be looted) And that key gives access to their bank. So if they get ganked, and looted, while red, the person who loots them can go rob them.

When red, and when this key is in your inventory, a bag should be added to your bank, this bag, if someone comes to rob you, will fill with a random 10% of everything in your bank, gold, armour, weapon regs, whatever just 10%, and the person can only steal this bag.

It happens automatically whenever that person with your key returns to their bank, in the same way as opening a chest.

This should just warn people a little more about going red, and possibly people who are rogue aswell, just to deter it.

captain chaos

08-26-2009, 08:35 PM

great idea!

listen up AV!!!

captain chaos

08-26-2009, 08:37 PM

Azraine

08-26-2009, 08:47 PM

captain chaos

08-26-2009, 08:54 PM

maybe so but something, like maybe you can skin bodies and you get an ear, and red ears get you 2k gold from some npc vendor. Just so people go out hunting reds.

either more punishment for reds, or more rewards for killing them, or both.

like in UO where you could get the head of the ppl you killed? :)
But still, if they'd just fix the alignment and racial war system there would be no further punishment needed.

Rekshop

08-26-2009, 08:58 PM

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein

This system is way too complex. I like your ideas but they need to be implemented in a much simpler way. Revise your alignment rules until they become simpler. Then revise the rules again.

Eventually you will come up with something explainable in a couple paragraphs. When that happens you will get more support from the community and really have something worth implementing. Keep at it .

Heceldi

08-26-2009, 11:43 PM

There really does need to be some drawback for being red. I'm all for neglible stat loss on death with alignment -1 or lower, escalating based on lower alignment.

Why?

Because this is a sandbox game, and it is the ONE playstyle that disrupts ALL other playstyles. For this same reason, they MUST make war rules different. Neutral->Wary->War is a great idea, and really should be implemented immediately.

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

Another thought on the subject...

Wars cost. They cost a LOT.

Why not add in maintenance fees on wars?

Whoever declared war (clan), has to pay upkeep on their wars (something small, like 500 or 1k gold per day) to maintain the war, and without paying the fee, starting at oldest declaration working forwards, the war is reduced to wary status. Add this to a 1k or 2k cost to declare, and suddenly, the 4 man clans who make a living killing defenseless clan crafters have to pick and choose their targets carefully.

It would really only affect guard tower huggers, since outside guard towers it doesn't matter what color you are (for now).

Lord Zeb

08-27-2009, 12:48 AM

@Heceldi - If you dislike that you cannot fight back as Yellow in town, don't become Yellow! It is supposed to be great drawbacks with being Yellow.

And being Yellow simply does not excuse you from Greyable offenses. That such behaviour only confirms your criminal status.

As for drawbacks of being Red, we now have: Towers shoot at you, so one cannot enter NPC towns, binding is kicked out to Chaos stones if you turn Red, and you are hunted by anyone who wish to up their Alignment = other Reds.

The above not only fixes it so that one person need to find plenty of Reds and kill them. But we also have the Yellow enforcement of clan members to brings in outside pressure , as having several Reds in the alliance makes everyone else Yellow, making it so that they either get hounded by their alliance brothers to shape up their Alignment or get Kicked, if people think Yellow is bad enough. (If they give a crap about what alignment they got. Might make people just let everybody in the clan go Red... which I also think is good, as then they won't exploit Blue/Red exploitation tactics).

This way, it will become harder to get away from being Red, making going there harsh, as well as the being of being Red to be worse with the addition of "group punishment" that inserts an element of social pressure to shape up. It is what I think is exactly what is needed for Red status to be bad enough.

If Reds would get their Bank accounts looted, they simply would just become communists and use the Clan bank, having nothing in their personal banks. If one would get money for "Red ears", they would start to exploit it to get loads of gold, and there would be a massive player-created influx of Gold in the game that would drive up Inflation. So that wouldn't only be unnecessary, but negative for the game in general.

And as for the Maintenance cost of Wars... which side would pay it? There are 2 participants... And if one side would just stop paying the fees because they put down the War status while the other side maintains it, then one side would get benefits and exploit the other side... theoretically at least, if they now would have any benefits of a prolonged War. Robbers just want to kill their victims, and then generally forget about them, and don't care if they meet the same people again. (But if they do, and the War is still active, then at least the Orange labeling will warn the victims... which might make them avengers instead.:cool:)

Not to mention that there would be some kind of Maintenance function programmed, that would have a load of problems in itself. Should the Gold be pulled from the Clan bank? What if the Gold is just removed from the clan bank, would the War end? Would that be an exploitable way of ending a War? Where would one see how much Gold is taken each day? Which time of day should the Gold be taken? Lots of things that would need to be assessed, balanced, tested and re-balanced, and still might not have the positive effects one would wish. (And a 1k gold/day fee to maintain a War when one has been attacked is NOT a small fee to pay. At least not for a minor clan.)

A one-time fee is much simpler, and do the job of discouraging Robbers that is necessary. One only need to have a bit of Gold in the backpack and high enough Ranking in the Clan to declare War... which also means that you might be killed and looted out of your War-declaration-gold if someone else find you meanwhile, why it will be somewhat risky having a lot of Wars out, if you prowl the towns for robbery victims.:ninja:

Not to mention that one could have one penalty: If one do not keep up aggressions, maybe one should let the War lapse after about 9 days without killings? That way Wars cost Gold to initiate, and will cost manpower and effort to keep alive, or they will cost Gold to revive again. THAT might be a good "upkeep" to have instead.

And:
@Rekshop - No, the systems are simple. And why it is a wall of text, is because I describe 2 systems in detail, while writing about changes that is needed to be done to 6 systems: Alignment, Rogue, Clans, Wars, Information displays and Mount/Ship/Warhulk ownership. While suggesting implementation of 3 new systems: Yellow status, Good/Evil status, and Holy places to fight over.

There is a lot of text as I describe how to do things properly, and as it is quite a large part of the game that is handled. Of course I could summarize better and speak in more generalized terms, but I prefer to describe it more fully so there is less chance that the suggestions will be misinterpreted.

I apologize that it is a bit of a Wall of Text, but I deem it necessary. But I also ensure that I have assessed that problem, and worked to keep things structured and fairly short to be displayable and readable, and will continue to do so.

captain chaos

08-27-2009, 11:20 AM

*bump*

This is really important.

Please fix the alignemt/racial war system

edaw22

09-01-2009, 07:43 AM

Huge bump for the great ideas Zeb

I like pretty much every one and voted accordingly, keep up the good work.

Developers of Darkfall Please, i beg you look at this post with some serious consideration. Simply because it comes from a community member does not make it worthless, this Alignment system is a damn site better than the currant one.

Implement please.

stingerII

09-01-2009, 08:00 AM

Best suggestion I ever read

Azraine

09-01-2009, 09:00 AM

i am wrong, i prefer your things. I dont really know what to do about it, just throwing wild ideas in, never sat down and thought it through. Just hate people killing you while your crafting in a player city and stealing your stuff...NEARLY happened to me. ridiculous.

anstelios

09-01-2009, 12:25 PM

stingerII

09-02-2009, 12:09 AM

You forgot to suggest that one should turn in rainbow color when he stands infront of someone and should therefore be attackable because he is blocking the view !!

WTF are talking about ??

No need for Race wars !
Clan wars and Alliance wars are working just fine !!

race allegiance is already in the system, they just have to implement it so that it actually affects players!

Everything that is not green is a PvP target !

This fast food mentality of yours, i.e. get it quick, and get it cheap; yields a far poorer flavour of PvP than that suggested in this post

Alingment system works fine the way it is! If you want a change there, then removing it completely would be the way to go.

This suggestion was made to point out a major shortcoming of the alignment system. This is a game were you can do what you like, but you have to brace for yourself for the consequences ... as mild as an alignment hit may be.

DemiurgesWill

09-02-2009, 12:31 AM

Get rid of towers. Keep alignment if you want, but get rid of towers. Just get rid of them.

Maybe have blues with a skill below 30 take 25-50% less damage from reds or something, but please, get rid of the towers.

Even better, just have the towers cast a physical vulnerability spell that increases physical damage by 50%, 75% if you are a different race. It is just annoying that the towers end up being the de facto force around a lot of the towns. I don't play the game to get in fights with a tower that zaps everyone to death.

Insta kill towers have got to be the worst quick fix I've ever seen, come up with something more original, more manageable and something that doesn't punish people who want to go red so severely, and random blues who accidentally hit someone, that they can't go anywhere near the main towns.

If you are red the punishment of having everyone who sees you attack you should be enough, artificially forcing people out of playing the game the way they want ruins it. It has for me, and is one of the main reasons I'm playing a lot less.

stingerII

09-02-2009, 12:42 AM

DemiurgesWill

09-02-2009, 03:09 AM

The problem with towers has bothered me for awhile, but I'm starting to like the vulnerability spell more and more. I didn't think there would be a legitimate solution I would be happy with, but I think the vulnerability spell would satisfy the requirements of most people.

When a character aggros the towers, instead of having the towers kill them with overpowered lightning bolts, merely cast a very powerful vulnerability spell on them. I would suggest scaling up the power of the vulnerability spell so that it is mostly effective in the 3 starter towns, and have a much weaker one in the capital city/secondary towns. This makes other players have to deliver the killing blow on reds/rogues; which in my opinion helps the game.. so no more towers getting kills, it lets the players of the game take part in the punishment.

This also allows reds to have a much more enjoyable game play.. sneaking into towns to get stuff done, more fights, more pvp, but at the consequence of being extremely vulnerable in towns. It should eliminate red pvping in towns for the most part, and if someone does try to pvp, they should be easy prey for even a low level character.

I think it is a big problem that so few people get to go red in this game, it is a rarity, when I think a lot more people really desire to do it. The problem is the consequences are too great right now, having to live at a chaos town or player city isn't really an option for most people playing the game.

I think rogues should get a less vulnerable spell as well, so it isn't quite as damaging in fights when you hit someone accidentally and get it cast on you. Increasing the effect on other races would also be a good option.

The point is to make cities dangerous for reds but not impossible to live in.

Problem solved... I think this should seriously be considered, should solve a lot of issues with the game in my opinion.

Sorry for the long rambling post, just throwing a lot of ideas out there.

Lord Zeb

09-02-2009, 05:59 AM

Make cities posible for Reds to live in? There are plenty of cities for the Reds, they just have to keep out of the ones where the Law is upheld, as they are wanted fugitives. Go to a Chaos city, or get your own, if you want a city. Those options will be held open regardless if these suggestions are done or not.

As for Towers... "Vulnerability spell"? Whether one decrease the HP it takes to kill someone by reducing them, or by removing part of them, one is as easy to kill. (Which may not be easy, I say, as the difference in power between a Newbie and a macroed veteran is about 1:30.) The difference will simply be that you can strike more than once in a city, and not be penalized by the Towers for it...
No, don't think that would make things better. Things are easy enough for people that wish to become Red.

Best solution (on top of the Alignment solutions above) would however be to have Guards instead of Towers, that would run in and Knockback you out of the city. If they see you.:sly: And then one could still have the Towers remain, but with semi-stationary NPC Mages, who may cast many different types of spells, including Frailty, and with a little bit less all-knowing line-of-sight, with mobile NPC Guard Mob spawns to make up for the lack of LOS so that won't get exploited.

EG Noob

09-02-2009, 03:58 PM

Probably the best and most important thread of Forumfall.

I encourage everyone to read the wall of text! It´s worth it. Lord Zeb is adressing some major issues AV needs to fix. Give us race wars!

Go voting!

Lord Zeb

09-02-2009, 11:43 PM

It seem that Aventurine have heard Our prayers!

Praise the Creators, as they have implemented the missing part in Ownership:
If the Patch Notes September 2nd (http://www.darkfallonline.com/patch/090209.html) are correct, attacking a Mount, Warhulk, Ship or Cannon that is operated by a Blue person of own faction will cause a Blue aggressor to turn Rogue!

edaw22

09-03-2009, 01:50 AM

Shameless Bump for amazing Idea, devs need to see this as does everyone else.

Neurotiker

09-03-2009, 09:25 PM

Hopefully the next expansion will feature race wars, war fees and other issues mentioned in this great thread.

bongloads

09-03-2009, 10:07 PM

Good post (unlike mine)

edaw22

09-05-2009, 12:07 PM

Bump for Brilliant suggestion,

Lord Zeb

09-11-2009, 02:01 PM

After participating in the discussion Alignment (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=214132) posted by Dinladil, where he propose to inplement a timer system to patch up the broken alignment system, I have come to the conclusion that a Rogue timer would be the same as being Red for a while.

Hence, having a long Rogue timer on top of possibly becoming Red for killing people will be a safeguard to ensure that people don't get off easily, and just go and kill off a couple of Reds at the Chaos stone and get right back into the cities banking their Harvester-kill loot.

That is, if they become Red, and get back into Blue again within the 2 hours, they will still be affected by the Rogue timer.

Hence I have edited these lines:

...
Rogue timers:
...
If you down someone, and that one does not hit the Forgive button before it disappears, you go Rogue for +5 minutes, up to max 15 minutes.

If you Gank someone you go Rogue for 15 minutes, or until they push the Forgive button, whichever happens first
...

Into these lines:
...
Rogue timers:
...
If you down someone, and that one does not hit the Forgive button before it disappears, you go Rogue for at least +5 minutes, up to max 15 minutes. Or possibly +2 hours, if one wish to have Rogue as a safeguard on top of the Red alignment system, so that people that have killed others will still be Rogue if they quickly get back to Blue again.

If you Gank someone you go Rogue for 15 minutes, or until they push the Forgive button, whichever happens first. Or possibly up to +4 hours, if one wish to have Rogue as a safeguard on top of the Red alignment system.
...

Captain Kirk

09-22-2009, 08:44 AM

Dont want towers, reds shouldnt be able to use ''guarded'' banks (by guarded i dont mean towers or npc's just to split all the banks in 2, Guarded and unguarded). That would give people a good reason not to kill their race and to stay friends with them! A red player wont be zapped by any tower but a blue player can kill him without losing access to the ''guarded'' banks!

This would make raids on npc towns possible!

Lord Zeb

09-22-2009, 08:44 AM

Came to think of something while discussing Sandbox features of a Faction system... In a racist world like Agon, people will kill you on sight for being the wrong race unless they recognize you as an ally. Or friend, in a friendship that has spired despite the differences. So, if one can have Personal Wars, why not Personal Allies as well, to signify such a bond, as sort of a Faction system in regards only to those that know you in person?

Would be easily handled by simply tagging everyone as Ally Green that is on your Friends list, where an option whether a listed Friend is an "Aquaintance" (same as now) or a "Battlebrother" (Green and trusted), in a "Yes/No" data input square. Then one could have "Drizzt Do'Urden"s running around, that everyone want to kill until they get to know them as friends.;)

Hence, I have put in the post above:

[Edit: As one could have Personal Wars, for a true Sandbox notion one should also have Personal Allies, so one is able to ignore Race on Friends, seeing them as Green regardless of their alliance or Redness. (Alliance name colour should still be in Orange colour if one is at War though.) This could be easily handled by a choice box ticking off people as Aquaintances (default, and as now) or as Battlebrothers/sisters (allies=LightGreen)]

wolfsie

09-24-2009, 09:05 AM

"No, won't read this, its too much. Even the Poll options. Count me out."
Did read it, can't vote on this.

"I don't like horsethieves, so I like the suggestion that lets me kill them while they ride away, without Tower interference!"
Don't agree, cant vote on this.

"Don't like ninjalooters or people taking stuff from my friends Tombstones, so please make them go Rogue so I can kill them and retake it!"
Don't agree, cant vote on this.

"Alignment should not be easy to farm, one should not be able to "milk" it from friends/AFK people!"
Don't agree, cant vote on this.

"Rogue timers should definitely be a bit harsher and not as easy to exploit. Please fix as below."
Don't agree, cant vote on this.

"A more intricate Good & Evil system would be interesting..."
Don't agree, cant vote on this.

"Wars should not be as exploitable as they are, let's have War fees!"
Don't agree, cant vote on this.

"Would LOVE to be able to "Declare War" to individuals, to have the Kill-On-Sight list truly be something of value!"
Don't agree, cant vote on this.

"Put in some uses for Wary (and Friendly) to be a buffert time for War declarations."
Don't agree, cant vote on this.

"Let ARAC clans have their Blue members be Perma-Greyish Yellow! They are TRAITORS!"
Don't agree, cant vote on this.

"Those bandit clans with lots of Red players in them are definitely suspicious... let Clan Alignment have a use and have them be Perma-Greyish Yellow too."
Don't agree, cant vote on this.

"I hate people exploiting Alignment holes and ARAC alliances, and think anything to stop it would be good. These suggestions should be a Priority to implement, AV!"
Don't agree, cant vote on this.

"I'm Red, and like it. Don't care about ARAC clans or Alignment, but others that do may have these changes if they want."
Don't agree, cant vote on this.

"Do not like Alignment systems... but don't like ARAC clans either. Posting alternative solution below."
Don't agree, cant vote on this.

"I don't want no stinkin' alignment or War declaration system, not the current or the one below or any other system. Just remove it!"
Don't agree, cant vote on this.

For me there is no poll-option to show that I DONT agree with any of the suggested changes. I dont think I am the only one but even if I am it still makes the poll kind of faulty.

Daarco

09-24-2009, 09:44 AM

This is a very interesting thread Zeb:D

I really liked the thing about going Rouge for 30 seconds if you use a special attack in the city. Best thing i have read so far.

You must be in a very cool clan;)

squrrilslayer

10-02-2009, 01:25 PM

I didn't read all that... too late at night and im kinda bumping this but...
Scrap alignment as soon as you get about 200m away from a starter city. Wilderness should be unlawful. Wilderness should be FFA no punishment.
I don't know if you mentioned anything along those lines alread, sorry if you have.
I like how EVE does their 'alignment'. they have noob space which is restricted and null-sec space which the game police couldn't give a fuck what happened in there...
Have alignment only hold up withing LOS from a starter/capital city wall/boundary. Your alignment matters if you enter a city area (LOS around city + city itself) but if you leave that area, everyone should be in effect 'grey'.

I'll probably read your post tomorrow. a quick skim showed some interesting stuff.

xzxDJxzx

10-02-2009, 04:34 PM

NEVER change darkfall to WOW.

Also i think the writer of this thread needs to spend his time more wisely instead of spouting off rubbish.

Lord Zeb

10-02-2009, 08:57 PM

NEVER change darkfall to WOW.

Also i think the writer of this thread needs to spend his time more wisely instead of spouting off rubbish.
WoW? Haven't even played it. Would the above fixes to the broken Alignment & War system do that, and in what manner?

As for the other comment... probably could use my time better than arguing with people like you:p, but as for rubbish... just look through the comments in this as well as many of my other threads and you will find many who commends the wisdom in my advice.

Anyway, thanks for commenting and feel free to comment a bit more in detail to have your criticism actually affect the thread, if we find anything vital and constructive in your arguments.

xzxDJxzx

10-03-2009, 12:00 PM

I think you will find out of all the people in this thread 30% of people agreed with you and 70% disagreed. FAILED!

I feel that you should be able to kill and gank at least 3 of your own race before turning red as there are groups that often attack you when you are mineing or farming. Yes you are right before when it was 100 alignment the game was very unbalanced in the racial alignment area, but you have to hit a happy balance and that balance would be 30 positive alignment.

Also i love PVP and the fact i can kill my race or another race. SANDBOX game for the win!

Lord Zeb

10-03-2009, 04:21 PM

Based on the Poll, there is no single suggestion of the above that has gotten below as 30% acceptance by the voters... and that already before recalculating for the proper voting percentage, as 30 of the 127 that has Voted relinquished their right of having their voices heard as they didn't even care to read it through. Actually if you look at the option most people agree with me on, nearly 60% (twice the amount you state as minimum) agree with me that ARAC clans should have the new Yellow alignment status, being branded as Traitors, if you recalculate the numbers just omitting those ones.

And if you want to count the posters on this thread, and not the Voters, apart from you and me I have counted there to be 25 posters, of which 7 were very positive, 4 were positive but with some reservation, 10 were constructive adding to the discussion, 2 were negative and 2 non-voters. Not that is not truly representative of the populace in any statistical measurement, as it is qualitative data and not quantitative. Still don't get where your 30%/70% come from though.

As for your statement on that one should be able to kill 3 people before branded Red... that is a "Fail" in both directions of argument.

The only ethical basis I can possibly think of to make it right to be able to murder (and rob 2) people but not 3, would be "3 strikes and you are out", but... how would ANYONE be able to defend that credibly in regard to a simulation of a world where there is supposed to be a believable ethical system? DFO is NOT Baseball.

If you argue for total freedom (and chaos) then why would you even be bothered by killing 3 people? You should be able to kill as many as you like, or you are still restricted! "Sandbox" is hence not an argument, since it is still an imposed rule, that would be even more artificial as it is based on a game balance choice instead of Lore-based ethical philosophy.

Not to mention that the ability to kill 3 people before turning Red is a separate suggestion, as the above do not even address it and could even be implemented together with all of the above. Which is actually not very strange since only the shooting of Mounts increases player safety, which already have been implemented, the rest actually give more opportunity to attack people as it erodes the Alignment protection for wrongdoers.

So, what you are suggesting is actually to protect robbers and murderers by keeping them Blue, instead of opening up so that more people can hit each other without consequence, based on their actions and affiliations.

Now, if you please tell me in what manner the above system would make DFO akin to WoW and in what manner, please tell me, and we will have discussed that instead.

xzxDJxzx

10-05-2009, 12:33 PM

You are wanting to gear this game towards wow where there is no looting etc.

You my freind are fail.

Lord Zeb

10-05-2009, 08:19 PM

No, have never said anything about removing full loot. Becoming Rogue and loose 1 Alignment point for looting a Blue corpse that is not in your Party is very far from removing it. You can still loot freely outside city limits, and the impact is easily recovered elsewhere.

Now if this is all you base your assumption that I am trying to WoWify DFO, then I don't think anyone is very impressed by it. At least I'm not, as all my suggestions are essentially all about how one get to kill off people more! ;)

stingerII

10-05-2009, 08:48 PM

You are wanting to gear this game towards wow where there is no looting etc.

You my freind are fail.

nowhere is he mentioning anything of the sort.

Don't troll ppl who give a crap for DF enough to take the time to give a solid and constructive suggestion like this.

A sandbox game gives the player the ability to choose what he does. It does not mean there shouldn't be consequences for what he does. This isn't WoW where your actions never really affect you

Lord Zeb

10-07-2009, 12:55 PM

Nicely said.

Found a nice little discussion in WHY do we have to go red when defending cities ressources (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=217002) that includes City/Hamlet security level rating, which could be added:

[Edit: There have earlier been talks about using the settings for Tower defences for the access of Banks... so why not Resources as well. Hamlet/City Mayor decides whether their resources are free for all, free for everyone but Enemies or only for own alliance. And repercussions will be being shot by towers if coming into range, not having access to Banks and turning Rogue for 30 seconds if one use City Resources, which is cumulative for each Resource gained up to 15 minutes, if one is deemed a threat by the security rating. But not Workbenches or similar, as they pay a fee to use those.]

xzxDJxzx

10-15-2009, 03:55 AM

So one person makes a post and you bring it up just to bump your discussion up to the top. You came from WoW to change this game to wow so go back.

This is Darkfall this is why I and lots of others play it, for full loot, intensity fights and PVP GOING RED ETC.

Lord Zeb

10-25-2009, 02:29 AM

Yes, I gather in all good ideas out there, as well as update this thread with ideas I think of while reading other people's good ideas. This way the discussion hones the suggestions properly to include more and more details and getting rid of more and more flaws in the system as well as in the suggestions themselves.

Which now happened again, as I got a new idea when reading a thread:
[Edit: Would be nice to have some kind of sign on people declared Wary. Right now, only way to know, is to memorize the list of Wary alliances one have access to in the alliance page... I think a Sword over the head, instead of a Shield for Party or Invulnerability, would be a good sign to clearly mark out people who are Wary towards you, and hence a possible threat. And having a lot of silly swords hanging around would also make people thinking twice about declaring everyone Wary, keeping the world more beautiful without them. ;)]

Edited it in under the post regarding Wary status above.

And no, have never played WoW... but I did play the Warcraft strategy game series that was before it, so I am somewhat familiar with the world. But not the game. But as you go on about it, I think I better try it out just to see what it's all about.;) Heard a lot of terrible things about it though, like "auto-attack" when enemies get within range and such silly things from friends who have tried it... nah, why waste the time, have too little of it anyway.

Skinstripper

11-12-2009, 02:21 PM

stingerII

11-12-2009, 02:43 PM

ARAC clans are ridiculous, especially considering the original lore and direction of AV. Make them have a negative effect to the clan, or just make it more difficult in general. It's the one thing I don't like about Darkfall. I hope they fix it.

I totally agree. Would love to see most of the changes suggested in this thread.

Especially the Clan Alignment Average and the ARAC perma-rogue

xpiher

11-12-2009, 06:26 PM

I totally agree. Would love to see most of the changes suggested in this thread.

Especially the Clan Alignment Average and the ARAC perma-rogue

ARAC clans aren't perma rouge in this idea, they are "wary" Rouge is gray and towers hit them. The things I don't agree with are the ninja looting prevention tools and that mount stealing prevention tools. But really, this addition to the alignment system doesn't do anything to add to the game. You need more than just yellow for ARAC and Red clans, you need an RvR system in place.

See: http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=219747

RPers don't want PvP forced on them, then I don't want RP forced on me.

Lord Zeb

11-22-2009, 11:04 PM

Xpiher, now you are confusing people.

In that thread you are referring to, you are suggesting the same thing regarding Alignment as I do: Yellow for ARAC members of friendly races, which is as Rogue but are not attacked by towers. And that the Yellow ones of course also can become Grey too.

And this is how it should be, as it would be quite unfair if clan members suddenly started to get attacked by towers based on other's actions (recruitment making them ARAC or getting too much Redness among the members, which can be done in 3 ways: recruitment, people leaving, and too many people killing too much). Not to mention that as a Horsethief status as well, cities could become clogged up with mounts that one cannot sit on in fear of getting tower-zapped.

Another notion you have in your suggestion is however that non-ARAC clans would get a Alignment bonus on weekly basis, possibly from quests and the like... That could be a good incitament to make the RvR wars possible, helping to clean up clans a bit. Any suggestions on how to implement such alignment bonuses for pure-race clans? Should even "racial alliance-clans" such as Human+Mirdain+Dwarf and Orc+Mahirim clans to get such? Maybe one should have Alignment bonuses as one of the "shrine bonuses" we discussed earlier, as the work as "honorable guardians" of racial shrines gain Alignment bonus to only members of that race? Anyone have any opinions regarding this?

Lord Zeb

11-26-2009, 12:45 AM

Ok, no one interested in that suggestion... so I'll just add "Alignment boost" under the Shrine section.

Now, to another problem: People defending their own Hamlets and Cities getting Alignment penalties, regardless whether they are harvesters stealing your resources from your city-nodes or agressors who simply are not the ones hit first so they go Rogue.

I think the best solution for this, is that anyone that go over your City limit, who is not in your Clan, Alliance, Party (where one member belong to the clan or alliance owning the place) OR belong to a clan labelled Friendly by the owning Clan (making more use of that status) should be labelled Yellow if they step over city limits of private holdings, as Trespassers.

Any comments regarding this idea?

stingerII

11-26-2009, 01:49 AM

Lord Zeb

11-26-2009, 02:45 AM

Why not Hamlets?

There is greater need in the Hamlets, as they are hit more often, not having any defence structures.

Not to mention that the effects would not be so easily abused by the defenders, as it is easier to get out of a Hamlet's city limits than a City's.

Won't even have as much effect in a Hamlet as in a City, as Blue people can stand outside the city limit and shoot at the defenders with bows and spells, as there usually is no protection from walls, so why not give them the slight protection to their Alignment that they need, when they can get it?

Or is it that you wish to only remove the Yellow marking from people that are Clanless, and only have it appear on them if they go Gathering? No, don't think the effort of singling those out just to let them move through Hamlets relatively unmolested until they start chopping at things would be worth it. If AV would think it is worth it... then I wouldn't mind though... (wouldn't petition for it's removal if it was made, as long as the other aspects are done properly.)

stingerII

11-26-2009, 03:08 AM

Or is it that you wish to only remove the Yellow marking from people that are Clanless, and only have it appear on them if they go Gathering? No, don't think the effort of singling those out just to let them move through Hamlets relatively unmolested until they start chopping at things would be worth it. If AV would think it is worth it... then I wouldn't mind though... (wouldn't petition for it's removal if it was made, as long as the other aspects are done properly.)

Yes it was cause of that. A thing that annoys me in DF is that there is no middle-ground. If you're not an ally you're considered hostile. Though that may be normal for an FPS, it should not be the case in an RPG

If it were too much to ask than ye, I guess your alternative is fine.

AV needs to promote non-allied players to mingle/trade etc in some form or other

Lord Zeb

11-26-2009, 03:28 AM

Yes, that is a point. Solo players that don't even care to have a one-man-alliance cannot ally with clans, or even become Friendly with them, and hence would always be considered Trespassers even if they are friends with some of the people running the place they visit.

Still, there is needed some considerable programming work to implement the restriction that the Yellow status won't kick in unless they start Harvesting... not to mention that such little loopholes are ripe for people to exploit (just having the Blues jump out of their clans when attacking to be @$$pains that is troublesome enough to hesitate a bit)... so even if I now would consider it to be good enough to implement, I wouldn't set it as a dealbreaker or something to lobby much for.

stingerII

11-26-2009, 03:39 AM

fair enough.

Would be nice if a clan could have something opposite to the hitlist, like a clan's whitelist. i.e. unallied players which are either on good terms, or known negotiators or tradesmen that are friendly with the guild

Ofc, if said whitelisted person were to join a hostile clan they would be automatically remove from the whitelist

Lord Zeb

11-26-2009, 04:06 PM

Good point. One can have individual enemies, so why not individual friends, which would allow people to build relationships even without joining clans.

Also give one more option when it comes to backstabbery. ;)

I think this function would complement the system and patch up the problems with Solos we had in the previous suggestion, not needing a special status for Solos able to run into a village without being marked Yellow until they start to Harvest.

stingerII

11-26-2009, 04:14 PM

I think this function would complement the system and patch up the problems with Solos we had in the previous suggestion, not needing a special status for Solos able to run into a village without being marked Yellow until they start to Harvest.

Precisely :D

It doesn't exactly cater for unclanned neutral blues though, but hopefully it will instill a ask first, kill later mentality

krugar

11-26-2009, 06:02 PM

eve online was considering to add a feature called "treaties" in the expansion coming next week, not sure whether it actually made it in or not.

the idea is that alignment colors are not fixed, but tied to areas and certain criteria (e.g. we are green with you on niflheim, but neutral everywhere else / as long as you send us 10k gold each week / and you do not touch city nodes that belong to the alliance).

obviously a system like that is a lot easier to create in eve online where you have distinct places with hard borders (stargates), since an open world like darkfall makes it harder to formalize borders, but the general idea is pretty nice.

something less modular like "automatically KOS person that is not in our clan but uses our mine" would probably be more than enough for the current state of affairs in darkfall, tho...

Lord Zeb

11-28-2009, 02:54 AM

The Friend system will be a bit like such, combined with the Alliance system, if one implement that anyone entering City/Hamlet territory without being at least a Friend to the owning clan become Yellow.

And the inequality of solo players not able to be Friends and would then be stuck as Yellow regardless of how friendly they feel, would be helped by the inclusion of Clan Friendlist, similar to a reversed Kill-on-sight list.

As there are no Land territories, that's the best one can do at the moment. Possibly the "Shrine objectives" in the suggestion above could have territories like the Cities & Hamlets as well, that would also give a signal that the clan assets are attacked. What do you think about that?

Chris Windblade

11-28-2009, 04:02 AM

what is it going to acomplish by makeing arac's different color they still wont attack there own clan mates. is the point your trying to make, trying to make it harder for arac clans to fellow,group together or what? what is the point your trying to make here?

yea i think there should be more of a race war but here is the deal there is always going to be turncoats you will never beable to stop it. by making them change color wont make it any harder. tbo the only time faction is a problem is when you are in a npc city outher then that its never an issu i have been red since patch 2 only have gone blue recent to xfer with do to starting in a npc city.

and the kill on site is already in the game you havea journal and you can post anything you wnat in your notebook start a list of names its real easy you see them kill them you turn red well thats the price you pay for joining the ranks of a killer of same race. declaring war on one person is really carbearus because it takes all the risk out of it you want that person bad enough then do it the hard way stcok them. watch them set them up. what ever it takes dont be a cowered and try to make it all easy to kill a person that is a lot of over head and not really woth it. if some one kills your frind and takes his loot and you want to get it back dont be a chicken fight for it and deal with the consiquences that goes with it.

Lord Zeb

11-28-2009, 11:12 PM

Point of making ARACs yellow are to
1) give ARAC clans a penalty so not everyone will be ARAC, enabling the Racial Wars, and
2) decrease the ability for ARAC clans to exploit the current Alignment system both internally and in combat.

That the majority of all clans are ARAC is poisoning the game and killing the Racial Wars, and some sort of system must be put in to countermand it. IF we DO want Racial Wars... which AV has stated is supposed to be in the game.

Of course, regardless of whether this is in the game or not, there will be ARAC clans as long as the option to have ARAC clans remain in the Clan system. But with this, not EVERYONE will be ARAC, bringing diversity, lore and thereby immersion to the game experience.

As for the Kill-On-Sight feature to be handled as a War function targeting solo players... well 42% of the ones voting so far thinks it is a good idea. But you do bring a valid point up, even if not by your arguments: Putting in Kill-On-Sight as a War function is ripe for exploitation... but there should be at least SOME visual queue except that they get attacked by clan towers that they are on the list without needing to read through the Clan journal.

Lord Zeb

12-01-2009, 03:52 AM

Ok, discussion have been fruitful, so let's formalize some changes.

These changes have been made to the first post:

This have been added under the Kill-On-Sight list Personal War entry:

[Edit: However, for this not to be exploited, the player should get a notification of them being on the Kill-On-Sight list, have their own list of alliance they are on the Kill-On-Sight list, as well as have at least 20 minutes of in-game time from first notification to know they are on the list. Not to mention that a notification and list of Kill-On-Sight statuses should exist in Clan journal as well.]

This has been added under the Friendly status entry:

To make Friendly a usable status, one could also state that anyone that is Friendly toward an alliance should see at least the Clan name in Green, if not the Player Name. That way one could avoid a lot of troubles, while still letting each player stand for his own actions if one is not a true Ally.

[Edit: Furthermore, non-clanned Solos should be able to be on a Friendly Clan List, in the same way as the Kill-On-Sight list... but reversed.]

[Edit: Enable people to defend their Cities and Hamlets without risk of Alignment hits: Every Blue player who crosses city boundaries who are NOT part of the owning Clan, their Alliance, part of a Party with such clanned members in them, or is of Friendly status to the owning clan (getting true value for the Friendly status) should be marked Yellow as they are trespassers!

Thaad

12-08-2009, 06:53 AM

I see a personal vendetta system with a clan being a possible exploit that would need a serious amount of thought before implementing.

Most of your suggestions on Wars, I find to be inferior to my own simply because of the possibility of exploit, and the frustration added to those who aren't bad people in a clan that has recently started losing alignment.

Imagine, if you join a clan of 40, and suddenly one guy jumps in, and tips the scales to negative alignment. You watch the rest of the clan go gray in town, and get completely owned.

As for the personal vendetta idea, it would make your fixes for the war system needless, as a griefer is just gonna KOS anybody he sees, and not have to worry about retaliation from the rest of the clan.

Make a cost of some sort, or a prior kill or theft or something for KOSing a blue player, and it might help the issue. But the cost may not be enough if the player has a large stack of loot on his body (I.E. Trade killers)

The thing with personal KOS, you need to make the cost low enough that people will actually use it, but you can't make it too much to account for trade killers, who will still likely turn a tidy profit off of this activity.

Lord Zeb

12-08-2009, 10:35 PM

I see a personal vendetta system with a clan being a possible exploit that would need a serious amount of thought before implementing.
Yes, the Vendetta KOS-listsystem is volatile, why all the safeguards I have listed are needed. But, as it is now people just use the War system, so implementing this imperfectly will merely remove the clanless immunity to War, so compared to what we have right now it is of no greater consequence. That is, shouldn't do too much damage if implemented incorrectly.;)

Most of your suggestions on Wars, I find to be inferior to my own simply because of the possibility of exploit, and the frustration added to those who aren't bad people in a clan that has recently started losing alignment.
I do believe my suggestions form a whole that patches things up in synergy to outshine yours by far. Most parts are actully easening the ability to hit people without taking Alignment hits...and then especially those of questionable ethics will lose a lot of misguided protection, while those that wih to stay clean will have an easier time doing so. This lessens exploit opportunities.

Imagine, if you join a clan of 40, and suddenly one guy jumps in, and tips the scales to negative alignment. You watch the rest of the clan go gray in town, and get completely owned.
That will merely make Inviting Clan-Leaders be a bit more careful regarding who they let into the clan. Which is kind of the point of it.

But that is also one of the reasons why the Yellow status is so important o implement, so your clan don't suddenly get tower-scragged at the wrong moment. Unlike Rogue status, the Yellow alignment status do not provoke the towers... it is more like a War status, where everyone who see them as Yellow essentially have the same oppotunity to take them down as if they hae been Orange.

As for the personal vendetta idea, it would make your fixes for the war system needless, as a griefer is just gonna KOS anybody he sees, and not have to worry about retaliation from the rest of the clan.
If my system is implemented correctly, it will be so that if a KOS on a person is set, that person can kill any of their clan without alignment penalty. They also get a list of all alliances that KOS them, and can hence either convince their own alliance to open up a full War on the KOS:ers, or Join another clan who will.

Make a cost of some sort, or a prior kill or theft or something for KOSing a blue player, and it might help the issue. But the cost may not be enough if the player has a large stack of loot on his body (I.E. Trade killers)
Already in. KOS marking = same or similar cost and hinterances as War declaration.

The thing with personal KOS, you need to make the cost low enough that people will actually use it, but you can't make it too much to account for trade killers, who will still likely turn a tidy profit off of this activity.
Believe the War declaration costs will be sufficient... they are even low enough so that those who really want to can continue robbing people like that, and still sometime make some profits out of it... they will however simply be less easily made money.

And... that costly "exploit" will hence be all that remains of the aspects you complained about so far. Now, that I deem acceptable as well as that I still believe this to be superior to your system.

Got anything else you can see being exploitable or improvable?

Dark Hero

12-17-2009, 06:41 AM

Lord Zeb

12-17-2009, 06:54 AM

Not sure if this is one of the options, but it has to do with war declaration. What if when you declare war, everyone online in your clan goes rogue for 2 minutes. That means that people would have to be out of town to do it, which then gives time for the crafters and whatnot to bank and fight.

You can think of other things that might help out, but that was just all I could think of right now involving the war dec'ing
Going Rogue for actions that are not yours, is a terrible option. Do you really think Alliance leaders know what everyone in their clans are doing when they Declare War? Many will probably not even care, which will cause a huge deal of animosity against them as well as the game system.

That is one of the reasons why the Yellow alignment need to exist.

And even having everyone go Yellow for a couple of minutes would not really be needed, as the only function of that would be people being able to pounce War declarers and meddling in the War for 2 minutes. Would only be an annoyance.

Having people needing to declare themselves Wary 20+ minutes before, and you see who are wary by Swords hanging over their heads marking them out, and then having any profits they make to be punished by a War Declaration fee should be enough.

spade547

12-17-2009, 08:22 AM

seriously, stop all your alignment copying threads, then getting all your clan mates to /sign... fuckin pathetic.

MY SUGGESTION (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=226965) is way easier for AV to impliment and follows UO system.

Lord Zeb

12-18-2009, 05:37 AM

You're just yellous that most people actually think my ideas are good, where you yourself mostly get abuse. However, that also has it's reasons.

I have analyzed what the problems are, and amended them, while you have made a suggestion to copy an existing system while debasing the current one needlesly, and not adressing the problems at all, leaving all the holes left to be exploited, opening up more, and doing nothing against ARAC clan problem that is overturning the Race Wars the current Alignment system is based on, even questioning it's right to exist.

And even IF a time-based system similar that would be implemented together with all the non-conflicting parts of my thread that would solve the problems with exploitation and Race wars, it would not add much but give robbers an easier time to get back to Blue... they basically just need to wait it out.

Lord Zeb

12-25-2009, 10:02 PM

The thread War Declarations: Costs and Upkeep (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=228374) has given me some more discussion in this matter, and added another part to this discussion, patching up the hole of robbers "investing" in War declaration for long-term gains. Adding the following:

[Edit: Every 24 hours a War upkeep fee of 100 Gold is to be paid per active War, automatically deducted from Clan Bank. If no Gold is found, the War declaration is withdrawn and the status revoked to Wary. The War upkeep fee is there to dissuade people to just stock up on hundreds of Wars and not pursue them properly, declaring Wars for long-term robbery profits.

If the targeted clan accepts the challenge by counter-declaring War, paying a War declaration fee of their own, the War is now an established Feud, and do not need any upkeep fees for the War.]
[Edit: The only functioning alternative to War Declaration Fees and War upkeep fees, as well as the Wary requirement to declare War, would be that a War would not absolve any Alignment loss or avoid Rogue status, unless accepted by the targeted alliance counter-declaring War. That would severely limit the War function, and make it into a Dueling system between clans, and bring a true need for functioning Race Wars and cleaning up most of the ARAC mixing of clans.]

Lord Zeb

01-04-2010, 09:54 PM

An idea that will make the world better, but benefit ARAC clans, granting them a workable NPC safeish haven if the above is implemented, came forth through the discussion in Neutral Port Towns (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=229464) . This will be a piece in the puzzle for great trade-routes, in preparation for Zoned Banks... putting in a Red territory to cross to do trade across Agon, giving incitament for safer Ship trade... creating a Pirating arena.

Following suggestion has hence been edited into the above:

[Edit: And one more, that is needed to improve the World and make it work, that is part of the Alignment system as well:

Add Peace-keeping forces to Chaos Cities, with a modified Rogue system triggering Towers/Guards, but ignoring Reds (and Darkreds as there is no racial alignment in the city).

Within City Limits of Chaos Cities, everyone, including Reds, will go Rogue for hitting other people... even Reds. And anyone downing(=killing) or Ganking somebody impose a cumulative 24 hour Rogue status within that specific Chaos city and if the offender is bound to that Chaos city's bindstone that bind is removed to the nearest Chaos stone. (On top of losing Alignment as usual if the target is Blue... or gaining if it is Red/Darkred.) This Rogue status will trigger peace-keeping forces, driving the offenders out of the city one way or the other.

This will make Chaos Cities havens for Reds of all clans, and proper trade hubs for everyone, especially Red and ARAC clans, to work as proper cities instead of just being dominated by gangs as a territory or just be a PvP spot.]

Galadourn

01-05-2010, 11:30 AM

excellent ideas, would serve as the core for making this a sandbox and not just an FPS shooter

toastoncheese

01-05-2010, 01:35 PM

I regularly suckle on the teet of free alignment. It is rediculous that it can happen (fix the shoddy system dont fucking start banning people, geez).

Atleast I have the guts to admit I abuse a broken system unlike the other hardcore cunts in this thread complaining away about their stranglehold on noobs loosening.

edaw22

01-19-2010, 11:08 AM

BUMP

Also added a link to this thread in my Crafting and Gathering changes thread.

Arthamus

01-20-2010, 10:27 PM

Good post. Alignment is seriously broken and needs to be looked at. I would also like to add that there should be some major incentives for RAC's to own the citys/Hamlets around there capitals. There should also be some incentive
for good aligned vets to kill enemies in RA lands like bounties or something.

Lord Zeb

01-21-2010, 07:43 AM

Interesting points definitely. Think this could be implemented by:

Adding non-PvP oriented single-race "shrines" to be buildable within city limits of Racial Player Hamlets and Cities, granting this bonus to Player Temple buildings in Cities, where the bonus is only granted to they race whose "city style" the city belongs to. (Ability to rebuild cities in new racial styles should be added though... such as the ability to get building materials for buildings razed, to build other buildings and that the style of the city can be re-set by the Mayor, with Temple/Hamlet shrine addition.)

Collection of grisly Skinnable thropies from PvP kills, that one can trade in for some kind of bonus. Which should not be Gold as that could be exploited by ARAC clans, but some personal status... or mayby just a quest that grants Titles or something, but then the incentive would be gone when the Title was attained. Hard to avoid exploitation by ARACs and clans allied to ARACs here, so serious safeguards are needed. (Maybe loss of the attained Title if being in a ARAC clan, for starters: As you have been known to affiliate with the traitor scum of [ARAC-clan name], you have lost your status as a honored Guardian of the Realm.:cool:)

Regular Racial War campaign events only available to non-ARAC Blues (i.e. non-yellows a well as non-reds) could be an incentive though.

Arthamus

01-21-2010, 01:59 PM

How about a highly rewarding quest an RAC can get to reclaim a lost city in there RA homeland. If the clan owning the city has a negative clan alignment it should be considered lost.

Lord Zeb

01-21-2010, 10:38 PM

Nice idea. Yellow clan holdings getting Quests to take Racial holding, which are only takeable only if the Questers themselves are not Yellow... and of course has race members of the territory's race, allowing Race Alliance clans, but not ARAC clans. And also, that the clan in question must remain non-Yellow or fail the quest. OR maybe even harsher: Only pure-race alliances being able to execute these quests, so no Human alliances take loads of holdings in Mirdain or Dwarf territory.

Subcontinents would be untouched by these incitaments, and of course, people can still take and hold whatever they like and ignore the Conquest quests and their rewards.

spade547

01-25-2010, 10:12 AM

xpiher

01-25-2010, 08:48 PM

Here's my biggest beef with the race wars solution you offer. Friends want to play together. Friends can't always agree on which race(s) to be. Players are only allowed 1 character per account.

Do you see where I am going with this?

I say end racism. Let evil fight good. There are good wolfs and bad wolfs. If your an innocent non-criminal player, you should be blue to all races. If your a violent repeat offender, you should be red to all races.

Make the criminals outcast from society. Unless they create their own evil society by taking a holding and declaring their clan to be evil status. Then any towers they have to protect themselves attack non-reds.

Race wars would be cool if you could have more than 1 character.

Good v Evil is a trite non-imaginative hackneyed system that should of died with UO. Why? because the real world isn't black and white, its various shades of gray. Besides, there isn't any depth to that type of system.

At least with op-in RvR, op-in means you aren't forced to take part in it and not taking part in it doesn't hinder you from doing anything, you have multiple levels depth.

Arthamus

01-26-2010, 03:08 AM

Here's my biggest beef with the race wars solution you offer. Friends want to play together. Friends can't always agree on which race(s) to be. Players are only allowed 1 character per account.

Do you see where I am going with this?

I say end racism. Let evil fight good. There are good wolfs and bad wolfs. If your an innocent non-criminal player, you should be blue to all races. If your a violent repeat offender, you should be red to all races.

Make the criminals outcast from society. Unless they create their own evil society by taking a holding and declaring their clan to be evil status. Then any towers they have to protect themselves attack non-reds.

Race wars would be cool if you could have more than 1 character.

Freinds should be able to come to agreement on a race alliance. Even if they did change it to good versus evil what are you going to do when your friend wants to murder people indiscrimently and you dont. If you fight along side them your going to go red sooner or later. They should tie some skills or abilities to alignment and reward people for picking a side rather than just flounder back and forth.
Now large guilds coming from other games would probly have a huge problem picking a RA and probly lose members over it. Which is probly why they didnt give ARAC's consequences.

spade547

01-26-2010, 03:44 AM

Freinds should be able to come to agreement on a race alliance. Even if they did change it to good versus evil what are you going to do when your friend wants to murder people indiscrimently and you dont. If you fight along side them your going to go red sooner or later. They should tie some skills or abilities to alignment and reward people for picking a side rather than just flounder back and forth.
Now large guilds coming from other games would probly have a huge problem picking a RA and probly lose members over it. Which is probly why they didnt give ARAC's consequences.

If my friends wanted to murder, not pvp then I'd say hi to them in prison (chaos cities) once in a while. You can not escape human nature for desiring justice. Trying to make a society around no justice will never work. AV needs to do something soon....

If you want some sort of race wars I suggested an arch enemy race that is still red to you.

xpiher

01-26-2010, 04:01 AM

How about a highly rewarding quest an RAC can get to reclaim a lost city in there RA homeland. If the clan owning the city has a negative clan alignment it should be considered lost.

This is actually in my RvR idea see sig

Sorenal

01-26-2010, 05:52 AM

Very nice suggestions, at least some of them...

I promote everything that makes life easier for newbies and ppl living in and out of the starter towns (I want some carebear vets to live there too so they can craft nice stuff for the newbies) but the environment should gradually get harsher as further away you get from the starter towns.

The reason for this is that Darkfall is both very different and harsh - as a truely new player you need to learn soo much and soo fast. To ease that process a bit and let them learn one thing at a time instead of everything at once should be a priority. Help them overcome the fact that they cannot compete in pvp vs. vets by promote choices that make vets live and own properties far away from starter areas. Let the newbies fight their own wars and their own sieges - give the vets more tough stuff to fight over.

Alignment out in the wilds where the player towns are should mean less since it is hard to protect your clan town vs. blue raiders if you have to let them shoot/hit first. Removes your ability to ambush attackers etc... and makes life of ppl that want to stay blue much much harder.

Edit: I certainly like: "The Kill-On-Sight clan list should be the same as a War, so that one can call a Vendetta on any single player by declaring a Personal War against him. ... The Kill-On-Sight-listed person will of however be able to kill everyone in your alliance freely now, but at least they cannot hide behind being non-clanned... or behind large clan-names if they do not have proper backing from them." as that would hurt a certain Ginger Magician I know. :D

Ginger Magician

01-26-2010, 11:02 AM

spade547

01-26-2010, 11:05 AM

Im at war with virtually every large clan in the game and putting me on a kill on sight list would make no difference to me.
The advantage is it would mean that I could kill blues by putting them on kill on sight and there would even less safe havens for cowards.

I heard you had a mental disorder. What is it called so I can educate people and start a non-profit organisation to help people of your ailment.
(tax breaks are a good perk too)

Arthamus

01-26-2010, 09:37 PM

Im at war with virtually every large clan in the game and putting me on a kill on sight list would make no difference to me.
The advantage is it would mean that I could kill blues by putting them on kill on sight and there would even less safe havens for cowards.
People are not cowards for wanting a safe haven. If this is true than you are all cowards for using the safe haven called a bank.:bang:

Visperas

01-27-2010, 03:43 AM

Arthamus

01-27-2010, 04:35 AM

Hi, I've made a long suggestions thread involving many things about Darkfall and this thread is mentioned and linked. All I do is commenting and adding few own ideas. I hope you like it and want to discuss. You'll find it here: http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?p=4021360#post4021360
P.S: I'm sorry this is a copied message, I'm a lazy bitch.

I really didnt understand your proposed alignment system but it sounds like it would have the same problems as now. Basically as long as you have groups of blues and reds fighting groups of blues and reds everyone goes red eventually. Then compound that with no real consequences for being red, everyone is red. If everyone is red what is the point of alignment. Then to go to the capital you have to get back to blue, the best place to get blue is enemy noob lands because you will find there enemy noobs and other reds coming to kill noobs, making noob lands the most dangerous place a noob can be. I played AC that had 0 safe zones and there were way less vets hunting noobs in the noob lands.

ForzikTheFeared

01-27-2010, 09:42 AM

I would suggest making so if you kill an opposing faction or a red player of your own race that you can only gain 1-2 alignment per 4 hours on that player. Also people that were in your guild, party or alliance will have a day before they can be farmed by a player that was in their group, alliance, or guild.

The yellow ideal for taking one's mount and being able to get retribution is very good. Also healing or resurrecting a red or grey should flag the player doing this action.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to add a new element. What I suggest would be allowing city towers to be siegable once a day, by opposing factions. The towers would have to be disabled via cannon or another means.

There should be treasure chests(available to enemies), items(gained from killing npc faction leaders), specific mayor/important faction leaders present,(whom according to the devs should be able to fight back or not) as well as the regular players that stay in cities. This should be added for incentive to attack other factions and work more closely together. The towers should be fixable by players and rewards justly given to those helping the faction cause.

This would promote fellowship amongst the races as well as providing siege warfare for solo players(something the game is lacking in general). I am not certain if a war declaration should be made prior to attacking a city. I don't think it should personally.

There also should be quests that go along with the npc city siege proposal and other quests for faction based pro activity, such as resurrecting fellow alliance/race members or repairing towers damage by racial/faction sieges. In return gold or items should be given per amount activity done to further the racial cause.

If my suggestion was added to the game I think it would cause a phenomenal attraction/addition to sandbox/content game play.

I would like to also say that there could be balance issues since all races have more or less numbers so the devs should make things such as loot be given accordingly. 3:00am here sorry for the spelling and sentence structure mistakes.

xpiher

01-27-2010, 10:05 AM

Stol2ml2ydR

01-28-2010, 01:23 AM

I haven't played the game yet(maintenance) but have been reading alot of posts concerning several issues. One that really bothers me is that apparently you can't attack someone who attacks your friend without incurring penalties. This is stupid.
Could not something as simple as: "Someone attacks person on your friends list, you are now able to attack said attacker without penalty for x amount of time." Wouldn't that be pretty simple?

Fakner

01-28-2010, 11:57 PM

AV GET YOR ASS TO WORK!!! WE ALL HATE YOUR CURRENT ALIGNMENT POINT SYSTEM, WE WANT TO PLAY A GAME, NOT EXPLOIT IT! SOME OF THE HUMANS ON EARTH STILL HAVE CHILVERY AND HONOR!
(whips AV with.... well a whip)
WERE NOT PAYING YOU TO GIVE US A SHITTY GAME.... >,< GDI!!
yes we are?

Fakner

01-28-2010, 11:59 PM

People are not cowards for wanting a safe haven. If this is true than you are all cowards for using the safe haven called a bank.:bang:

lol, wow, never thought of it that way, but nobody on DFO is hardcore after making me think this thought.

smackyou

01-30-2010, 02:08 PM

MASSIVE amount of text :(

fluffheadsr

02-13-2010, 10:40 PM

the only way i'd be fore the removal of ARAC clans is if there was a single chance to change races..

Lord Zeb

03-10-2010, 07:59 AM

the only way i'd be fore the removal of ARAC clans is if there was a single chance to change races..
Well, at least AV has said that they are planning a "pay for race change" system in the future... even if I would prefer that it would be implemented as an in-game magical transformation as a reward for a long quest series that would take days to finish so people can't change quickly, as that could be exploitable.

Jhael

03-10-2010, 08:58 AM

Seems like an awful lot of rules for a claimed sandbox..

Glabro

03-10-2010, 09:12 AM

Great ideas, OP. /signed!

Glabro

03-10-2010, 09:14 AM

Well, at least AV has said that they are planning a "pay for race change" system in the future... even if I would prefer that it would be implemented as an in-game magical transformation as a reward for a long quest series that would take days to finish so people can't change quickly, as that could be exploitable.

Yes, I thought the same that it should be a long questline, costing a player a lot of gold, time and maybe even other effort to do...

smeagollum

04-06-2010, 09:57 AM

I've said it dozens of times and I'll say it again - The alignment system was a mistake. No system can judge whether a player is good or evil because those descriptions are subjective. Ergo the system is there only to protect those who want to hide behind some utterly stupid shit system and exploit the shit out of it.

Remove the stupid blue and red and keep the rogue for city-peace and fuck over those pathetic ARAC zergs by making their members permarogue.

This.
But ARAC zergs are not pathetic. :)

Makgyver

04-06-2010, 10:45 AM

Can someone please enlighten me what the point is of being blue once you've left your home lands?

Najik

04-06-2010, 02:15 PM

I see there is already a 'Clan Alignment' based on the overall allignment of the clan members.
Maybe there could also be a Racial Alignment for a clan as well.

Everyone in a clan with a negative overall alignment would be freely attackable by everyone without causing an alignment hit to the attackers.

If a clan has a majority of one racial alignment, then the other races in that clan will all be freely attackable by there own race without an alignment hit.

This way players wanting to pursue a lore based approach to the game do not end up with alignment problems themselves for having to fight with such clans.

Towers in NPC towns would still be based on current personal alignments, so people can still visit towns for title quest turn ins etc. Just means they could be attacked.

I like that these things are being discussed, but some of the points being raised are rather complicated. Would prefer simple changes to the system.

Lord Zeb

04-06-2010, 09:49 PM

Yes, Najik, which is already included in the above suggestions:

Yellow status for ARAC and Red Alignment clans. For the Blue ones in those clans at least.

Yellow: May be attacked without consequence of Alignment loss or Rogue status. Reserved for suspected Traitors (ARAC), Bandit clanmembers (Red clan alignment), Horsethieves (people sitting on the wrong Mount), and Trespassers (non-Friendly people within Player City/Hamlet limits). Do not supercede Rogue, Red, Orange or Darkred status. Is not attacked by Towers, why they still can become Rogue.

xpiher

04-06-2010, 10:25 PM

Lord Zeb

04-11-2010, 04:04 PM

So, you suggest to make Rogue to always go in effect within city limits? That would reduce the usability of the Yellow alignment, making it possible to be a Horsethief as they would be defended by City Towers.

But, in one way it makes sense, as cities would like preserve the peace within city limits, and claim Jurisdiction of verdicts, not allowing Yellow Suspects to be hunted down by mobs without a trial, as they would be in the outskirts of civilization.

As it is now, it is a bit harsh when the towers hit you for heavy damage. But IF an alternative Tower system, much less exploitable, was to be implemented, it could be good. Such as instead of Rays doing Arcane damage having Mages in the towers firing away spells that first Debuffs you, then hits for damage so that no amount of armour will protect an attacker as well as that the damage done will be varied randomly per target, so people in the viscinity cannot take advantage of the first weakening easily, but will be able to take advantage of the weakening of a multiple offender when his Hit Point drops and the nature of his weakness is evident in the type of Graphics of the Tower Ray hitting him.

Also, members of the Owning clan of a city/hamlet attacking a Yellow should not be affected, as otherwise hunting Trespassers (as suggsted above) would be eliminated. After all, the owning clan would constitute the area's lawkeeping forces, having jurisdiction and able to judge any Suspect they don't approve of.

Yellow people would then be protected in NPC cities (chaos or otherwise) but not in Player cities against their owners.

More opinions of this? Should anyone attacking within any City limits without owning it go Rogue ?

xpiher

04-11-2010, 09:40 PM

Lord Zeb

04-11-2010, 11:32 PM

I don't want a flag before rouge that allows people who are attacked to defend themselves without activating towers.
And... in what way do this addition do that?
So, you suggest to make Rogue to always go in effect within city limits? That would reduce the usability of the Yellow alignment, making it possible to be a Horsethief as they would be defended by City Towers.

But, in one way it makes sense, as cities would like preserve the peace within city limits, and claim Jurisdiction of verdicts, not allowing Yellow Suspects to be hunted down by mobs without a trial, as they would be in the outskirts of civilization.

As it is now, it is a bit harsh when the towers hit you for heavy damage. But IF an alternative Tower system, much less exploitable, was to be implemented, it could be good. Such as instead of Rays doing Arcane damage having Mages in the towers firing away spells that first Debuffs you, then hits for damage so that no amount of armour will protect an attacker as well as that the damage done will be varied randomly per target, so people in the viscinity cannot take advantage of the first weakening easily, but will be able to take advantage of the weakening of a multiple offender when his Hit Point drops and the nature of his weakness is evident in the type of Graphics of the Tower Ray hitting him.

Also, members of the Owning clan of a city/hamlet attacking a Yellow should not be affected, as otherwise hunting Trespassers (as suggsted above) would be eliminated. After all, the owning clan would constitute the area's lawkeeping forces, having jurisdiction and able to judge any Suspect they don't approve of.

Yellow people would then be protected in NPC cities (chaos or otherwise) but not in Player cities against their owners.

More opinions of this? Should anyone attacking within any City limits without owning it go Rogue ?

xpiher

04-11-2010, 11:36 PM

And... in what way do this addition do that?

I must be more tired than I thought. I mean I want a flag before rouge that allows a person to defend themselves without the tower going off or losing alignment. If a yellow player gets hit by someone then they should be able to kill that person without activating towers or going red. Without said flag, then there is no reason not to attack a person near an NPC city since, if they attack you back, the tower hits them and if they kill you they turn red

IT wouldn't be rouge, rouge is still a dark gray, it would be local allow which allows someone who attacks a person who is yellow to get killed by that person without suffering any penalty, or anyone in the city. The person should be local allowed, meaning anyone in the area can attack that person for starting violence.

Lord Zeb

04-12-2010, 12:02 AM

Then you must be tired indeed, as such a system change that you want is what I am discussing in that addition.

That is: Yellow would be able to defend themselves against everyone except those from the clan Owning the City/Hamlet, at least within city limits as those hitting them go Grey within City limits (only) and getting attacked by Towers.

Of course, anyone killing them within city limits still won't get Alignment hits for downing or Ganking a Yellow one, even if the Towers starts killing them off, so they are still not as safe as if they would be Blue.

(Did also suggest a change to Tower attacks, to first send a Debuff, then damage of that Debuff damage type with suitable graphics, but that is a little bit beside the point.)

Now, any specific part of that you complain of?
Should attackers of Yellows be defendable against wihtout being attacked by Towers?
Maybe everyone attacking a Yellow should always go Rogue, or should it be City-limit-bound, as with the Chaos City protection addition I describe above in the main post?

Anything else that you can complain of? I welcome it, as long as it attacks specifics, as we are still discussing details and I have not yet ecided to add it fully yet to the main post.

xpiher

04-12-2010, 12:06 AM

Lord Zeb

04-12-2010, 12:30 AM

Yellow shouldn't be protected by towers, but yellow should also be able to fight back without activating towers. If a yellow person is in an NPC city anyone can hit them without activating towers, but also anyone hit the person who is disturbing the peace without activating towers as well. If the Yellow person who got attacked kills the person, they don't take an alignment hit. If anyone else kills that person, they take an alignment hit.
No, I said that anyone attacking the agressor attacking the Yellow within City Limits would do so freely, without fear of Towers nor Alignment hits, as the agressor become Rogue. At least as long as the Rogue status last.

Apart from that, anyone downing or ganking the Yellow would be free from Alignment hits, too. Both the first agressor as well as following aggressors against the Yellow one, even if they would become Rogue from hitting the Suspect.

But... making it so that agressors of people within city borders only be attackable by the ones they attack... so only Towers and the Yellow themselves would be able to defend, not including friends... sure you want such a function?

And don't forget the clause about members belonging to the clan owning the City/Hamlet within which city borders the Yellow is protected within, is excempt from that protection against agressors. That is vital to the Trespasser status to operate. (One shouldn't be able to be shot down by one's own city towers, for starters. And this is a vital part of the Alignment protection when defending one's own city/hamlet.)

xpiher

04-12-2010, 12:36 AM

I just want city towers to not activate on people who are aggressive to yellow or the people who come to the yellow person aid. Current rouge means towers.

Lord Zeb

04-12-2010, 12:40 AM

I.e. as the main post describe Yellow to be introduced now, without the additions of City Limit protection?

Yellows not be defended by Towers?

Then, have you changed your mind since you posted this?

You need to have local gray allowed for retaliation. Just because people can attack yellows without impunity, doesn't mean it should be the norm inside NPC cities.

xpiher

04-12-2010, 12:48 AM

I.e. as the main post describe Yellow to be introduced now, without the additions of City Limit protection?

Yellows not be defended by Towers?

Then, have you changed your mind since you posted this?

No, you just didn't know what I meant by local allowed. Local allowed is anyone can attack said person without activating towers.

Person A attacks a yellow player. Anyone should be able to defend the yellow player without activating towers, but take an alignment hit if they land the killing blow. yellow player should be able to defend himself without towers or alignment hit

Lord Zeb

04-12-2010, 12:58 AM

So... anyone attacking a Yellow within City Limits become Yellow?

No, think then it would be better just letting them be Grey, would be a bit confusing with everyone going Yellow. Not to mention that Yellow would mean "freedom from towers", and be something worth being, making all Racial cities Chaos cities for them.

Rogue status for anyone hitting anyone within city borders (excepting the owners) would also synchronize with the Chaos City system I suggested earlier, and could be part of the same programming, making it easily implemented by making the same rules go for Starter, Racial, Chaos and Player cities/hamlets.

xpiher

04-12-2010, 01:04 AM

So... anyone attacking a Yellow within City Limits become Yellow?

Trespasser flag would have to be changed to some other color. But I'm talking about NPC cities, not clan cities. Thats why I suggested light gray.

Lord Zeb

04-12-2010, 01:15 AM

Trespasser flag would have to be changed to some other color. But I'm talking about NPC cities, not clan cities. Thats why I suggested light gray.
No, Trespasser flag colour do not need to be changed as long as owning clan is excempt from becoming Rogue. Why that part is important, as it will make it work in clan cities as well. (Regardless if they become Rogue or Lightgrey.)

Still, making them go Lightgrey instead of Yellow, with Lightgrey being a mix of Yellow and Grey (Grey timers with Yellow functions) still will make the NPC cities into Chaos City slugfests at times.

But, perhaps that is your intention?

Will sleep on it and think a bit about it, and see what you responded tomorrow evening.

xpiher

04-12-2010, 01:30 AM

No, Trespasser flag colour do not need to be changed as long as owning clan is excempt from becoming Rogue. Why that part is important, as it will make it work in clan cities as well. (Regardless if they become Rogue or Lightgrey.)

Still, making them go Lightgrey instead of Yellow, with Lightgrey being a mix of Yellow and Grey (Grey timers with Yellow functions) still will make the NPC cities into Chaos City slugfests at times.

But, perhaps that is your intention?

Will sleep on it and think a bit about it, and see what you responded tomorrow evening.

My intention is to have NPC driven RvR in the game with things that actually promote it. Thats my intention.

Read my suggestion thread 2.0 to see what I really want