DeletedUser
I'm just not with this 'choose good or evil' stuff. Sounds like you wanted to play a different game altogether. I like being morally ambivalent.
DeletedUser1105
I agree. I don't want to have to choose one way or the other.
DeletedUser
DeletedUser
What are you implying- oh enigmatic one?
DeletedUser1105
No. I don't want to make a choice. What if I am a builder. This gets implemented, we hold a town vote and decide to be 'good guys'. I'm happy with that coz all I wanna do is build. However, later down the line, our town buildings are maxed out. So I want to use the shaman to change my skills and be a bad ass dueller. Do I now have to change towns to get the benefits of being in a bad town? After all my work and money I put into my town?
There is room in every town for 'good' and 'bad' guys, and having to choose one is daft.
DeletedUser
i like to this in the next update really badly for my builder friends safety 
DeletedUser
That idea isnt good imo.
DeletedUser
why not lol
DeletedUser
every town should have some "bad" guys
DeletedUser
Careful hudic, using the should word will get you lampooned for trying to force your standards of right and wrong on the rest of us.
DeletedUser
The heart of the matter , as I see it , is the degree that players see this as a Role Playing game .
There are a few who see it as nothing but a RPG , there are many who see it as a strategy game with a role playing bent , and a lot that see it as a new take on a First Person Shooter . The last two categories will never see anything wrong with the 'dueling' system the way it is . It's either an acceptable strategy for Character advancement , or the whole point of the game . The people who see it as a much more RP based game will assign purpose to the attacks , where the others just see it as a method of play . It's not that the non-role players are evil , they just don't see the point of assigning morale values to a game . If some one jumps your piece in a game of checkers they're not a "bad" person , they're just playing a game . I think this is why this debate has been so prolonged . The conversation is going on at two different levels . Role Players see things in absolutes , there are the innocent , those who protect them , and those who oppress . The other two groups see strategies , tactics , experience points and levels and nothing more.
There are a few who see it as nothing but a RPG , there are many who see it as a strategy game with a role playing bent , and a lot that see it as a new take on a First Person Shooter . The last two categories will never see anything wrong with the 'dueling' system the way it is . It's either an acceptable strategy for Character advancement , or the whole point of the game . The people who see it as a much more RP based game will assign purpose to the attacks , where the others just see it as a method of play . It's not that the non-role players are evil , they just don't see the point of assigning morale values to a game . If some one jumps your piece in a game of checkers they're not a "bad" person , they're just playing a game . I think this is why this debate has been so prolonged . The conversation is going on at two different levels . Role Players see things in absolutes , there are the innocent , those who protect them , and those who oppress . The other two groups see strategies , tactics , experience points and levels and nothing more.
DeletedUser
Nice analysis. That why we have this heat in the debate.
I'm not so sure that this game can't actually accommodate both aspirations as long as we live and let live. With some of the more fluid suggestions in place then one could happily pursue either of these two agendas, or indeed see things as a manhunt or other ways. In some ways I'm beginning to veer away from some of the ideas that make for ease and clarity because there is something to be said for the 'sleuthing' aspect that this opacity forces upon us.
Oh don't you start sulking now Thomas!
Back in partisan mode - Who are these poor 'innocents' that need protecting? Isn't it a bit patronising to such players?
My town recently went to war with a town whose players gave me a hard time. Now i see that as teamwork and i'm glad i'm not in a town where you guys are riding out to protect my 'honour' as if i was a damsel in distress. Does anyone here actually see themselves as a victim?
Now I'm certainly not saying that you guys shouldn't have that as your way of looking at things but it does rely upon other people seeing themselves as you wish them to do.
I'm not so sure that this game can't actually accommodate both aspirations as long as we live and let live. With some of the more fluid suggestions in place then one could happily pursue either of these two agendas, or indeed see things as a manhunt or other ways. In some ways I'm beginning to veer away from some of the ideas that make for ease and clarity because there is something to be said for the 'sleuthing' aspect that this opacity forces upon us.
Oh don't you start sulking now Thomas!
Back in partisan mode - Who are these poor 'innocents' that need protecting? Isn't it a bit patronising to such players?
My town recently went to war with a town whose players gave me a hard time. Now i see that as teamwork and i'm glad i'm not in a town where you guys are riding out to protect my 'honour' as if i was a damsel in distress. Does anyone here actually see themselves as a victim?
Now I'm certainly not saying that you guys shouldn't have that as your way of looking at things but it does rely upon other people seeing themselves as you wish them to do.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Is there good and bad towns in real life?
Thats bad or maybe if there would be more choises like
Industrial.
Bandits.
Sheriffs.
ETC. maybe than.
But i still dont like this idea.
Thats bad or maybe if there would be more choises like
Industrial.
Bandits.
Sheriffs.
ETC. maybe than.
But i still dont like this idea.
DeletedUser
To the veteran Role Player those who have their entire character build set up to Build the towns , would be the noncombatant villagers in need of the Sheriff or Soldier to keep them safe . "Innocents" was a tad condescending , I'll give You that . From all the howling about 'I'm a builder how am supposed to fight back' , can You truly ask with a straight face "where are the victims ?" .
And Yes !! This game can accommodate both RPers and Casual gamers , it's one of the things I truly enjoy about it . People simply have to accept that some players see the game through a different prism . If You haven't noticed yet some RPers can be a bit melodramatic .
Not that that is a bad thing , it's just hard to work with nothing but Diva's .
And Yes !! This game can accommodate both RPers and Casual gamers , it's one of the things I truly enjoy about it . People simply have to accept that some players see the game through a different prism . If You haven't noticed yet some RPers can be a bit melodramatic .
Not that that is a bad thing , it's just hard to work with nothing but Diva's .
DeletedUser
OK I'm beginning to understand.
Totally support the principle of people being able to specialize in protecting the more vulnerable classes and making the soldier class actually have a genuine role.
Until we have such rule changes then for me it's just a town-management issue.
That is to say if you have a load of builders getting attacked, then the answer is to recruit players who will go and attack those who are giving you grief. If that doesn't work then go to a more efficient town.
Totally support the principle of people being able to specialize in protecting the more vulnerable classes and making the soldier class actually have a genuine role.
Until we have such rule changes then for me it's just a town-management issue.
That is to say if you have a load of builders getting attacked, then the answer is to recruit players who will go and attack those who are giving you grief. If that doesn't work then go to a more efficient town.
DeletedUser
I promise. After all the tone on this thread is moderate and reasonable. And I won't tell if I cry myself to sleep tonight.don't you start sulking now Thomas!
But the misapplication of Diva to a guy has me questioning my manhood... I'll be sending Oakley my psychiatrist's bill.
Rats, being nice is working... now I have to repent. :sad:
Yes. Several in my town, but they're having too much fun RPing to leave. i should post some more of our story out on these boards, but I'm afraid Craigsterboy will slap my hand again. We've got pages and pages of great content only hinted at on our invite thread.
And if you check. MANY PLAYERS (i.e. oiceboxvay, who started the "unfair dueling" thread, theDawg who posted the "accept/decline duels" thread, and shockermcgavin who launched "let me get this straight") Just leave because of this game feature. Search the ranking lists and their board history. They left because getting robbed and having no recourse is not fun.
As the DEVS drop ads more places, more noobs will come and this issue will grow. How many real customer/players should we burn through before we address the issue? MANY players don't mind when people get pissed and leave - because they don't see them as people - not a good way to grow a game... or a business.
DeletedUser
OK well there are ways to sort this. I still think putting up a bounty would work and it's very like magnificent7/samuri.
DeletedUser
the bounty is the only system that would be plausible. its the simplest form of justice. honestly i dont see the soldier class being anything more than a different type of duelist, and doing the whole "protect my townies" while maybe workable if the system is put forth with awareness to actual gameplay and not role play, i think it would be too complicated to do, and i dont think there would be very many soldiers out there willing to do it.
a bounty gives "good" duelists a way to make loot by hunting "the bad guys" without having to dedicate themselves to only helping one town or not getting a reward for such hard work. it heitens the rp aspect while maintaining the balance of the current game system. and i do think the classes should be more specialized with new benefits and raised skills, while reinstating the greenhorns no duel ability. that gives hardcore noncombatants the ability to play without fear, it gives adventurers and builders a REAL edge in their professions, gives duelists the ability to fill in their characters with storyline and perspective, and allows for towns to exact revenge on someone who has been harrassing them.
a bounty gives "good" duelists a way to make loot by hunting "the bad guys" without having to dedicate themselves to only helping one town or not getting a reward for such hard work. it heitens the rp aspect while maintaining the balance of the current game system. and i do think the classes should be more specialized with new benefits and raised skills, while reinstating the greenhorns no duel ability. that gives hardcore noncombatants the ability to play without fear, it gives adventurers and builders a REAL edge in their professions, gives duelists the ability to fill in their characters with storyline and perspective, and allows for towns to exact revenge on someone who has been harrassing them.
DeletedUser
I think bounty is an idea to consider - however, what is the difference between putting a bounty on someone and hence duelers I assume can attack him or her and the situation right now - where duelers from Town A gang up and attack Builder X from Town B for example?
It is still "gang attacks" just in a different form.
For the bounty to work, a sheriff system needs to be in place to "decide" who is right and who is wrong.
And when such a system is in place and duelers/soldiers know that they can be "bounty hunted" - wouldn't that put a cap on their game play/attacking?
Hence might there be a lower level of activity all around and the same old spiel would be people start losing interest, being bored etc
Imo, the devs will leave this ambiguous area alone and leave us players to decide the game we want to play
DeletedUser
right on that poison