To people complaining about the war dec system, deal with it. Right now its in its first iteration and needs work. Also nothing is stopping you from attacking your enemies if they dont accept your declaration. If you are dead-set on attacking them for any reason then YOU should be willing to face the consequences. If they decide to attack you then they will have to face those same consequences. The idea is that the attacking clan are invaders and no one agrees to be invaded. If they decide to take a more agressive stance towards there attackers then to prevent statloss they have the choice of accepting your war dec.
If they add non-mutual war decs then it will result in clans that dont want war becoming free kills to the attacking clan. This will completely negate the whole point of having a flagging system if you can just make a clan and war dec anyone you dont like with no consequences. If the add some sort of wager system where you refuse to accept and have to pay, then the attacking clans can manipulate mechanics to drain clans out of money.
Thats basically saying " let us attack you without penalty and if you refuse pay us to not be able to attack you without penalty"
Also MO isnt a wargame, its not DF, its not a pvp-only game.
Doesn't matter if its a PvP only game or not. No one will accept war decs because it make you enemy weaker for not doing it. Since players are already gray in your own territory then you can kill them without consequences but if they kill you you will be given a murder token. Its imbalancing plain and simple. We aren';t asking for them to make a mechanics that is used to easily circumvent the stat loss, we want a way to circumvent stat loss in order to have real politics, real territory control, and real wars. They can accomplish that using unilateral war dec system that has a high cost to upkeep agressive wars. There are good ideas on the official forums on how to accomplish that go read them.
Getting a murdercount for attacking a clan full of innocents makes sense. If you are the attacker then you knew what you are getting in to. If you attack them in there territory then you shouldnt have the advantage of being able to walk in with no consequenses. Statloss is the highest price you can pay and if you are invading you should be prepared to pay that cost.
In my opinion having statloss as a potential risk for goignt o war with an unwilling clan makes you weigh the pros and cons of war. The wars will be real because you are puttng your characters on the line to further your cause, if you end up going red and have to take time retraining and working off your murdercounts then you will have to consider if the territory is worth it. This all adds to the politics of the game.
They shouldnt add any system that magically takes money to have a war. The costs of war will be enough, you have statloss, paying to re-equip and time. The wars will be more gritty and will be more realistic and not just "wargames online".
If anythng they just need to expand the diplomatic options so you have more ways to interact during wartime.
What you are failing to recognize is the imbalancing factor stat loss has on combat and how easily it will be to force your enemies to go red. I don't care if someone goes red for agressive, thats fine, but making people weaker for going after legitmate military targets is baffeling. I'd rather they do away with stat loss in general and remove people's ability to use NPC bankers and make trading with a murder incur criminal status. 1) it wouldn't imbalance combat, and 2) it would have the same deterrent affect becuase gear is largely specialized in MO.
Do they allow multiple characters per account in MO or just 1?
Basically here is how it will work, you have alt characters to spread out the killing so it takes longer to get red. If they don't allow you to have multiple characters per account people will still have a couple accounts.
You just leave characters logged in with a macro when your not playing so you burn off their time so you can kill more people without penalty. You also have an alt character/account in case one does go red to play while the other is red then log the red guy in when you're done playing to burn off his time again. Add in the standard auto log when an unknown player comes too close to your guys for added protection. Assuming there is a standard log out timer plus canceled on attack, you'd use two accounts with the non red as a look out for the red guy to start the log out earlier.
That is all a system like this will accomplish. Now if they made it so the only way to get unred was to work it off with quests or tasks and those tasks took many hours to get enouch accomplished then it would be more punishing. But as it is most people will just keep the guy logged in while not playing to burn off time so when he does play he isn't penalized.
There are 3 character slots currently, not sure if this will be lowered, but there will always be more than 1 character.
Murdercounts take 20 hours each in-game time to fade. at 5 murdercounts you are red, at 3 murdercounts you can kill 1 person every 20 in-game hours without going red.
Every time you kill someone it resets your timer to 20 hours. So at most you can participate in killing 4 people. You get a murdercount if you are on the victims assault list when he dies, you dont have to land the killing blow. So you would have to be very careful, especially when in a group to not go red fi you are out pking.
its up to you if you want to kill 4 people, play 80 hours, kill 4 people play 80 hours in order to avoid going red. if you do that then you are not part of the group the flagging system is set up to deal with. Even if you work off your murder count after every kill, you still arent par of that group.
if you spread your killings out you have the same issue x3. You will honestly kill 4 people on 3 different characters, then procede to work off 3 different characters @ 80 hours each to reset your count back to 0 so you can kill 4 more people one ach account? Thats alot of murdercount grinding and if you are the type to do that then the system is working as intended, preventing people who dont want to be red from becoming a nuisance. Making the red Pk playstyle more exclusive.
If you buy a second account to do this you are only doign this x6, at that point you might as well go red. Skilling up 6 characters all just to get around the flagging system and paying for 2 accounts to do it.
The majority of players in MMOs log on during the weekends (highest server population counts) and a lot of people work during the week with little time to actually play. It's not tough to setup macros to keep a character logged in through out the week so that your timers go away and then you can have fun killing people on the weekend. Usually people come up with dual logging programs for games so that on one machine you can log in two accounts. Which means you can macro off both timers at the same time, now you have 10 kills to do over the weekend. If you are good enough at macroing down the time you can have your other characters logged in and get to do 15 or 20 kills over the weekend and then when monday hits start the process over again.
Most people who would be willing to spend the time to bypass the system like that would also be into gaming enough to power level their characters up early on to get a bunch of high level characters before starting it. I've never had a game that I couldn't grind up to a high level fairly quickly, and I doubt they are going to make this the grindiest game ever so I don't think it would be an issue.
I'm just pointing out how flawed the system is, it will punish the casual player (who is probably also casual enough to not be able to work off the time from murder and get fed up and quit), but it will do nothing to the hardcore gamer who can invest the time and is willing to have his computer run while he's at work/school and burn off his timers.
You are phishing for flaws. Truthfully If you are macroing all week and keeping your characters logged on 24/7 you will be cought/banned.
Killing 10 people between 2 characters only on the weekend is hardly a problem. I participated in killing over 5 people in less tyhan 15 minutes. So are you saying that you will macro for 100 hours a week, just so you can have 15 minutes of killing on different characters...
People who go through the trouble of all of this are doing such a low ammount of killing that they are non-factors. Not to mention the flagging system is doing tis job as you arent out mindlessly killing all day every day, only on a certain day and only within limitations that you set up for yourself.
It just seems odd, being a sandbox full loot open pvp game, reading their forums, it seems that 90% of the community (on the forums at least) are complete carebears. I don't mean to bash the game at all as i'm interested in it, but it seems that the community leans towards the pve side of the game, through punishing pvpers/pkers. So i'm just wondering if there's any active pvp/pking in this game at this point and if you people expect there to be at release.
I think the difference is that prospective MO players are looking to play in more of a virtual world, which must have some sort of consequences in order to maintain some semblance of "civilization".
They aren't interested in complete anarchy, or a game that is "PvP-only".
To people complaining about the war dec system, deal with it. Right now its in its first iteration and needs work. Also nothing is stopping you from attacking your enemies if they dont accept your declaration. If you are dead-set on attacking them for any reason then YOU should be willing to face the consequences. If they decide to attack you then they will have to face those same consequences. The idea is that the attacking clan are invaders and no one agrees to be invaded. If they decide to take a more agressive stance towards there attackers then to prevent statloss they have the choice of accepting your war dec.
If they add non-mutual war decs then it will result in clans that dont want war becoming free kills to the attacking clan. This will completely negate the whole point of having a flagging system if you can just make a clan and war dec anyone you dont like with no consequences. If the add some sort of wager system where you refuse to accept and have to pay, then the attacking clans can manipulate mechanics to drain clans out of money.
Thats basically saying " let us attack you without penalty and if you refuse pay us to not be able to attack you without penalty"
Also MO isnt a wargame, its not DF, its not a pvp-only game.
Doesn't matter if its a PvP only game or not. No one will accept war decs because it make you enemy weaker for not doing it. Since players are already gray in your own territory then you can kill them without consequences but if they kill you you will be given a murder token. Its imbalancing plain and simple. We aren';t asking for them to make a mechanics that is used to easily circumvent the stat loss, we want a way to circumvent stat loss in order to have real politics, real territory control, and real wars. They can accomplish that using unilateral war dec system that has a high cost to upkeep agressive wars. There are good ideas on the official forums on how to accomplish that go read them.
Getting a murdercount for attacking a clan full of innocents makes sense. If you are the attacker then you knew what you are getting in to. If you attack them in there territory then you shouldnt have the advantage of being able to walk in with no consequenses. Statloss is the highest price you can pay and if you are invading you should be prepared to pay that cost.
In my opinion having statloss as a potential risk for goignt o war with an unwilling clan makes you weigh the pros and cons of war. The wars will be real because you are puttng your characters on the line to further your cause, if you end up going red and have to take time retraining and working off your murdercounts then you will have to consider if the territory is worth it. This all adds to the politics of the game.
They shouldnt add any system that magically takes money to have a war. The costs of war will be enough, you have statloss, paying to re-equip and time. The wars will be more gritty and will be more realistic and not just "wargames online".
If anythng they just need to expand the diplomatic options so you have more ways to interact during wartime.
What you are failing to recognize is the imbalancing factor stat loss has on combat and how easily it will be to force your enemies to go red. I don't care if someone goes red for agressive, thats fine, but making people weaker for going after legitmate military targets is baffeling. I'd rather they do away with stat loss in general and remove people's ability to use NPC bankers and make trading with a murder incur criminal status. 1) it wouldn't imbalance combat, and 2) it would have the same deterrent affect becuase gear is largely specialized in MO.
You dont force enemies to go red. They make a consius decision to go red to achieve there goals. Thats the point of having a flagging system with statloss, so that you make more realistic choices.
Definie a legitimate militart target? Somoene who you want to kill isnt a legitimate military target, someone whose stuff you want to take isnt a legitimate military target, territory you want to control isnt a legitimate military target. The only legitimate target is someone who is constantly attacking you, constantly stealing from you and invading your territory. If that is the case the flagging system allows you to defend yourself without penalty.
If you decide that simply defending isnt enough then you have the conscious choice to go on the agressive stance, but you have to deal with the consequences of that choice.
Real consequences like these promotes more diplomatic options than smashing your sword in your enemies face. Clans who decide to go to war with eachother and doesnt want every other clan to get in on the action by killing reds on both sides will be inclined to accept a war dec so that there war stays between them and so that they dotn suffer even greater losses by the hands of 3rd party combatants.
Removing statloss would cheapen the consequences of war, pvp and being red. It would make raw combat the first, last and only solution to comflicts between players.
So what if you cant talk to bankers, you have house storage and person vendors soon. There are also lawless towns so if you are red you can do your business in lawless territory already.
Causing people to get flagged for trading with a criminal is just a bad idea. MO is a medival world, merchants have the choice to act on a dont ask dont tell philosophy. There is no reason to penalize someone who makes the choice to go into lawless territory and deal with killers. They are already risking getting killed and looted, if not by there customers, then by other reds. A merchants life and goods are as important to them as a pvpers combat skills.
Hi, i have'nt read through this thread, but im sure many other people have commented on how sandbox games should not be percieved as for 'carebears' and 'harcore players'.
So called Carebears are needed in sandbox games, if everyone was a big bad hardcore pker, then it would be chaotic, with little else going on except everyone trying to kill each other.
The Mortal Online Community is one of the best mmorpg communities i have been in, especially for a game with alot of pvp. There is a lot of developer - player interaction, friendly discussion, good clan relations, and a minor use of profanities and such, thanks to the mods who do a great job.
I do not want a repeat of forumfall, where it was all trolling and hostile behaviour towards other players.
Hi, i have'nt read through this thread, but im sure many other people have commented on how sandbox games should not be percieved as for 'carebears' and 'harcore players'.
So called Carebears are needed in sandbox games, if everyone was a big bad hardcore pker, then it would be chaotic, with little else going on except everyone trying to kill each other.
The Mortal Online Community is one of the best mmorpg communities i have been in, especially for a game with alot of pvp. There is a lot of developer - player interaction, friendly discussion, good clan relations, and a minor use of profanities and such, thanks to the mods who do a great job.
I do not want a repeat of forumfall, where it was all trolling and hostile behaviour towards other players.
You do ralize that 90% of the trolling and hostility disappeared when they forced people to have an account to actually post in most of the forums right? Just saying.
No, I just don't want stat loss in wars. I want wars to be limited by gold or some other cost, red status, more limited banking options, retalation on holdings etc. I don't want to see people questioning if they'll win the war once half my clan turns red becuase no one will accept a war dec. I don't want combat to be imbalanced. Make more limited have a cost, just not an imbalancing one.
Legitimate military targets are a guild's/alliance's war machine, a guild that move in on your territory and starts herashing your members, a merc clan that is helping your enemy, and your enemies allies. A person doesn't have to be an active combatant to be a legitimate target, they simply have to help.
It just seems odd, being a sandbox full loot open pvp game, reading their forums, it seems that 90% of the community (on the forums at least) are complete carebears. I don't mean to bash the game at all as i'm interested in it, but it seems that the community leans towards the pve side of the game, through punishing pvpers/pkers. So i'm just wondering if there's any active pvp/pking in this game at this point and if you people expect there to be at release.
Peoples there are up for sandbox game play that include both PvE and PvP, not just mindless gankfest. To be Red in MO you need to face the consequences that few can survive, to play hardcore version of the game.
Where themepark games try to hide that they are copying WOW, games like Mortal Online and Darkfall make no attempt to hide their inspiration ______\m/_____ LordOfDarkDesire
It just seems odd, being a sandbox full loot open pvp game, reading their forums, it seems that 90% of the community (on the forums at least) are complete carebears. I don't mean to bash the game at all as i'm interested in it, but it seems that the community leans towards the pve side of the game, through punishing pvpers/pkers. So i'm just wondering if there's any active pvp/pking in this game at this point and if you people expect there to be at release.
This is normal for up-and-coming open pvp games. People who have been playing WoW their entire lives think they know what the developers need to fix. It's like a reverse Ultima Online. UO came out and people let the whining and crying build up for a few years before the developers got spooked and changed things. Here we have people trying to spook the devs into changing things before the game is released. Instead of playing the game a moderate portion of players camp on the forums trying to justify carebearing the game and try to scare the devs into thinking they will get a ton of players to leave with them.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
It just seems odd, being a sandbox full loot open pvp game, reading their forums, it seems that 90% of the community (on the forums at least) are complete carebears. I don't mean to bash the game at all as i'm interested in it, but it seems that the community leans towards the pve side of the game, through punishing pvpers/pkers. So i'm just wondering if there's any active pvp/pking in this game at this point and if you people expect there to be at release.
This is normal for up-and-coming open pvp games. People who have been playing WoW their entire lives think they know what the developers need to fix. It's like a reverse Ultima Online. UO came out and people let the whining and crying build up for a few years before the developers got spooked and changed things. Here we have people trying to spook the devs into changing things before the game is released. Instead of playing the game a moderate portion of players camp on the forums trying to justify carebearing the game and try to scare the devs into thinking they will get a ton of players to leave with them.
MO community isnt full of "carebears" The community just isnt hostile for no reason. Most of the community members arent trying to get SV to change the game to be more casual or wow-like. In fact most of the community miss the old UO efore it was ruined, and like the full loot ffa pvp aspects.
Also to adress the Op's post we dont want to "punish" pkers we want pking and being red to be meaningful. Having consequences for your actions makes that type fo gameplay more rewarding. There is plenty of active pvp and pking in the game right now and there will be at release. The MO community just have different motivations for pvp and pking other than " I got sword, you got face, I make sword hit face".
It just seems odd, being a sandbox full loot open pvp game, reading their forums, it seems that 90% of the community (on the forums at least) are complete carebears. I don't mean to bash the game at all as i'm interested in it, but it seems that the community leans towards the pve side of the game, through punishing pvpers/pkers. So i'm just wondering if there's any active pvp/pking in this game at this point and if you people expect there to be at release.
Just because a game is FFA full loot pvp, doesn't mean it has to be a constant deathmatch version of an mmo. What it means is that if you act like a moron, or piss off the wrong group of people, there will be consequences.
Otherwise you do your own thing, play the game, and try to avoid the bandits (the people who set out to be murdering kill everything pvpers)
It just seems odd, being a sandbox full loot open pvp game, reading their forums, it seems that 90% of the community (on the forums at least) are complete carebears. I don't mean to bash the game at all as i'm interested in it, but it seems that the community leans towards the pve side of the game, through punishing pvpers/pkers. So i'm just wondering if there's any active pvp/pking in this game at this point and if you people expect there to be at release.
There isn't really a community yet, that takes half a year after release before a true one is formed. A lot of people quits after a month while new ones comes instead.
But it is not impossible that the worst zergs are playing darkfall right now while people more oriented to roleplaying is in MO, it is impossible to tell until the game actually launches. Just because the beta community is one way now doesn't mean that they will stay and the people that comes later will be the same.
It just seems odd, being a sandbox full loot open pvp game, reading their forums, it seems that 90% of the community (on the forums at least) are complete carebears. I don't mean to bash the game at all as i'm interested in it, but it seems that the community leans towards the pve side of the game, through punishing pvpers/pkers. So i'm just wondering if there's any active pvp/pking in this game at this point and if you people expect there to be at release.
lol ... you don't know anything about this game. The PvP is awesome. I really love the melee system. Most realistic and tactical. The best I have played in any MMO. But it is also a PvE game.
The community is made of carebears? lol You really don't know anything. People on MO hate games like WoW, AoC, etc ... and think those games have way to much handholding. We want more oldschool MMO's like UO and EQ1. No minimap, no instances, full loot, you can attack anybody, etc ... There are lots of PvP in MO.
Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To people complaining about the war dec system, deal with it. Right now its in its first iteration and needs work. Also nothing is stopping you from attacking your enemies if they dont accept your declaration. If you are dead-set on attacking them for any reason then YOU should be willing to face the consequences. If they decide to attack you then they will have to face those same consequences. The idea is that the attacking clan are invaders and no one agrees to be invaded. If they decide to take a more agressive stance towards there attackers then to prevent statloss they have the choice of accepting your war dec.
If they add non-mutual war decs then it will result in clans that dont want war becoming free kills to the attacking clan. This will completely negate the whole point of having a flagging system if you can just make a clan and war dec anyone you dont like with no consequences. If the add some sort of wager system where you refuse to accept and have to pay, then the attacking clans can manipulate mechanics to drain clans out of money.
Thats basically saying " let us attack you without penalty and if you refuse pay us to not be able to attack you without penalty"
Also MO isnt a wargame, its not DF, its not a pvp-only game.
Doesn't matter if its a PvP only game or not. No one will accept war decs because it make you enemy weaker for not doing it. Since players are already gray in your own territory then you can kill them without consequences but if they kill you you will be given a murder token. Its imbalancing plain and simple. We aren';t asking for them to make a mechanics that is used to easily circumvent the stat loss, we want a way to circumvent stat loss in order to have real politics, real territory control, and real wars. They can accomplish that using unilateral war dec system that has a high cost to upkeep agressive wars. There are good ideas on the official forums on how to accomplish that go read them.
Getting a murdercount for attacking a clan full of innocents makes sense. If you are the attacker then you knew what you are getting in to. If you attack them in there territory then you shouldnt have the advantage of being able to walk in with no consequenses. Statloss is the highest price you can pay and if you are invading you should be prepared to pay that cost.
In my opinion having statloss as a potential risk for goignt o war with an unwilling clan makes you weigh the pros and cons of war. The wars will be real because you are puttng your characters on the line to further your cause, if you end up going red and have to take time retraining and working off your murdercounts then you will have to consider if the territory is worth it. This all adds to the politics of the game.
They shouldnt add any system that magically takes money to have a war. The costs of war will be enough, you have statloss, paying to re-equip and time. The wars will be more gritty and will be more realistic and not just "wargames online".
If anythng they just need to expand the diplomatic options so you have more ways to interact during wartime.
What you are failing to recognize is the imbalancing factor stat loss has on combat and how easily it will be to force your enemies to go red. I don't care if someone goes red for agressive, thats fine, but making people weaker for going after legitmate military targets is baffeling. I'd rather they do away with stat loss in general and remove people's ability to use NPC bankers and make trading with a murder incur criminal status. 1) it wouldn't imbalance combat, and 2) it would have the same deterrent affect becuase gear is largely specialized in MO.
Games:
Currently playing:Nothing
Will play: Darkfall: Unholy Wars
Past games:
Guild Wars 2 - Xpiher Duminous
Xpiher's GW2
GW 1 - Xpiher Duminous
Darkfall - Xpiher Duminous (NA) retired
AoC - Xpiher (Tyranny) retired
Warhammer - Xpiher
There are 3 character slots currently, not sure if this will be lowered, but there will always be more than 1 character.
Murdercounts take 20 hours each in-game time to fade. at 5 murdercounts you are red, at 3 murdercounts you can kill 1 person every 20 in-game hours without going red.
Every time you kill someone it resets your timer to 20 hours. So at most you can participate in killing 4 people. You get a murdercount if you are on the victims assault list when he dies, you dont have to land the killing blow. So you would have to be very careful, especially when in a group to not go red fi you are out pking.
its up to you if you want to kill 4 people, play 80 hours, kill 4 people play 80 hours in order to avoid going red. if you do that then you are not part of the group the flagging system is set up to deal with. Even if you work off your murder count after every kill, you still arent par of that group.
if you spread your killings out you have the same issue x3. You will honestly kill 4 people on 3 different characters, then procede to work off 3 different characters @ 80 hours each to reset your count back to 0 so you can kill 4 more people one ach account? Thats alot of murdercount grinding and if you are the type to do that then the system is working as intended, preventing people who dont want to be red from becoming a nuisance. Making the red Pk playstyle more exclusive.
If you buy a second account to do this you are only doign this x6, at that point you might as well go red. Skilling up 6 characters all just to get around the flagging system and paying for 2 accounts to do it.
The majority of players in MMOs log on during the weekends (highest server population counts) and a lot of people work during the week with little time to actually play. It's not tough to setup macros to keep a character logged in through out the week so that your timers go away and then you can have fun killing people on the weekend. Usually people come up with dual logging programs for games so that on one machine you can log in two accounts. Which means you can macro off both timers at the same time, now you have 10 kills to do over the weekend. If you are good enough at macroing down the time you can have your other characters logged in and get to do 15 or 20 kills over the weekend and then when monday hits start the process over again.
Most people who would be willing to spend the time to bypass the system like that would also be into gaming enough to power level their characters up early on to get a bunch of high level characters before starting it. I've never had a game that I couldn't grind up to a high level fairly quickly, and I doubt they are going to make this the grindiest game ever so I don't think it would be an issue.
I'm just pointing out how flawed the system is, it will punish the casual player (who is probably also casual enough to not be able to work off the time from murder and get fed up and quit), but it will do nothing to the hardcore gamer who can invest the time and is willing to have his computer run while he's at work/school and burn off his timers.
You are phishing for flaws. Truthfully If you are macroing all week and keeping your characters logged on 24/7 you will be cought/banned.
Killing 10 people between 2 characters only on the weekend is hardly a problem. I participated in killing over 5 people in less tyhan 15 minutes. So are you saying that you will macro for 100 hours a week, just so you can have 15 minutes of killing on different characters...
People who go through the trouble of all of this are doing such a low ammount of killing that they are non-factors. Not to mention the flagging system is doing tis job as you arent out mindlessly killing all day every day, only on a certain day and only within limitations that you set up for yourself.
My sig is just as logical as your posts are
I think the difference is that prospective MO players are looking to play in more of a virtual world, which must have some sort of consequences in order to maintain some semblance of "civilization".
They aren't interested in complete anarchy, or a game that is "PvP-only".
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To people complaining about the war dec system, deal with it. Right now its in its first iteration and needs work. Also nothing is stopping you from attacking your enemies if they dont accept your declaration. If you are dead-set on attacking them for any reason then YOU should be willing to face the consequences. If they decide to attack you then they will have to face those same consequences. The idea is that the attacking clan are invaders and no one agrees to be invaded. If they decide to take a more agressive stance towards there attackers then to prevent statloss they have the choice of accepting your war dec.
If they add non-mutual war decs then it will result in clans that dont want war becoming free kills to the attacking clan. This will completely negate the whole point of having a flagging system if you can just make a clan and war dec anyone you dont like with no consequences. If the add some sort of wager system where you refuse to accept and have to pay, then the attacking clans can manipulate mechanics to drain clans out of money.
Thats basically saying " let us attack you without penalty and if you refuse pay us to not be able to attack you without penalty"
Also MO isnt a wargame, its not DF, its not a pvp-only game.
Doesn't matter if its a PvP only game or not. No one will accept war decs because it make you enemy weaker for not doing it. Since players are already gray in your own territory then you can kill them without consequences but if they kill you you will be given a murder token. Its imbalancing plain and simple. We aren';t asking for them to make a mechanics that is used to easily circumvent the stat loss, we want a way to circumvent stat loss in order to have real politics, real territory control, and real wars. They can accomplish that using unilateral war dec system that has a high cost to upkeep agressive wars. There are good ideas on the official forums on how to accomplish that go read them.
Getting a murdercount for attacking a clan full of innocents makes sense. If you are the attacker then you knew what you are getting in to. If you attack them in there territory then you shouldnt have the advantage of being able to walk in with no consequenses. Statloss is the highest price you can pay and if you are invading you should be prepared to pay that cost.
In my opinion having statloss as a potential risk for goignt o war with an unwilling clan makes you weigh the pros and cons of war. The wars will be real because you are puttng your characters on the line to further your cause, if you end up going red and have to take time retraining and working off your murdercounts then you will have to consider if the territory is worth it. This all adds to the politics of the game.
They shouldnt add any system that magically takes money to have a war. The costs of war will be enough, you have statloss, paying to re-equip and time. The wars will be more gritty and will be more realistic and not just "wargames online".
If anythng they just need to expand the diplomatic options so you have more ways to interact during wartime.
What you are failing to recognize is the imbalancing factor stat loss has on combat and how easily it will be to force your enemies to go red. I don't care if someone goes red for agressive, thats fine, but making people weaker for going after legitmate military targets is baffeling. I'd rather they do away with stat loss in general and remove people's ability to use NPC bankers and make trading with a murder incur criminal status. 1) it wouldn't imbalance combat, and 2) it would have the same deterrent affect becuase gear is largely specialized in MO.
You dont force enemies to go red. They make a consius decision to go red to achieve there goals. Thats the point of having a flagging system with statloss, so that you make more realistic choices.
Definie a legitimate militart target? Somoene who you want to kill isnt a legitimate military target, someone whose stuff you want to take isnt a legitimate military target, territory you want to control isnt a legitimate military target. The only legitimate target is someone who is constantly attacking you, constantly stealing from you and invading your territory. If that is the case the flagging system allows you to defend yourself without penalty.
If you decide that simply defending isnt enough then you have the conscious choice to go on the agressive stance, but you have to deal with the consequences of that choice.
Real consequences like these promotes more diplomatic options than smashing your sword in your enemies face. Clans who decide to go to war with eachother and doesnt want every other clan to get in on the action by killing reds on both sides will be inclined to accept a war dec so that there war stays between them and so that they dotn suffer even greater losses by the hands of 3rd party combatants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removing statloss would cheapen the consequences of war, pvp and being red. It would make raw combat the first, last and only solution to comflicts between players.
So what if you cant talk to bankers, you have house storage and person vendors soon. There are also lawless towns so if you are red you can do your business in lawless territory already.
Causing people to get flagged for trading with a criminal is just a bad idea. MO is a medival world, merchants have the choice to act on a dont ask dont tell philosophy. There is no reason to penalize someone who makes the choice to go into lawless territory and deal with killers. They are already risking getting killed and looted, if not by there customers, then by other reds. A merchants life and goods are as important to them as a pvpers combat skills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall the system is fine the way it is, people just want to have a unilateral way of killing anyone they want with no consequences and no counter.
My sig is just as logical as your posts are
Wanted to play this game, until I seen they had stat loss for killing someone, even if its someone who is not a "lowbie"
You dont get statloss for killing someone.
the rules for statloss are as follows:
IF you are RED (have 5 murdercounts or more at the same time)
and IF you die while RED
THEN you suffer statloss.
Only people who habitually kill blue players will become RED
If you dont die you will never suffer statloss, so skilled red pvpers wont suffer as much as people think.
-----------------------------------------------
More rules:
If you let your murdercounts fade before you go red, by moderating your killing, then you will never suffer statloss.
If you kill someone who attacks you you dont get a murdercount for killing them.
You dont get a murder count for killing a grey or a red player.
You dont get a murdercount for killing in a mutual war
If you are not RED and die you dont get statloss
My sig is just as logical as your posts are
Hi, i have'nt read through this thread, but im sure many other people have commented on how sandbox games should not be percieved as for 'carebears' and 'harcore players'.
So called Carebears are needed in sandbox games, if everyone was a big bad hardcore pker, then it would be chaotic, with little else going on except everyone trying to kill each other.
The Mortal Online Community is one of the best mmorpg communities i have been in, especially for a game with alot of pvp. There is a lot of developer - player interaction, friendly discussion, good clan relations, and a minor use of profanities and such, thanks to the mods who do a great job.
I do not want a repeat of forumfall, where it was all trolling and hostile behaviour towards other players.
Kio.
You do ralize that 90% of the trolling and hostility disappeared when they forced people to have an account to actually post in most of the forums right? Just saying.
Games:
Currently playing:Nothing
Will play: Darkfall: Unholy Wars
Past games:
Guild Wars 2 - Xpiher Duminous
Xpiher's GW2
GW 1 - Xpiher Duminous
Darkfall - Xpiher Duminous (NA) retired
AoC - Xpiher (Tyranny) retired
Warhammer - Xpiher
No, I just don't want stat loss in wars. I want wars to be limited by gold or some other cost, red status, more limited banking options, retalation on holdings etc. I don't want to see people questioning if they'll win the war once half my clan turns red becuase no one will accept a war dec. I don't want combat to be imbalanced. Make more limited have a cost, just not an imbalancing one.
Legitimate military targets are a guild's/alliance's war machine, a guild that move in on your territory and starts herashing your members, a merc clan that is helping your enemy, and your enemies allies. A person doesn't have to be an active combatant to be a legitimate target, they simply have to help.
Games:
Currently playing:Nothing
Will play: Darkfall: Unholy Wars
Past games:
Guild Wars 2 - Xpiher Duminous
Xpiher's GW2
GW 1 - Xpiher Duminous
Darkfall - Xpiher Duminous (NA) retired
AoC - Xpiher (Tyranny) retired
Warhammer - Xpiher
Peoples there are up for sandbox game play that include both PvE and PvP, not just mindless gankfest. To be Red in MO you need to face the consequences that few can survive, to play hardcore version of the game.
Where themepark games try to hide that they are copying WOW, games like Mortal Online and Darkfall make no attempt to hide their inspiration
______\m/_____
LordOfDarkDesire
funny how worst carebears are those gankbears, they cry moment their actions would have consequences.
QFT
My sig is just as logical as your posts are
This is normal for up-and-coming open pvp games. People who have been playing WoW their entire lives think they know what the developers need to fix. It's like a reverse Ultima Online. UO came out and people let the whining and crying build up for a few years before the developers got spooked and changed things. Here we have people trying to spook the devs into changing things before the game is released. Instead of playing the game a moderate portion of players camp on the forums trying to justify carebearing the game and try to scare the devs into thinking they will get a ton of players to leave with them.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
This is normal for up-and-coming open pvp games. People who have been playing WoW their entire lives think they know what the developers need to fix. It's like a reverse Ultima Online. UO came out and people let the whining and crying build up for a few years before the developers got spooked and changed things. Here we have people trying to spook the devs into changing things before the game is released. Instead of playing the game a moderate portion of players camp on the forums trying to justify carebearing the game and try to scare the devs into thinking they will get a ton of players to leave with them.
MO community isnt full of "carebears" The community just isnt hostile for no reason. Most of the community members arent trying to get SV to change the game to be more casual or wow-like. In fact most of the community miss the old UO efore it was ruined, and like the full loot ffa pvp aspects.
Also to adress the Op's post we dont want to "punish" pkers we want pking and being red to be meaningful. Having consequences for your actions makes that type fo gameplay more rewarding. There is plenty of active pvp and pking in the game right now and there will be at release. The MO community just have different motivations for pvp and pking other than " I got sword, you got face, I make sword hit face".
My sig is just as logical as your posts are
Mortal Online/EarthRise/Project V13
TheVindicators.com
Just because a game is FFA full loot pvp, doesn't mean it has to be a constant deathmatch version of an mmo. What it means is that if you act like a moron, or piss off the wrong group of people, there will be consequences.
Otherwise you do your own thing, play the game, and try to avoid the bandits (the people who set out to be murdering kill everything pvpers)
There isn't really a community yet, that takes half a year after release before a true one is formed. A lot of people quits after a month while new ones comes instead.
But it is not impossible that the worst zergs are playing darkfall right now while people more oriented to roleplaying is in MO, it is impossible to tell until the game actually launches. Just because the beta community is one way now doesn't mean that they will stay and the people that comes later will be the same.
lol ... you don't know anything about this game. The PvP is awesome. I really love the melee system. Most realistic and tactical. The best I have played in any MMO. But it is also a PvE game.
The community is made of carebears? lol You really don't know anything. People on MO hate games like WoW, AoC, etc ... and think those games have way to much handholding. We want more oldschool MMO's like UO and EQ1. No minimap, no instances, full loot, you can attack anybody, etc ... There are lots of PvP in MO.
PS: PvP has been in since first day.