FC Forums

I kinda agree with block's idea, but it could be used to essentially turn one faction's home into an invincible fortress via the No-Griefing-Period system, so it renders inter-faction war a) a farce or b) an organized sport.

Actually, part b) might not be all bad, but you get the idea.

joykler wrote:ok thel me than how should this punish players

There are many different play styles, and we can't be favoring one over another.
Admittedly there are things you can only do with a guild in MMOs, like organized raids and end-game material, but we shouldn't be adding "not being bullied by higher level players" to the list of guild-only activities.

@Commander Error
It would be nice if everyone could agree to PvP in an organized and gentlemanly fashion, and we should definitely strive for facilitating that, but that alone won't cover everything. Any time we offer safe havens to players who either participate in PvP, or support other PvPers, it will make for an unfair situation. That's why so many people have been suggesting to forgo protection altogether and let the free market decide who lives and dies.

It almost has to be all-or-nothing, and no middle ground.

but in my idea you could have weapons only light version
i mean you would only have one lvl weapon and a same lvl protection

and when you join a guild you could have all you want

plus you need civillians
and this way people who dont want to fight can stay in the back of an alliance instead of the front

This could be solved by microtransactions.

joykler: Alright let me make sure I got the facts straight, you want to force everyone into factions in order for them to advance?

If so, you have made one of the most common fatal design flaws a game can have. You are forcing gameplay, we can direct gameplay but as soon as it becomes "You must....In order to do something else". This only works with particular types of games ie Mario, ie sonic, ie centipede.

Why? If we force people into alliances we are forcing them to do something they don't want most likely with people they don't like. Diplomacy should be complex negotiations not "hey I need a ship can I join your alliance?" Alliance should be defensive pacts, or an open border treaty, trade deals, etc. These are all eliminated if they are already in a full blown alliance. And what if I accidentally end up in a pact with someone I hate? Will I loose everything when our alliance is punished? I was forced into the alliance to get a ship. What else was I suppose to do? It drags the small planets into large-scale wars they would otherwise be protected from as well.

The destruction of greifer alliances doesn't help your case either. We are trying to eliminate or disguise the act of greifing. Not eliminate the players and all associated.

So yes it does harm players a lot of them. It destroys gameplay and playerbase and provides no method to fix greifing just a punishment system which will be as or less effective than the current "ban 'em" style. It had good intentions but as I said you made a fatal flaw especially for an indie game, try to keep options open allow people choices it will pay off in the end.

sorry i didnt say the right thing when i sayd alliance i ment more something of a faction
and people could still make vessels without joining a faction but they wouldnt be strong war vessels
you could still be a litlle pirate but real army stuff would be reserved for the army part of a faction

people would have acces to all the non militairy parts of the game
and this would allow bigger citys an more economy

and a large problem that I have found on servers is that people would go in small group and wander around destroy things but when you have a goal a faction that gives you a purpose rules would be enforced easyier and you would have bigger ships
beeing part of a large goup with a goal would also bind players to the game because their would be a form of unity
and people could do what they like

people could mine alone or in factions
people could farm on their own or in factions
people could travel around
be more rpgish

and because the jobs are in factions distributed over more people
every one could do what they like without doing the things they find difficult
this way it would also be possible to make harder parts in the using of mod parts because some people would understand it and like to investigate it and those people would go in the science part of an faction or the engineer part

and correct me if im wrong but it is futurecraft not futureweaponcraft
so a little more balance and weapon restrictions would be nice

i think look at the real world with this not everyone is permitted to have weapons
but we want to give everyone the possibility to build nuclear world destroy guns

i think this would be the solution

No formal restrictions, that is forcing gameplay. If you work alone or in a sub/splinter-faction, then you should have access to all the things base factions have. The restriction should come with the difficulty of making ships, weapons, etc. and the price they sell for in the markets. One person probably wouldn't have the time or patience to do the things that a larger faction would be able to do. We could always set up the galactic market so a person or faction can choose to sell to a certain group, whether it be large military factions or businesses or private citizens.

E: @Bsb: Solitary players will probably rare. When you join a server, you join that server's faction. From there you could decide to join your faction's military, a smaller subgroup (business, builders, etc), defect to another faction, or start your own splinter.

i talked about an faction being a group of ten or more so
a splinter faction under ten is no faction by my believe and i never talked about not being able to buy them
you could buy them and you could use them but you couldnt craft them and to buy them you have to go underground
so there wil be more depth people who are in a faction could sell the weapons illgally if they do this they wouldnt get banned but maybe if someone told the police about this they would get an ticket so people would be cautius but they would still do this

and remember this way you dont have people fighting with devastating weapons everywhere
so i think it is worth it

Okay, let's have a look at this...

Creative players can be satisfied by the ship-yard concept: where you don't need to worry that you're awesome creation is going to be destroyed, because it is saved and can be shared with all.

Survival players and PvP players are more alike then Creative players. I think that a sever can have a maximum number of factions based on the number of players it has (number of slots). Once all these spots are full, then you can either join one of these factions, or play it solitary, where building ships will be much harder, due to limited resources and time. This way, we are encouraging people to work together, and we don't have a galaxy over-run by 3-man factions who can build nothing larger than a frigate. Sooner or later, a whole server is going to band together, and when that does, many other servers will have to do likewise to help defended against the threat.

If we make/encourage threats to force the whole server to work together, then we will have achieved our goal. Which I don't remember... What's the point of this discussion?

people wanted that more players would be on their own
and would just wreck the world with pownage weapons with the only restriction of recourses

i had a sort of your idea but i say why dont we let the pownage weapons be faction only

Tagging.

You destroy a block that's not yours[1], or attack another player, you're "tagged". For 10 mniutes, anyone affected by your action can attack you freely (they're tagged, too). If you log out while tagged, the game will place you at your tag point[2] when you re-enter the server.


[1]: Isn't natural and you didn't place.
[2]: Where the game tagged you.

All Would Be Tagged

I think this is a absurd thing
Because if a ship attacks a world and destroys it
All would be tagged
And onthis scale being tagged wouldnt matter because
Everyone would be tagged

-joykler

Anyone should be able to attack anyone at any time, anyone should be able to destroy anything at any time.

We're not going to keep going in circles like this. If you want to take a stance like that, fine, but you also need to address those concerns about doing so which have already been presented. We are looking for solutions here, not a show of hands.

The Rights of a Few

What if we just take away the part of block breaking for non subscribers
You could have guns taking down shields killing players destroy ships
But the actual world destroying wouldnt be possible

-joykler