Scam Alert - Army Crates in Cities

  • BRiCK wrote:

    OneTyper wrote:

    If this was supposed to be a feature, it should have been done properly and create a counter to it.
    Thats the point of a sandbox... Even the devs can be surprised by what the players come up with....
    Yes its annoying as fuck, but no I dont think it should be removed. Its part of playing a sandbox, you take risks with shit. Pay attention to where you're depositing your shit..

    The only reason you could feel so strongly about them changing it is because you're the one who fucked up and deposited your shit there....
    Nah, it doesn't work like this if we are talking about good sandbox game design, not just casual mistakes in implementation turned into feature, just because feels "convenient" for a small subset of userbase. City are green area as you as player expect safety in every way, that's what most players are going to expect. This behaviour shouldn't be encouraged without an equally stressful counter implemented to make sure both sides have ways to gain something, not just the douchebags. Put in place a defense system that works in synergy and create a variety of situations and we can talk about it. Until you give both sides of the medal a way to win, it's just a bug to fix, nothing else.

    I have never experienced it myself, or even worried about falling for it, I'm just giving suggestions to improve the overall experience for everyone. Leave this issue there is going to create even more issues from multiple sides and this might compromise the game experience as a whole.

    Just because it was been labelled as a pvp sandbox, doesn't mean it's supposed to be a paradise for douchebags, and I think there is in general this misunderstanding that pvp sandbox means heaven for the lowest life to thrive with tricks and tips and not valour, honor and skills. No matter how sandbox a game is, it needs rules to encourage the playerbase to play and stay strong, not push a game down the hole. because that's what is going to happen at release if this is not fixed properly, the negative review around the initial experience are going to fly high.

    I'm all for allowing freedom to thieves and all sort of reasonably bad behaviours to create a varied environment, but it needs to have a counter play to make sure both sides have the means to fight, not just a side.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by OneTyper ().

  • OneTyper wrote:

    I'm all for allowing freedom to thieves and all sort of reasonably bad behaviours to create a varied environment, but it needs to have a counter play to make sure both sides have the means to fight, not just a side
    Pure and simple, this is a no-risk griefer tactic in the middle of a declared non-pvp zone with no counter play. A sledgehammer should be able to destroy a wooden crate in a few hits, not in 20 minutes. I'm ok if you want to keep the crates in, just make them easy to destroy. But I can see that others want to have this tactic removed completely, and I'm ok with that also. I know what these chests are and I don't get taken by them, and I also take a bunch of 1sp items like trash, eggs and other junk and pop them in there to fill up his slots. They usually get annoyed and stop for a bit, but they come back...

    Technically, this chest IS a PvP tactic in the middle of a NON-PvP zone. On top of that, it is hidden from view. Are you saying that if someone could be invisible and one shot you at will in the middle of Caerleon at will that it would be good for the game? Or that they should keep it in because of sandbox? You know that the town would soon be empty if there was no viable counter play. Nothing will ever be true sandbox because there will always have to be limitations, you just have to pick which ones are good and bad for the game.

    Risk vs. reward needs to be balanced. If you think that this should be left in as is, then you are basically encouraging griefers - which would empty the game of everyone except 12 year olds if left unchecked.
  • Dahamma wrote:

    OneTyper wrote:

    I'm all for allowing freedom to thieves and all sort of reasonably bad behaviours to create a varied environment, but it needs to have a counter play to make sure both sides have the means to fight, not just a side
    Pure and simple, this is a no-risk griefer tactic in the middle of a declared non-pvp zone with no counter play. A sledgehammer should be able to destroy a wooden crate in a few hits, not in 20 minutes. I'm ok if you want to keep the crates in, just make them easy to destroy. But I can see that others want to have this tactic removed completely, and I'm ok with that also. I know what these chests are and I don't get taken by them, and I also take a bunch of 1sp items like trash, eggs and other junk and pop them in there to fill up his slots. They usually get annoyed and stop for a bit, but they come back...
    Technically, this chest IS a PvP tactic in the middle of a NON-PvP zone. On top of that, it is hidden from view. Are you saying that if someone could be invisible and one shot you at will in the middle of Caerleon at will that it would be good for the game? Or that they should keep it in because of sandbox? You know that the town would soon be empty if there was no viable counter play. Nothing will ever be true sandbox because there will always have to be limitations, you just have to pick which ones are good and bad for the game.

    Risk vs. reward needs to be balanced. If you think that this should be left in as is, then you are basically encouraging griefers - which would empty the game of everyone except 12 year olds if left unchecked.
    I do not understand if you are trying to reinforce my statement with a different point or you are using that paragraph on its own (isolated context) to argue against my post while my whole post is towards "Pure and simple, this is a no-risk griefer tactic in the middle of a declared non-pvp zone with no counter play".

    This looks like you read the last line without anything else I have said, just for the same of arguing? Hope I'm wrong.
  • OneTyper wrote:

    Dahamma wrote:

    OneTyper wrote:

    I'm all for allowing freedom to thieves and all sort of reasonably bad behaviours to create a varied environment, but it needs to have a counter play to make sure both sides have the means to fight, not just a side
    Pure and simple, this is a no-risk griefer tactic in the middle of a declared non-pvp zone with no counter play. A sledgehammer should be able to destroy a wooden crate in a few hits, not in 20 minutes. I'm ok if you want to keep the crates in, just make them easy to destroy. But I can see that others want to have this tactic removed completely, and I'm ok with that also. I know what these chests are and I don't get taken by them, and I also take a bunch of 1sp items like trash, eggs and other junk and pop them in there to fill up his slots. They usually get annoyed and stop for a bit, but they come back...Technically, this chest IS a PvP tactic in the middle of a NON-PvP zone. On top of that, it is hidden from view. Are you saying that if someone could be invisible and one shot you at will in the middle of Caerleon at will that it would be good for the game? Or that they should keep it in because of sandbox? You know that the town would soon be empty if there was no viable counter play. Nothing will ever be true sandbox because there will always have to be limitations, you just have to pick which ones are good and bad for the game.

    Risk vs. reward needs to be balanced. If you think that this should be left in as is, then you are basically encouraging griefers - which would empty the game of everyone except 12 year olds if left unchecked.
    I do not understand if you are trying to reinforce my statement with a different point or you are using that paragraph on its own (isolated context) to argue against my post while my whole post is towards "Pure and simple, this is a no-risk griefer tactic in the middle of a declared non-pvp zone with no counter play".
    This looks like you read the last line without anything else I have said, just for the same of arguing? Hope I'm wrong.
    Yes, I'm reinforcing your point and also arguing against some of the previous posts of others. I'm not arguing against you, I'm just using your line to say that you said it very well. I realize when I said "you" in my post it made it confusing. Anyway, yes...I am with you brother!
  • OneTyper wrote:

    I'm all for allowing freedom to thieves and all sort of reasonably bad behaviours to create a varied environment, but it needs to have a counter play to make sure both sides have the means to fight, not just a side.
    Counter attack with your brain!

    Stripping slowly away all the things that people fall for is hurting, this post will probably not be the last in a long history of people who want something changed because they think its "unfair".
    I dont think you should feel anywhere safe in a PvP hardcore game where you can loose it all or win it all.
    You pushing this game into the direction of a standard MMORPG that most likely doesn't even survives the first year because people lose interest, the only real risk is then that you get killed when you farm you precious iron ore.

    If this game keeps going in this directions and changes these little things that are counterable with a little bit of intelligence we get the next generic mmorpg that lives and dies in a couple of months.
  • Neroh wrote:

    OneTyper wrote:

    I'm all for allowing freedom to thieves and all sort of reasonably bad behaviours to create a varied environment, but it needs to have a counter play to make sure both sides have the means to fight, not just a side.
    Counter attack with your brain!
    Stripping slowly away all the things that people fall for is hurting, this post will probably not be the last in a long history of people who want something changed because they think its "unfair".
    I dont think you should feel anywhere safe in a PvP hardcore game where you can loose it all or win it all.
    You pushing this game into the direction of a standard MMORPG that most likely doesn't even survives the first year because people lose interest, the only real risk is then that you get killed when you farm you precious iron ore.

    If this game keeps going in this directions and changes these little things that are counterable with a little bit of intelligence we get the next generic mmorpg that lives and dies in a couple of months.
    The game can be as much hardcore as you want in the red and black zones, the green zones have been created to give a safe port to the hardcore-ness are green for a reason, and give a certain psychological perspective of what to expect, just like your perception of what to expect when you cross a road with green lights, creating any sort of behaviours that is damaging players without wanting it or even have a way to fight it, isn't aligned to any sort of consistency.

    If this game had things like full pvp towns, player building that could be destroyed in the city with hammers, the chance to smash the bank and rob everyone money in that city and so forth, I would call this one a possible feature, if implemented in a way to give both good and bad side a way to act, a way to fight. In this very controlled city context, such feature is just out of place and should be labelled as a bug to fix.

    Just like stealing money with duels, this is another feature that goes in line with that thinking. Green is green, and users need to be protected there, no matter how stupid is to fall for it.

    And as I said, it also bring other benefits to avoid goldsellers setup idle shops with bots selling things (which is key at release) and likely to reduce lag and overpopulation in cities, which would otherwise be flooded with characters trying to scam early, especially while the silver gold conversion is awesome, and even t1 t2 stone can make you interesting gold.

    The benefits of overall game experience severely outperform that 0.01% importance of unrealistic and forgotten mistake that some want to pass as a feature.

    I think I have made my point quite clear repeating things at least 3 times, hope some here get the concept of consistency of approach and some of the psychology around user and zone segmentation a bit more clear for this specific case.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by OneTyper ().

  • Not sure if this has been brought up yet, (only read the first page) but if you place down something else (ie morgana standards) they can't put down thier chests by the bank anymore until its destroyed.

    So i go beat on their chest until they pick it up and then place something else there so they can't place their chest back down until my item is destroyed.