*Longo* Posted Nov 14, 2010, 4:26 pm	Should PvP be regional, rather than a Pvp Flag with an On/Off switch? Just an example - no pvp flag, but SS/Elms/GW are Pvp free, and everyplace else is Open Pvp? Theres just alot of Pvp discussion, and wondering what the masses are thinking.
*Longo* Posted Nov 14, 2010, 5:01 pm	Please note, those that hit "Other" the "Please explain" part?
*Wolfsbane* Posted Nov 14, 2010, 5:04 pm	Sorry, I was in the middle of something else and I got distracted I don't think there's much point making sweeping changes to PvP until the interface gets fixed a bit. Having tried myself, I know what a pain it is to get PvP going, and I don't think adding more PvP-open towns would make it easier.
*Bastille* Posted Nov 15, 2010, 1:26 am	I don't like the idea of more safe zones. It changes the perspective on what the game is. I said my peace elsewhere on the idea, but really have little experience in wilderness PvP.
*goat starer* Posted Nov 15, 2010, 10:35 am	for my money... i would ideally make everywhere and everyone PVP open. BUT given the general antipathy to this I would suggest that we: - keep SS PVP free - Make the flag operate in Elms, GW, Texan and Sars - Make everyone open for PVP in BL, Shanty and FL we know this is possible in the game mechanics. It seems to reflect the 'danger' of the towns. Itr creates a nice dangerous wasteland between the 2 centres of 'civilisation'. It looks right to me.
FireFly Posted Nov 15, 2010, 11:24 am	Just keep SS safe, make it open everywere else, in my opinion. Outside of that, I guess you can keep elms and GW safe to, but anywere further out, it should be open.
*Longo* Posted Nov 15, 2010, 3:14 pm	Im all for what you all say, but keeping the non-pvp people happy would require areas of increased level of difficulty that were non-pvp.
*goat starer* Posted Nov 15, 2010, 3:33 pm	nowhere is harder to sdcout than GW... Tex and Sars can be quite tough too. I don't see that many real long term players who scout BL, FL or Shanty who look afraid of the odd PVP bout.
*Rezeak* reecestensel@hotmail.co.uk Posted Nov 15, 2010, 7:43 pm	goat starer said: for my money... i would ideally make everywhere and everyone PVP open. BUT given the general antipathy to this I would suggest that we: - keep SS PVP free - Make the flag operate in Elms, GW, Texan and Sars - Make everyone open for PVP in BL, Shanty and FL we know this is possible in the game mechanics. It seems to reflect the 'danger' of the towns. Itr creates a nice dangerous wasteland between the 2 centres of 'civilisation'. It looks right to me. I like this.
theHumungous Posted Nov 15, 2010, 9:07 pm	I voted "NO". Simply because some people are NOT INTERESTED IN PVP. Period. Those that are can participate. Those that aren't interested don't HAVE TO. It needs to stay that way.
*Bastille* Posted Nov 16, 2010, 2:21 am	good point  Quote: Im all for what you all say, but keeping the non-pvp people happy would require areas of increased level of difficulty that were non-pvp. another good point just to repost an idea from » Discussion » Subscribers Forum » Where'd all these pussy gangs come from in BL? where I said: Reverse scouting distance safety, coerced PvP beyond a certain distance. That way there is no different rules for any player in any town or region. Those that play PvE fight lesser gangs, closer to town, those brave enough to face bigger gangs do so risking or braving a fight against a player. Those wanting to spend the time to PvP have their targets sorted out for them, no need for a flag. The time restraints for PvP, like TOs and RL time concerns are clear when you go scout beyond a certain distance. Travel would still be something that needs to be looked at This wouldn't really provide full scope of the game for non PvPers though.
*goat starer* Posted Nov 16, 2010, 3:36 pm	theHumungous said: I voted "NO". Simply because some people are NOT INTERESTED IN PVP. Period. Those that are can participate. Those that aren't interested don't HAVE TO. It needs to stay that way. those people are in the WRONG GAME and need to go and find a DIFFERENT game. I suggest space invaders.
theHumungous Posted Nov 16, 2010, 4:35 pm	I'd venture to guess Sam may disagree with you on that. If it opens the game to more people (PVP flag), then I am also all for it. Of course, my reasoning is completely selfish! More players means more money for Sam which means more updates, which means more content. If the price of that, is having a PVP flag, then I think it is a fair price.
*goat starer* Posted Nov 16, 2010, 5:18 pm	theHumungous said: I'd venture to guess Sam may disagree with you on that. If it opens the game to more people (PVP flag), then I am also all for it. Of course, my reasoning is completely selfish! More players means more money for Sam which means more updates, which means more content. If the price of that, is having a PVP flag, then I think it is a fair price. i dont believe money is the issue for Sam.. its time. A family, a full time job. Darkwind is a pretty limited potential subscriber game and realistically its never gonna get out of the sideline / hobby bracket.
theHumungous Posted Nov 16, 2010, 5:42 pm	No, I agree it isn't the primary issue, but it allows him to spend that earned money on new things - whether it is contracting work out or buying models from someone. Unfortunately, I think you're right about it not getting out of the niche market - maybe that's good, maybe not. I don't really know. All I know, is I LOVE this game and want it to be successful for lots of people.
Mad Mike Posted Jan 19, 2011, 8:07 am	mirror the south by adding towns to the north.... south is pvp north is not, ss is in the middle
*Dark Tempest* Posted Jan 19, 2011, 8:26 am	+1
Groove Champion Posted Jan 19, 2011, 8:27 am	Huh... not a bad idea. Might be a pretty large map for a small community, but in terms of future development it's a great investment.
*Bastille* Posted Jan 19, 2011, 8:42 am	What would be a good idea, is that you give me my race medals back pretty sure Ive lost two or three to you now Be nice if we could all enjoy the same lands These are Bad lands now I just need a line for this emote oh look, there we go
*Bastille* Posted Jan 19, 2011, 8:44 am	goat starer said: for my money... i would ideally make everywhere and everyone PVP open. BUT given the general antipathy to this I would suggest that we: - keep SS PVP free - Make the flag operate in Elms, GW, Texan and Sars - Make everyone open for PVP in BL, Shanty and FL we know this is possible in the game mechanics. It seems to reflect the 'danger' of the towns. Itr creates a nice dangerous wasteland between the 2 centres of 'civilisation'. It looks right to me. This!
*SirLatte* Posted Jan 19, 2011, 1:21 pm	Longo said: Im all for what you all say, but keeping the non-pvp people happy would require areas of increased level of difficulty that were non-pvp. I would really like to see the elms area not pvp but become a lot more difficult(especially scouting towards GW) with better chance at getting some decent loot.
kometen Posted Jan 19, 2011, 3:22 pm	I really like goat's idea of having wide open pvp in BL, FL, and Shanty. If you want to travel from one 'civilised' area to another you have to run the gauntlet. Makes newer players likely to seek the help of veterans to make the journey. Also opens up the possibility for PC escorts rather than just NPC escorts.
Fifth Posted Jan 19, 2011, 3:30 pm	kometen said: I really like goat's idea of having wide open pvp in BL, FL, and Shanty. If you want to travel from one 'civilised' area to another you have to run the gauntlet. Makes newer players likely to seek the help of veterans to make the journey. Also opens up the possibility for PC escorts rather than just NPC escorts. This too.
Mad Mike Posted Jan 19, 2011, 4:30 pm	I think the only solution is a server for PVP and a server for non PVP. big issue for that is cost and the community is too small.... there for a mirrored map in difficulty would provide the solution. ss and elms pvp free... gw and south pvp add towns to the north that are gw bl, etc replicas and have the same level of difficulty. same server but more time to add towns...
Joel Autobaun Posted Jan 19, 2011, 4:44 pm	I think there should be one more far north town, perhaps a pirate haven (but doesn't PvP for survival reasons). the roads have ICE on them muhahaha (i'm canadian so this is an extremely self serving idea - driving on ice is FUN) What I am saying is Move Morgan north of SS and then implement...with Ice roads. Ice road truckers come to Evan.
kometen Posted Jan 21, 2011, 6:44 pm	Yeah ice and snow would be cool. New melee weapon: shovel. Can also use it to dig yourself out of a snowbank when you get stuck.
*Rev. V* Posted Jan 21, 2011, 7:41 pm	You know what would make a good shovel? A....CHAINSAW!!!!!
Joel Autobaun Posted Jan 21, 2011, 7:43 pm	mmm not so much, yes I have tried....
4saken Posted Mar 30, 2011, 2:37 am	theHumungous said: I voted "NO". Simply because some people are NOT INTERESTED IN PVP. Period. Those that are can participate. Those that aren't interested don't HAVE TO. It needs to stay that way. Then have them stay in the Northern Triangle. If you want to play in the Badlands, you take the risk. That's my take on it. I let my subscription run out a few months back and have only been here once or twice since. Part of the reason I left was lack of PvP. I'm not out to get anyone, but IMO you can only play against the computer so many times. It's like having a chess game vs the computer. How many times can you do that before it gets boring?
*General Mayhem* Posted Mar 30, 2011, 8:16 am	PVP has always been a volatile topic on DW. One of my very first travels I had a training scout intercepted by Shark. This was paid back in full by my mentor at the time....Goat. Alliances have some control of PVP...factions should be a factor in PVP too. I could not imagine two gangs of the same faction fighting each other without some rep issues. Or a gang fighting a civ allied player without some negative impact with the civs rep. Maintaining rep and alliances should make anyone who wishes to PVP you think long and hard before doing so. Put it this way, I would not want to be getting in a race car after attacking a deathrace mafia honoured gang.... Would you?
Kornkob The Dude Posted Mar 30, 2011, 1:10 pm	goat starer said: for my money... i would ideally make everywhere and everyone PVP open. BUT given the general antipathy to this I would suggest that we: - keep SS PVP free - Make the flag operate in Elms, GW, Texan and Sars - Make everyone open for PVP in BL, Shanty and FL we know this is possible in the game mechanics. It seems to reflect the 'danger' of the towns. Itr creates a nice dangerous wasteland between the 2 centres of 'civilisation'. It looks right to me. I kinda like this.  And it means I want to change my vote to yes--- goats way.
Lord Foul Posted Mar 31, 2011, 12:33 am	Kornkob The Dude said: goat starer said: for my money... i would ideally make everywhere and everyone PVP open. BUT given the general antipathy to this I would suggest that we: - keep SS PVP free - Make the flag operate in Elms, GW, Texan and Sars - Make everyone open for PVP in BL, Shanty and FL we know this is possible in the game mechanics. It seems to reflect the 'danger' of the towns. Itr creates a nice dangerous wasteland between the 2 centres of 'civilisation'. It looks right to me. I kinda like this.  And it means I want to change my vote to yes--- goats way.  Longo, would it be possible for you to create a new poll with Goats suggestions to gauge current interest? I did not want to step on your toes since you created this one.