Ceasefire Idea

[Richter Mortisse]

I don't know if something like this has been shared before, but I'd like to propose the idea of a temporary ceasefire, especially in the more dangerous areas. A player could propose it, and the players in the area could cast a vote, if it goes through, a temporary ceasefire between both factions starts, specific to the current zone.

Players are then free to quickly farm out some resources they need, or complete a quest that takes them deeper into enemy territory without fear of getting camped out. Short enough that it doesn't interrupt the overall flow of the game and battles, but long enough that weaker players are able to get some progress done. I think it'd be pretty beneficial for the solo players out there.

[Mortem]

I second this. As long as some areas prevent this. should always be thos high stake areas where war and battle is inevitable.

[RainbowReaper]

Originally posted by Cary Grant:

I don't know if something like this has been shared before, but I'd like to propose the idea of a temporary ceasefire, especially in the more dangerous areas. A player could propose it, and the players in the area could cast a vote, if it goes through, a temporary ceasefire between both factions starts, specific to the current zone.

Players are then free to quickly farm out some resources they need, or complete a quest that takes them deeper into enemy territory without fear of getting camped out. Short enough that it doesn't interrupt the overall flow of the game and battles, but long enough that weaker players are able to get some progress done. I think it'd be pretty beneficial for the solo players out there.

Originally posted by Mortem:

I second this. As long as some areas prevent this. should always be thos high stake areas where war and battle is inevitable.

Fully agree.

[TheSlyFawkes]

I'll never understand people who want to remove risk from the game, there's no fun in just having everything handed to you with little to no risk. The whole point of open world pvp is the possibility that at any moment you could run into an opposing faction member and have a fight on your hand. Even in places like Forest which is thick to the brim with encounters you will still on the rare occasion run into a bandit or vice versa with the Pit. I hope they never dumb the game down and make it easier for you people, but as history shows the squeakiest wheel gets the most attention.

[Richter Mortisse]

Originally posted by TheSlyFawkes:

I'll never understand people who want to remove risk from the game, there's no fun in just having everything handed to you with little to no risk. The whole point of open world pvp is the possibility that at any moment you could run into an opposing faction member and have a fight on your hand. Even in places like Forest which is thick to the brim with encounters you will still on the rare occasion run into a bandit or vice versa with the Pit. I hope they never dumb the game down and make it easier for you people, but as history shows the squeakiest wheel gets the most attention.

How is it hard to understand someone not wanting to get ♥♥♥♥♥♥ over? Spending hours farming just to lose everything to someone camping out with a sniper rifle isn't enjoyable. Neither is trying to do quests and being unable to progress.

This isn't about "dumbing the game down" , it's giving players a little bit of leeway. My suggestion isn't heavy handed, and the control is still in the player's hands, I feel it would be a good compromise.

[TheSlyFawkes]

Originally posted by Cary Grant:

Originally posted by TheSlyFawkes:

I'll never understand people who want to remove risk from the game, there's no fun in just having everything handed to you with little to no risk. The whole point of open world pvp is the possibility that at any moment you could run into an opposing faction member and have a fight on your hand. Even in places like Forest which is thick to the brim with encounters you will still on the rare occasion run into a bandit or vice versa with the Pit. I hope they never dumb the game down and make it easier for you people, but as history shows the squeakiest wheel gets the most attention.

How is it hard to understand someone not wanting to get ♥♥♥♥♥♥ over? Spending hours farming just to lose everything to someone camping out with a sniper rifle isn't enjoyable. Neither is trying to do quests and being unable to progress.

This isn't about "dumbing the game down" , it's giving players a little bit of leeway. My suggestion isn't heavy handed, and the control is still in the player's hands, I feel it would be a good compromise.

"the control is still in the players hands" So this goes one of two ways, either the game will be full of mostly "wolves" in which case they wont want a cease fire so you'll never get it or the alternative is the "sheep" out number the wolves and always want a cease fire which will in effect make it so there's always a cease fire and you might as well just be allied with bandits. Dumb idea. I hate to say this but you need to just get good. seriously. If you're spending hours farming and you dont even have the proper gear to go on a long expedition like a weapon for all ranges than you get what's coming to you.

My former statement still stands, you make the same mistakes over and over again and instead of learning from them you blame the enemy or the game; You can carry 60kg before starting to get weighed down making it so I carry a sniper, a assault rifle, and a sidearm all without even coming close to being encumbered. Stop making excuses and learn to play better.

[Richter Mortisse]

Originally posted by TheSlyFawkes:

Originally posted by Cary Grant:

How is it hard to understand someone not wanting to get ♥♥♥♥♥♥ over? Spending hours farming just to lose everything to someone camping out with a sniper rifle isn't enjoyable. Neither is trying to do quests and being unable to progress.

This isn't about "dumbing the game down" , it's giving players a little bit of leeway. My suggestion isn't heavy handed, and the control is still in the player's hands, I feel it would be a good compromise.

"the control is still in the players hands" So this goes one of two ways, either the game will be full of mostly "wolves" in which case they wont want a cease fire so you'll never get it or the alternative is the "sheep" out number the wolves and always want a cease fire which will in effect make it so there's always a cease fire and you might as well just be allied with bandits. Dumb idea. I hate to say this but you need to just get good. seriously. If you're spending hours farming and you dont even have the proper gear to go on a long expedition like a weapon for all ranges than you get what's coming to you.

My former statement still stands, you make the same mistakes over and over again and instead of learning from them you blame the enemy or the game; You can carry 60kg before starting to get weighed down making it so I carry a sniper, a assault rifle, and a sidearm all without even coming close to being encumbered. Stop making excuses and learn to play better.

You're making a ton of assumptions, maybe try opening up your point of view a little instead of pin-holing it down to a single "black-or-white" viewpoint.

I put this idea forth not from my perspective, but from other player's perspectives; from those that prefer pve to pvp. I personally could not care less if I get tagged on my way back to a base with my loot, that's how it goes. But I've run into some very dedicated pve players that have been having difficulties, especially since they aren't good with pvp and want to avoid it.

Having a cooldown between ceasefires would remedy your worry of them constantly being spammed. This would clearly gear it towards keeping the flow of the game going without major interruptions. Maybe if you took a second to think instead of resorting to logical fallacies, you would see there's merit here.

[Richter Mortisse]

Originally posted by Sweetroll:

Possibly one of the most pathetic care-bear posts I have read all year. When someone stated the obvious and told you to get better at a PVP game, you proceeded to double-back and say that this wasn't your idea; as if you're apparently looking out for the 'PVE players.' Yet here you are, standing by it and preaching it. That means you are okay with it. Quite frankly, if you're okay with this potential mechanic then that's already embarrassing enough. Even if it's 'not your idea.' Which we all TOTALLY believe.

If you bothered to even glance at my post, you'd see that I claimed this is my idea, taken from other player's perspectives.

If you had a cohesive argument as to why this mechanic would be detrimental in any way, perhaps your post would have some sort of impact. Resorting to personal attacks and providing nothing contributing to the discussion hinders any sort of meaningful progression that could be made with this line of dialog.

What's wrong with a mechanic that could help PVE players? Why is it even "embarassing" to consider?

[Sweetroll]

From the store page (On Open World PVP) : "What would a stalker's life be without looting and ambushes?"

Are you able to honestly answer that question?

[Richter Mortisse]

Originally posted by Sweetroll:

From the store page (On Open World PVP) : "What would a stalker's life be without looting and ambushes?"

Are you able to honestly answer that question?

Certainly can, but you're dodging everything I asked and still contributing nothing. Please come back and try again once you've given the mechanic some thought and have valid criticisms. Otherwise, go find another thread to troll.

As a quick reference, "git gud, ur bad, this is sh.it and lol hugbox, don't help people" are not valid criticisms. Ideas are put forth for discussion. If you have legitimate reasons as to why this would hinder gameplay, then please, feel free to throw them out there so the pros and cons can be weighed.

[Richter Mortisse]

Originally posted by Sweetroll:

Originally posted by Cary Grant:

Certainly can, but you're dodging everything I asked and still contributing nothing. Please come back and try again once you've given the mechanic some thought and have valid criticisms. Otherwise, go find another thread to troll.

As a quick reference, "git gud, ur bad, this is sh.it and lol hugbox, don't help people" are not valid criticisms. Ideas are put forth for discussion. If you have legitimate reasons as to why this would hinder gameplay, then please, feel free to throw them out there so the pros and cons can be weighed.

The funniest part about this is that your idea wouldn't be even remotely considered. The quote I provided was to demonstrate to you, the developers' vision of the title. A select few such as yourself who continue to play despite their grievances, have taken to the forums to discuss their issues with it. With that we assume that most players enjoy the game as is. With that being said, I don't think you've explained your point of view nearly enough. You have an opening argument that is a few sentences long talking about negating PVP momentarily so that everyone can farm and be on their way back to the safezone. Regardless of whether or not I laughed out loud IRL when I read that, the question still stands as to why you think you could possibly get away with depriving a PVP oriented community of their primary means of gameplay. Personally, I can't even believe this is a real suggestion. Could you even imagine the reality of forcing a zone or 'territory' to just go neutral. Imagine the timer for acceptance of the pacifist mode, imagine everyone dropping what they are doing to press accept, imagine sending the proposal while you get blasted from 100m out, imagine people entering the zone who don't even know what's going on, imagine the people who get merkt while the treaty is being processed, imagine the majority of the players crutching on this mechanic when they realize it makes progression 500x faster without the PVP element in an already smaller game that is meant to play like COD, imagine literally anything about this not being extremely clunky and counter to the point of the game.

This might seem absolutely crazy to believe, but in games like this there is generally a side that thoroughly enjoys PVE and one that enjoys PVP, and then those that appreciate a mix of both. The steam discussions exist as a place for people to share ideas, experiences, and pitch things out that they believe might have a positive impact for the games in question.

Just because you personally do not enjoy the idea of a momentary ceasefire, doesn't mean that other people won't. Other people have different playstyles and want to do things their way. In fact, the first two posts in this thread support the idea. I'll go over your points, as you finally gave something valid that can be tinkered with.

"Imagine the timer for acceptance of the pacifist mode, imagine everyone dropping what they are doing to press accept"

If a small message pop-up comes on the side of the screen, asking a player to either hit say, F1 or F2, I don't see how this is an issue. The vote could have a 20 second timer for votes to kick in, or a delay upon prompt, unanimous selection to allow people to finish up a firefight, or run away.

"imagine sending the proposal while you get blasted from 100m out"

Easy fix, disallow a player from starting a vote whilst engaged in combat, or supressed. I find most engagements end fairly quickly, unless a large amount of people are involved. At least from my experience.

"imagine people entering the zone who don't even know what's going on"

Not hard to add a message appended to the "Player invulnerability" one that displays when you enter a zone. Or even a banner with the timer until the ceasefire's over underneath the compass.

"imagine the people who get merkt while the treaty is being processed"

And? I fail to see the issue here. If it isn't engaged, then the possibility of being downed still exists.

"imagine the majority of the players crutching on this mechanic when they realize it makes progression 500x faster without the PVP element in an already smaller game that is meant to play like COD"

Once again, that's why I mentioned a cooldown on ceasefires earlier. Hell, it could be an hour or two between 5-10 minute ceasefires. The biggest issue that I've seen mentioned so far is that it would break pacing, and foster reliance on it. It shouldn't be an "Enter zone, initiate ceasefire" deal every time. It's to provide a small window of opportunity, not to shatter game pacing.

"imagine literally anything about this not being extremely clunky and counter to the point of the game"

That's why we're sitting here discussing it. I don't mean for a ceasefire to be overtly obstrusive. My whole intention here is for a balanced mechanic that can be of help for those with a focus on PVE. The point of the game isn't for each faction to shoot each other up 24/7 and camp spawns or transfer points.

All in all, it isn't just a PVP community, in any game that has other objectives, exploration or goals outside of PKing, there will be people that want to focus on that aspect of the game. Your response comes off as selfish and self-important; "I'm a PVP player, so the game should revolve entirely around me and the gameplay I enjoy." Throwing the PVE guys a small bone shouldn't elicit such a vitriol fueled response. If Dumpyard ceases fire for five to ten minutes, zoning into the forest, pit, or another area to continue on isn't a huge concession to make.

[Ben]

No thank you.

[Sweetroll]

Originally posted by Cary Grant:

Originally posted by Sweetroll:

The funniest part about this is that your idea wouldn't be even remotely considered. The quote I provided was to demonstrate to you, the developers' vision of the title. A select few such as yourself who continue to play despite their grievances, have taken to the forums to discuss their issues with it. With that we assume that most players enjoy the game as is. With that being said, I don't think you've explained your point of view nearly enough. You have an opening argument that is a few sentences long talking about negating PVP momentarily so that everyone can farm and be on their way back to the safezone. Regardless of whether or not I laughed out loud IRL when I read that, the question still stands as to why you think you could possibly get away with depriving a PVP oriented community of their primary means of gameplay. Personally, I can't even believe this is a real suggestion. Could you even imagine the reality of forcing a zone or 'territory' to just go neutral. Imagine the timer for acceptance of the pacifist mode, imagine everyone dropping what they are doing to press accept, imagine sending the proposal while you get blasted from 100m out, imagine people entering the zone who don't even know what's going on, imagine the people who get merkt while the treaty is being processed, imagine the majority of the players crutching on this mechanic when they realize it makes progression 500x faster without the PVP element in an already smaller game that is meant to play like COD, imagine literally anything about this not being extremely clunky and counter to the point of the game.

This might seem absolutely crazy to believe, but in games like this there is generally a side that thoroughly enjoys PVE and one that enjoys PVP, and then those that appreciate a mix of both. The steam discussions exist as a place for people to share ideas, experiences, and pitch things out that they believe might have a positive impact for the games in question.

Just because you personally do not enjoy the idea of a momentary ceasefire, doesn't mean that other people won't. Other people have different playstyles and want to do things their way. In fact, the first two posts in this thread support the idea. I'll go over your points, as you finally gave something valid that can be tinkered with.

"Imagine the timer for acceptance of the pacifist mode, imagine everyone dropping what they are doing to press accept"

If a small message pop-up comes on the side of the screen, asking a player to either hit say, F1 or F2, I don't see how this is an issue. The vote could have a 20 second timer for votes to kick in, or a delay upon prompt, unanimous selection to allow people to finish up a firefight, or run away.

"imagine sending the proposal while you get blasted from 100m out"

Easy fix, disallow a player from starting a vote whilst engaged in combat, or supressed. I find most engagements end fairly quickly, unless a large amount of people are involved. At least from my experience.

"imagine people entering the zone who don't even know what's going on"

Not hard to add a message appended to the "Player invulnerability" one that displays when you enter a zone. Or even a banner with the timer until the ceasefire's over underneath the compass.

"imagine the people who get merkt while the treaty is being processed"

And? I fail to see the issue here. If it isn't engaged, then the possibility of being downed still exists.

"imagine the majority of the players crutching on this mechanic when they realize it makes progression 500x faster without the PVP element in an already smaller game that is meant to play like COD"

Once again, that's why I mentioned a cooldown on ceasefires earlier. Hell, it could be an hour or two between 5-10 minute ceasefires. The biggest issue that I've seen mentioned so far is that it would break pacing, and foster reliance on it. It shouldn't be an "Enter zone, initiate ceasefire" deal every time. It's to provide a small window of opportunity, not to shatter game pacing.

"imagine literally anything about this not being extremely clunky and counter to the point of the game"

That's why we're sitting here discussing it. I don't mean for a ceasefire to be overtly obstrusive. My whole intention here is for a balanced mechanic that can be of help for those with a focus on PVE. The point of the game isn't for each faction to shoot each other up 24/7 and camp spawns or transfer points.

All in all, it isn't just a PVP community, in any game that has other objectives, exploration or goals outside of PKing, there will be people that want to focus on that aspect of the game. Your response comes off as selfish and self-important; "I'm a PVP player, so the game should revolve entirely around me and the gameplay I enjoy." Throwing the PVE guys a small bone shouldn't elicit such a vitriol fueled response. If Dumpyard ceases fire for five to ten minutes, zoning into the forest, pit, or another area to continue on isn't a huge concession to make.

It doesn't matter if players prefer PVE or PVP, this game is meant to be played with both, that's why they both exist. You assuming that I think the game should revolve around PVP because I like PVP is a small brained thought. The game should revolve around PVP because that's what was decided by the people who made this game for you to enjoy. There will be players that are better at PVE and players that are better at PVP. This doesn't change the fact that PVP and PVE are both equally tied to game pacing. You love to paint a picture of this double standard of PVP being too harsh for SOME PVErs and the likes. What about PVPers that don't like PVE? What are you saying to them? Do I get a mode where safezones are temporarily disabled for 10 min to flush out would-be carebears? Why is a cease fire even a necessary implementation to begin with? Do you think people are incapable of going their seperate ways if they are pacifists? Also, your cooldown concept means that this feature isn't available for a period of time. I fail to see a time limit in which its frequent enough to not cause pacing issues versus long enough that the mechanic is rendered a pointlessly over complicated addition to make for how rarely it is used. This post just comes off as unintelligible and sounds like someone crying about PVP if im being honest.

[TheSlyFawkes]

Originally posted by Sweetroll:

What about PVPers that don't like PVE? What are you saying to them? Do I get a mode where safezones are temporarily disabled for 10 min to flush out would-be carebears?

This sounds awesome, lets start a forum post and start complaining about the mind numbing PVE and demand they make a mode where PVE gets turned off and safezones removed.

Ahhhhhh, I can hear them all crying already.

[Sweetroll]

Originally posted by TheSlyFawkes:

Originally posted by Sweetroll:

What about PVPers that don't like PVE? What are you saying to them? Do I get a mode where safezones are temporarily disabled for 10 min to flush out would-be carebears?

This sounds awesome, lets start a forum post and start complaining about the mind numbing PVE and demand they make a mode where PVE gets turned off and safezones removed.

Ahhhhhh, I can hear them all crying already.

LOL honestly. XD "go back to DayZ if you want PvP!!" QQ

[TehGM]

I'll try to stay away from the childish ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ in this thread...

I must say this is an interesting idea. However I don't think this is the right game to add it to. The game is PvP at its core, and risk factor is super important.
I understand that some players might not enjoy PvP and would rather stick to PvE - and that's okay, we all prefer different types of games. However if anything, it might just mean this game isn't necessarily a right one for you. Which is okay as well - but people must understand that - us PvP players need a game for ourselves too.