Personal Enemies

Discussion in 'General Archive' started by Maximus2341, Jul 22, 2014.

Dear forum reader,

if you’d like to actively participate on the forum by joining discussions or starting your own threads or topics, please log into the game first. If you do not have a game account, you will need to register for one. We look forward to your next visit! CLICK HERE
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. We all know those few trolls who stay out of clans and make people lose honor by killing them, so rather than having to wait for them to join a clan how about making individual people enemies. Just like clans rather than tags their names will turn red. You get 3 personal enemies a week, timer on the person you declare will be 7 days. Along with individual people making wars clans can declare single people enemies with the same limitations as well.
     
    ChaosReaper450 likes this.
  2. souns good to me, but mabye should just b like norm clan wars
     
  3. Well it seemed a bit to op to go around and declare on whoever u feel like, whats the point of different companies if you have every single person in the same comp as you an enemy.
     
  4. make love not war
    offer him a flower
     
  5. With this you can basicly declare war against a low-leveld-player and kill him/her all over again. Would that be fun? I really dont get your idea cause if a players shot first and kills you, hes the one losing honor, not you And you only have yourself to blame if you shot at people first. And if you have some grudge against someone with no clan, just kill him/her and take it like a man (or women).

    After 6-5 years of playing Im still not a part of a clan and I have no plan of joining any clan. I can only speak for myself and even if Im not in a clan my true friends will still be with me and I will be with them.

    This idea get a thumb down from me.

    Greeting Rocky
     
  6. This is similar to a post about kos. I say no to this, and this is my reason why. Players can easily be targeted and bullied in this game. If you dont like a player then you can have them as a personal enemy, and several people will follow suit.

    Now, if you say something along the lines that if they player creates a certain amount of accrued damage to a company player (you), and a notification message arises that states "the following player is eligible for company on company combat, do you wish to proceed" and you have to option to individually war them as a player, then yes.. As long as there is a system that allows a certain amount of rationale then fine. Because lets be honest, if there is no system that guides this, then this idea will become abused.
    This is my point exactly, and we have all seen players be target for the simplest reasons. Maybe like what I mentioned before may become more suitable.
     
  7. I understand the possibility that this can be abused. I'm not sure how your server is but in my server the company I'm in has people who go around, announce cbs are down, refuse to attack you and just wait until you attack them so you lose honor(the trolls) that is what I want this for.
     
  8. yeh, i hear ya, but to be honest, going around announcing that the CBS is down is no reason to want to war that player. CBS is a part of the game that can have collateral downfalls. SO having someone say that it is down is just part of it. You cant expect to drop shields and no one will notice, especially if its during the primetime. But I just dont like the idea of warring a single player unless they reach a certain amount of damage, accumulated over a period of time. This way, they are made aware that they are at a limit as to damage, meaning, they are also informed via a game message that they are nearing an opportunity to be warred. That way , if they keep attacking you, then they are aware of being warred as a single player and they chose that option. This i think wil lprevent abusing this warring possibility.
     
  9. SauronL

    SauronL User

    better than that, could be here something like "removing player from maps"
    - that player wont be able to see any npcs or things which u locked (will work for vru?)

    but nice idea i saw same on different forum 3 days ago
     
  10. vsc99073

    vsc99073 User

    good.
     
  11. relax

    relax User

    Maybe not so good idea, some groups of players will war with just one player just because they will want that and that player maybe isn't ready for fights or stuff like that. And some strong players will have personal enemyes just for xp and honor. Maybe good for old players but bad idea for newbies..
     
  12. Me thinks this concept is mostly to bypass the pushing system. Since this player is part of your company...it's gonna be like shootin' stuff from your living room window into the backyard.
     
  13. I guess, but i mean, look at it like this, you are allowed a certain amount of damage to company players, say the limit is somewhere along the lines of 5 mil damage points. Everytime you attack a company player who is not attacking you, the damage you inflict on them will reduce the limit you have from the 5 mil damage points, so lets say you cause a total of 1 million damage on company players in a day or so, then your personal warred points drop to 4 mil, and so forth, once it reaches 1 mil, a system message informs you that you are nearing a solo war from the players you are constantly shooting at. Once the war points are gone, the players that you have been attacking will be notified of an option to war that player or not. Only the players that have been attacked can have this option. The war last 7 days like any war and a player who declared war can cancel it to. Once the war is over, then war point return but at a lower amount, so now it will start at 3 mil as opposed to 5 mil, and so forth, with every war after, it drops 1 mil. Eventually you will only have 1 mil war points to work from.
     
  14. Note: The thread will be re-opened only if the OP requests for it.

    Enjoy the game.

    Closing due to inactivity.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.