Zetal

This seems much more aesthetics oriented than is needed right now. Maybe later, but definitely not soon. The rest of the game needs to work before we start making the game look more real.

I'm not sure if logging out near an area is the solution to this problem- maybe logging in would be the better means of addressing this? Ie, if someone has been in the area that you're trying to spawn in for at least 15 minutes or however long, the area is 'occupied' and cannot be spawned into. This would prevent server hopping into forest camps, too, although then there is obvious issues regarding not being able to spawn near your teammates, if you're moving in a group. Hmm. Maybe that would be viable once 'Group' mechanics are added into the game? The OP's idea is worth a shot though, seeing as this is an experiment, and an alpha at that.

Tbh, I'm not even really upset about the repeat posts- they're nuisances, but understandably so. What bothers me is the continually restated posts that have ALREADY been addressed by the OP and others, to the point of them being meaningless. I understand that if Rocket were to read through this entire topic, he'd get the gist and go "Yup, that's already been addressed", but by reposting the same complaint, they're wasting would-be readers times, and their own time. Specifically, the people who KEEP POSTING ABOUT GETTING RID OF PVP. Holy BALLS, guys! I'd be upset, but honestly I don't know how to feel about that. OP already said that the goal of this is NOT to get rid of, or even really reduce PvP. If it does, it would be by player choice, because that's what this is meant to handle. Some people get it, but I need to restate this for those that don't: This is simply meant to make friendly approaches a VIABLE TACTIC. An acceptable risk, for the reward you would be getting, rather than the unbalanced Risk:Reward ratio that it is now, compared to just shooting on sight. Ciao.

I read through this topic all the way from page 1, and had about 7 moments where I wanted to grab a poster and rip their heads off because of their ignorant, poorly founded, and idiotic posts that CLEARLY indicate that they didn't bother reading the previous pages of the topic. These statistics are estimated, and clearly biased, but are the only explanation I can come up with: 85% of the people that oppose this idea DID NOT patiently read through this topic, or even the entirety of the main post. This gives some psychological indicators into the reasons behind their opposition, actually, in that they're impatient and likely oppose any sort of change that might result in them losing dominion over what they perceive as a part of the game they dominate. ~65% of the people that support this idea DID patiently read through this topic, and the main post. Overall, only 15% of resistance can be tallied, and 65% of positive feedback can be tallied. This leaves the 'positive' feedback slightly ahead, and even moreso considering that I completely agree with the OP. Anyone informed enough to give their thoughts on this, and has the proper mindset to be informed enough, will almost always agree with this suggestion. Just common sense. Ciao.