At first glance I read this as bacon sieging… can’t unsee. Now I need bacon.
3 Likes
If this happened to me I’d quit and never play again 
this would be strait up griefing and it would be Dev APPROVED and ENABLED griefing at that 
2 Likes
I think its a great idea XD and as for the safe haven thing
Any players that does not want to worry or deal with this could simply play on more friendly worlds. I dont think these worlds would out number the other worlds that didn’t allow it.
@Opulus You could have it on the big map whatever they decide that is by the way im referring the the thing they called the star map. on the star map there were worlds that were marked hostel im sure you could add extra terms so players know what type of world it is and they can decide if they want to live on it. you could even have these stated in the welcome message when you go to that world that way players know what to expect
You could just have some type of item that needs to be taken or destroyed thous you take the fort or play of that guild so like a large shard or something so theirs different owners and a possibility to take it back also makings it little less about breaking everything.
well if there marked you don’t have to make a home there that way you wouldn’t have to deal with any of it if you decided you didn’t want to you know
They could make this Anti Beacon not work on PVE worlds or just have beacons react differently one the PVP ones or just no beacons which would probably be the easiest all worlds are separate servers from what i understand so having beacons just not work on thous servers or an item that doesn’t work on PVE servers shouldn’t be super hard i don’t think
Have a way that the player could check the world stats and also they know what type of world it is and maybe a message that also tells you
also a player from this world wouldn’t be able to do the same to you beacon and kill you if your not in a PVP area. And having 50 worlds with more to come make 5 or 10 PVP/ Siege worlds oooooo maybe PVE siege worlds would be cool too XD
Could have PVP worlds, PVE world, PVP/ siege worlds, PVE/ siege worlds and so on releasing more if they show that more people want them and of course not taking away the others
As for the greifing thing it might help because greifing can be fun so letting these people to it in a way that doesn’t effect players that don’t like it, but also not being judge for it.
Games that allows things like being a thief on skyrim and other similar games wouldn’t have people be that roll if people didn’t like it. Same as the whole point in payday and Oort and MC are just games that allow freedom so people do what they think is fun while if you have a little bit of the game have thous outlets then they probably would help with a few of the griefers you know.
If feel like i might of sub consciously tried to take of the topic and thus id like to say im sorry lol
1 Like
I think the problem with having "marked"areas would be the unbalanced factor that could be a result of this. I’m referring to most people wanting to keep their home safe, but not minding the opportunity to destroy others’ homes. You would have a lot less people building in risky PvP spots on a world.
This makes a good amount of sense to me. I think keeping the worlds separate would avoid people hiding their homes in safe zones, while still being allowed to assault others. I’m not big on PvP, but I don’t see it being fair that Bob could wreck anyone’s house he wanted, but nobody can get at his because he parked on the PvE side of town.
2 Likes
People would probably build differently or have there main home that’s nice and fancy on a safe server and a less important home or base on the non safe server that way you could have peaceful fun with friends and build or PVE
But also go be able to go raid and all that on other servers
so no player is stuck to one type of server and can take all there characters stuff over to go see friends or hang out and i don’t think players will be limited to 1 home
I myself will probably may a main home on a PVP world and if there are siege worlds would like to make it on one of thous of course that fits my playing style more thou
The main problem of “siege” is, that you need some kind of blocks which can be destroyed and some kind of blocks which can not be destroyed. Because if someone is destroying every block of your base that would be pretty bad. But destroying some kind of wall or door should be possible. So there need to be a tool where you can set a couple of blocks to a “wall” which can be destroyed.
But I like the idea of sieging against other guilds. An awesome idea would be, that you need to register 48 hours before the siege starts. Then you as attacker get the chance to look where are the “breakable walls/doors”. And the defender has time to react and be there when you go for siege. An additional awesome idea would be that the defender needs to place the “siege register npc” to be able to get attacked. When the defender attacked someone already, the registration npc is placed automatically. This will ensure that Newbies don’t get hunted to death while Guilds who like that kind of pvp/siege have the ability to do it. The defender also needs to be the one who says at which time he wants to be getting attacked. Defenders home, defenders rules.
TL;DR:
PvP is Player-versus Player, not Player-versus-Building.
Creating separate PvP worlds is a meaningless job that will accomplish nothing.
Full post:
I just don’t get why is that still called PvP if it’s just PvE versus buildings that other players spent weeks creating. “Go smash those bricks and show them who’s the boss, champ!”.
And yes, I still strongly disagree with any action that leads to a Beaconed building of another player being changed by anyone who isn’t the owner or collaborator. As someone mentioned above, this is just legalized griefing, which is horrible and should not exist.
Creating separate PvP servers is not an option, because as the devs mentioned earlier there’s a certain gameplay loop that involves constantly traveling between different worlds in search of materials that might be scarce on your home world. So if there are separate PvP servers:
• You are forced to still visit common servers just to get materials for youself, OR
• We need an entire separate system of PvP worlds with different resources, as it is with common worlds. Also these PvP worlds will probably be boring and without any meaningful structures that players spend time on building and put their soul in it, because getting your creation rekt is not fun.
2 Likes
Well that leads to Idiots who gather all the Oort shards and noone can get out of the said World. because you’ll need them to open Portals for an short Time. and belive me, noone want’s to stay in a World only becaue of soime Idiots griefing everything…
You never build something awesome in an Voxel Game then… If you did, you would know what feeling it is to loose everything. It’s 10 times harder to build then to destroy, thats why people love it to destroy, because they are not abel to build cool things and are jealous.
Exactly what I was talking about. This Sytem would only lead to this scenario, nowhere else. and someday there is no place to build cause griefers have been destroying every single landscape.
That would lead to impossible to build on Worlds and thats not the sense behind an exploration Game. I can’t bring myself to like that Idea at all, even if the Worlds are seperated, that means that some Worlds (wich maybe have really, REALLY nice Building spots, (who knows?) won’t be abel to build on safe. Thats inacceptabel for me in any way.
I have nothing against PvP worlds. cause you can set your beacon PvE anyway but siege’s are nothing I would ever want.
Also, think about “Live and let live”, I prefer that even in Games.
2 Likes
Siege -
the act or process of surrounding and attacking a fortified place in such a way as to isolate it from help and supplies, for the purpose of lessening the resistance of the defenders and thereby making capture possible.
@Lilem So the main point would be to take over a fort or what ever Not to destroy it how ever we do have pick axes so there might be a little damage and last time i check pickaxes worked fine when taking out stone and all that. Little holes maybe mid but probably not huge.
If you build something on a world that allows siege full knowing it allows siege really that like buying call of duty going online playing death match and getting up upset that someone tried to kill you.
if you know that the world is made for that why would you build something awesome if you know that world isn’t safe to start with? jw
NOT FOR EVERY WORLD 2 or 5 out of every 50
Which is exactly the reason why I myself won’t ever visit that kind of server, and I’m sure other builders won’t too. When you’re playing something like Call of Duty or other crappy shooter your main concern is staying alive and killing your foes, and here we’re talking about some random dude who comes to your location, destroys your beacon and says “this is mine now, go build something else”.
You won’t convince me that stuff like this is okay.
1 Like
The entire purpose of beacons is to protect the land you have claimed. Judgement: Sieging beacons is a terrible idea for this game. I only read the main post so sorry if I skipped any already said things.
Remind me to finish my castle at some point, I intend for the walls to be at least 5 blocks thick. Durn griefers, get off my lawn before I launch my trebuchet.
1 Like
Can someone explain to me how the wanton and willful destruction of someone else’s property (even by proxy) is fun?
It seems to me that competition for resources, trade, and contending with environmental dangers will be plenty interesting. I recall that throughout human history humans have done much the same thing as the OP is suggesting–many times with strained arguments regarding moral justification–and I’m pretty sure that we (well, a lot of us, anyway) regard that behavior as uncivilized and generally idiotic. After all, there isn’t a society on Earth that doesn’t have laws against such things.
In a game where the enemies are purely digital, simply code running on a CPU somewhere, the case can be made that there’s no loss and no harm. It can be the entire goal of a game where one simply works against the aims of the robotic villains–but when it comes down to causing grief to real human beings on the other side of the screen, I draw the line. (I’ve already had this argument with one other poster in these forums.) I’d prefer not to have Oort Online become a more prettily-tinted version of EVE Online.
Nope. Wouldn’t play a game that allowed beacon sieges.
So if sieging is not allowed on all PvP servers, but only a hand full (may be 2-3 per tier, or better: only at higher tiers) I wil go well with it. In GW2 you also were able to siege fortresses and advance them (which was lost of you got overrun), but that was only possible at World vs World maps (WvW), so if you don’t like such play, just stay away from those worlds … if you like such gaming, go there if you want 
… At least it should only be some few worlds because on this way there is enough room for the “non siege” players and also the area would be not to big so that the guilds should reach each other quite quick …
But for a better balance in being online if someone attacks there could be alliances or factions, so that even if the players of a guild are not online at a war, other players of there alliance or faction can defend it for them (and get points or a awards for doing it). On this way there would be no need for long periods to wait until an attack can start … may be only 30-60 mins (which would be fair and not to long for many spontanious players )
2 Likes
My Answer:
Some People just want to see the World burn…
Answer again: ^^
2 Likes
Or just add a block that acts like a beacon, but is smaller and can get invites for sieges. That way beacons aren’t changed and there can be mini guild wars or other mini games. 
What about different types of beacons? A small one to declare homes for players so that a player can have a chest and area that is safe and unbreakable for personal use, yet for larger buildings such as guild halls a beacon that can be destroyed by enemies to allow for fun pvp.
I think having a beacon that’s destroyable would make for some interesting pvp as well because it would require a player or group to infiltrate a building, fight off the defence, and destroy the beacon before they could start damaging the building itself. I think this would allow a fair chance on both sides to both defend claimed territory and siege said territory with equal chances of success/failure. It would all depend on who has the stronger offence/defence.
Maybe not destroy-able, but defeat-able. Lets say Red guild challenges Blue guild to a siege. Red and blue both activate their “beacons” to each other and attack. But, any outside guild like Guild yellow can not interfere with either beacon. Each team must get to the “beacon” and set it off. (There could be certain settings to enable/disable like block breaking or chest opening.) The first team to set the opposite “beacon” off wins.
This concept could also be mixed with a sort of capture the flag sort of war.
What if after an attack all dmg from the beacon (aka building blocks, trophies, placables) are regenerated over time so if it’s a battle zone people can use it again for attacks but say it’s will fully regenerate after 1 real life hour? That way people don’t have to worry about getting hard to get building blocks or stuff like that?
1 Like
Jep, the regenerating interior was also mentioned by me. That would be cool for guild warfare but doesn’t cost hours and days of work afterwards
I think there really should be a function for something like all of this ingame, cuz it would help to let Oort grow much more. I remember Dark Age of Camelot, Guild wars 2 and some other games with such concepts and MANY players loved this kind of pvp, so why not lure some of them to Oort. Let it be some few servers, may be even with permanent loss of beacons for the hardcore iron man players on some of them. It would be great and I think many players not familiar with those concepts may have a try as well
1 Like
So first: the purpose of a beacon is to protect your home from other players destructive tendencies/ enemies that can destroy terrain. Anything that suggests permanent damage is a no go.
Second: creating a Pvp beacon that allows for regeneration at the end of a round would first require that no resources could be taken from the battle and second would require someone to activate a beacon to begin pvp so it knows what state to regenerate.