Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1

    My thoughts on 2 servers

    I've given it more thought about having two servers and thought I'd share it. (this is just my own personal thoughts)

    Basically for me it's going to come down to whether or not a tribe can attack another tribe on their territory regardless of war status after prelude.

    If you are not going to be able to go on another tribe's territorry and attack their members or be able to steal items left in the open, then having a seperate pvp server would make sense to me.

    My thinking to this is that both servers are going to alow pvp, however only 1 would allow pvp everywhere.

    So what's going to happen in my opinion is the pvp crowed is going to be split, we know the casual crowd is most likely not going to be on the pvp server.

    However, pvp oriented players will have to determine whether or not they want open world pvp at all times (pvp server), or pvp outside their tribe zones (current server - if attacking on tribe lands will not be allowed even after prelude.)

    ------------------------------------------

    IF there was only 1 server, then this scenerio would make sense to me for after prelude and I think it would satisfy both the casual and pvp crowd.

    1. You can attack any tribe on or off their territory at any time without the ability to do asset damage to any type of architect structure. This would give defensive structures a clear purpose for defending against raids from other players.

    2. You would be able to steal gathered materials that have been placed in bins or on the ground in the tribes territory.

    3. You would not be able to steal materials placed in houses or a tribe bank, if that's what the banking system is going to allow. (I don't know plans for the banking system)

    Edit: 4. Declaring war against another tribe would have nothing to do with your tribes alignment, sometimes even a good tribe can do things to block or hinder other good tribes.

    5. If it's possible to set yourself as a nonwarring tribe then you would only be able to control minor resource areas. Warring tribes would not be restricted, however being a warring tribe is not determined by tribe alignment. Also, once you set yourself as a warring tribe you are always a warring tribe- again I don't know how this is going to work, it is just my thoughts on how it could work if there was only 1 server.

    6. The only way to do asset damage would be during a siege, declaring war on another tribe would not give you access to the ability for asset damage. You would only be able to siege another tribe if you are currently at war with the tribe.

    Edit: 7. When 2 tribes are at war they do not take alignment hits for attacking each other. (if any tribe is allied with a tribe, the war is shared with all allied tribes) Note, you do not need to be at war to attack players in another tribes territory and you can't do asset damage unless you are currently sieging.

    8. A good tribe (yes, a good tribe would be able to be a warring trib, but only against evil tribes) would only be able to declare wars on evil tribes, neutral tribes could declare war on both good and evil, and evil could declare war against all tribes.

    9. When the ally feature is added, good tribes would be blocked from an alliance that has an evil tribe in it.

    10. If an alliance is formed with a neutral and good tribe, then wars/sieging would be blocked against other good/neutral tribes. This would force neutral tribes that want to war into a Neutral/Good or a Neutral/Evil stance.

    11. Trade would be blocked between a good and evil tribe. The only other thing that would block trading is if you are at war with another tribe then no other tribe in the alliance would be able to trade with the enemy tribe.

  2. 03-02-2011, 06:07 AM

  3. #2
    Visitor
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Way down deep in a bottle of ale...
    Posts
    415
    Jordi simply needs to explain to us why we need multiple servers. He kinda threw a trick question at us yesterday.

    Is it a technical limit (too many purchased/clients), etc?

    And if it is technical, would he be willing to make one of the multiple servers a "Chaos" server as he had originally thought about?

    Those are my 2 big questions for him at the moment.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    "By the time this game works there is going to be no one left, and because there is no one left, that is why it will work..."

    BigCountry | Head Hunters | http://www.wefarmpeople.com

  4. #3
    Kinda interesting thoughts..

    But i don't think the evil and good should be restricted in forming an alliance.
    Evil and good they work more often together in fictional and real life then we would have thought.

    Guidemihr : I am sure was you hopibear who made the server crash
    GuideElijah: Hopibear I love you and I hope you donīt get a refund
    My 2 favorite guides !

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopibear View Post
    Kinda interesting thoughts..

    But i don't think the evil and good should be restricted in forming an alliance.
    Evil and good they work more often together in fictional and real life then we would have thought.
    If there are no restrictions then setting alignment would have no real purpose in this game imo.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopibear View Post
    Kinda interesting thoughts..

    But i don't think the evil and good should be restricted in forming an alliance.
    Evil and good they work more often together in fictional and real life then we would have thought.
    Unfortunately carebears don't think this way.

  7. #6
    Xsyon Citizen
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    49
    I agree with keithstone.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  8. #7
    I don't think any of us know enough about what this game is going to be like down the road to make a decision yet. What about banking? What about economy? What about housing?

    Right now a lot of features aren't in the game yet or are only partially implemented. Once we have more details, then we'd be in a better position to figure out whether or not multiple servers are best.

  9. #8
    One problem with having 2 servers with different rulesets is that the developer has to maintain 2 different games. So features (like alignment, death penalties and tribe wars) have to be coded in such a way that they only work on one server, or work differently on the 2 servers. This takes extra time and effort for a small dev team.

  10. #9
    Visitor
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Way down deep in a bottle of ale...
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by jokhul View Post
    One problem with having 2 servers with different rulesets is that the developer has to maintain 2 different games. So features (like alignment, death penalties and tribe wars) have to be coded in such a way that they only work on one server, or work differently on the 2 servers. This takes extra time and effort for a small dev team.
    It depends. If disabling save zones is nothing more than a config value (which I believe it is), there is really no difference (maintenance wise) for him.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    "By the time this game works there is going to be no one left, and because there is no one left, that is why it will work..."

    BigCountry | Head Hunters | http://www.wefarmpeople.com

  11. #10
    Xsyon Citizen Venciera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    79
    I was under the impression that the second server would be a EU based server. I would LOVE to see the servers split because I'm really not keen on large safe zones, and crap. I want a reason to build walls, and gates. Hire guards, and make the best armor/weapons. Not some easily exploitable safe area.
    <--- see my avatar? I drew that! yay me


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •