The Switch - Lessons from another game

[Proto]

Good point, although I disagree with your math.

lol you're welcome to disagree, but those are odds that we played with and have both won and lost with, in Shadowbane. Sal isn't guessing at those numbers, it's purely based upon our experience in a territory control, city sieging game.

[Charles_Prince]

The carebare tribe right next to the pvp tribe declares themselves as "peaceful". They can raid the pvp tribe any time they want. They start to lose? run right back to the safezone, no real risk, pure potential gain. They also have access to the "ffa pvp" that the "Warring" tribe has as well.

Both types have the same incentives. One, the peaceful, has unbalanced protection and no real means of consequence for their actions. That is absolutely lopsided and unbalanced. Why would anyone declare themselves as warring then? Just exploit and abuse the peaceful setting like everyone else!

Jooky presented balanced system allowing many playstyles. Poeple that want more safety(don't want to loose their main territory), can choose not to be warring. They still have to fight for additional lands. Now we need something to compensate the risk of loosing main land for tribes that choose that way. I think the best idea is to place most valuable resources in danger zones where non warring tribes can't claim land.

This is not correct.

Taken from Xsyon's update:

"- Warring tribes would be able to conquer and raid others, but they will also become susceptible to war. Non warring tribes would keep their area safe, but don’t gain the ability to raid or conquer other tribes."

As I said earlier in this thread, our reward for becoming a warring tribe is the chance to conquer other tribes, that's it, that's all that is needed. That alone is enough reason to risk your land, and it's completely balanced.

[Sirius]

Just to clarify: conquest doesn't get warring tribes any ADDITIONAL land, right?

In other words, you can conquer someone else's tribal homeland, but you can't take it over while keeping your original one, so that you have multiple territories... correct? Or CAN you?

[mrcalhou]

When I think about conquesting, I think about having the resources to build up a base whilst keeping it defensible. Like, expanding a base in an RTS; you could potentially establish it anywhere, but to build it in the first place you would need to make sure the area is clear, and you can defend it while it exists.

[jumpshot]

you're welcome to disagree

Good. (HAR)

But seriously... obviously zergs eventually eat themselves, and obviously they don't win every fight. And maybe zergs somehow managed to lose every fight in SB (is that what you're claiming?). But in my experience, zergs win more fights than they lose.

In other words, Thermopoly is a good story but not every fight goes down like that.

[yoori]

Just to clarify: conquest doesn't get warring tribes any ADDITIONAL land, right?

In other words, you can conquer someone else's tribal homeland, but you can't take it over while keeping your original one, so that you have multiple territories... correct? Or CAN you?

Every tribe warring or not will be able to claim additional territories. And they won't be safe for either of them. How many we don't know, I heard 3, maybe it will depend on tribe size. So if you have any territories left you'll probably be able to claim other tribe's land. Only warring tribes can loose or conquer/raid other tribes main territory. Additional lands are open for everyone to conquer.

[yoori]

double post

[Proto]

Good. (HAR)

But seriously... obviously zergs eventually eat themselves, and obviously they don't win every fight. And maybe zergs somehow managed to lose every fight in SB (is that what you're claiming?). But in my experience, zergs win more fights than they lose.

In other words, Thermopoly is a good story but not every fight goes down like that.

I'm not saying zergs always lose, but in our experience the zergs more often needed 4/5 to 1 odds to win seiges against competent guilds. It was very easy for a guild to win a defensive seige versus 2/3 to 1 odds, we've seen it hundreds of times.

[mrcalhou]

I'm not saying zergs always lose, but in our experience the zergs more often needed 4/5 to 1 odds to win seiges against competent guilds. It was very easy for a guild to win a defensive seige versus 2/3 to 1 odds, we've seen it hundreds of times.

It makes sense that it'd work that way, too.

[chaosegg]

Good point by OP.

One thing I thought of just from reading the first page was that
this type of exploitation of the system could be made slightly more difficult by limiting trade to people of, or within one, alignment class of you?
For example, evil can only trade with neutral, neutral trades with both, and good trades only with neutral.

Edit:
or perhaps the evil people can only trade with good, withing the good territory or somesuch, so it's obvious what is going on?