Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1

    I just thought of something potentially terrible

    Please - please correct me if im wrong, because i really hope im wrong in understanding this:

    1 ) homesteads and tribes can be placed ON TOP of junk piles
    2 ) homesteads and tribes can choose to be "peaceful", as in, they can't be raided in their own tribeland/homestead,
    3 ) when inside your own tribeland homestead, if you are peaceful, you can't be killed, but you can kill outsiders

    Conclusion: what is stopping everyone from claiming ALL junkpiles with their totems, choosing to be "peaceful", and not ever being contested for their resources?

    And this leads me to another question -- if clans and tribes split up their tribes into subtribes -- what is stopping them from having "peaceful" subdivisions that claim junkpiles, store up resources, and then give them/ sell them to their parent tribe that is conquest/war oriented, without them ever being at risk of losing control of their junkpiles?

    Does this seem like an EXTREMELY broken system to anyone else? Or did i just straight up miss something

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelTEE3 View Post
    Please - please correct me if im wrong, because i really hope im wrong in understanding this:

    1 ) homesteads and tribes can be placed ON TOP of junk piles
    2 ) homesteads and tribes can choose to be "peaceful", as in, they can't be raided in their own tribeland/homestead,
    3 ) when inside your own tribeland homestead, if you are peaceful, you can't be killed, but you can kill outsiders

    Conclusion: what is stopping everyone from claiming ALL junkpiles with their totems, choosing to be "peaceful", and not ever being contested for their resources?

    And this leads me to another question -- if clans and tribes split up their tribes into subtribes -- what is stopping them from having "peaceful" subdivisions that claim junkpiles, store up resources, and then give them/ sell them to their parent tribe that is conquest/war oriented, without them ever being at risk of losing control of their junkpiles?

    Does this seem like an EXTREMELY broken system to anyone else? Or did i just straight up miss something
    And now you've started an argument that has long been fought...over....and over....and over again lol.

    But I totally agree with you for the most part. Especially the peaceful sub division thing.

    EDIT:

    one more thing, junk piles are a non-renewable resource.
    Whatever you do, don't look at the link below....
    http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthrea...r-the-overhaul

  3. #3
    Xsyon Citizen Zarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    124
    Not sure, but I think that the peaceful and evil system will be decided by actions and not the original alignment chosen.

    If not, I hope they make it this way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddha
    A jug fills drop by drop...

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelTEE3 View Post
    Please - please correct me if im wrong, because i really hope im wrong in understanding this:

    1 ) homesteads and tribes can be placed ON TOP of junk piles
    2 ) homesteads and tribes can choose to be "peaceful", as in, they can't be raided in their own tribeland/homestead,
    3 ) when inside your own tribeland homestead, if you are peaceful, you can't be killed, but you can kill outsiders

    Conclusion: what is stopping everyone from claiming ALL junkpiles with their totems, choosing to be "peaceful", and not ever being contested for their resources?

    And this leads me to another question -- if clans and tribes split up their tribes into subtribes -- what is stopping them from having "peaceful" subdivisions that claim junkpiles, store up resources, and then give them/ sell them to their parent tribe that is conquest/war oriented, without them ever being at risk of losing control of their junkpiles?

    Does this seem like an EXTREMELY broken system to anyone else? Or did i just straight up miss something
    Just one of the many reasons that tribal warfare is important and not having it require consent is the way to go.
    Bleed for me.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    In order to know virtue, one must first acquaint themselves with vice.

  5. #5
    yup, it's been argued many times.

    It's a resource driven game where tribes can choose to hog the resources without any repercussions.

  6. #6
    Building on or directly adjacent to a junk pile should come with a hefty penalty. Like cancer.

  7. #7
    Xsyon Citizen
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Alberta Canada
    Posts
    5
    Junk Piles will run out of resources shortly after launch. And the fact of tribes eventually going PvP is inevitable, unless they never defend themselves. Once a tribe is flagged as "evil" or whatever they will not be able to turn that off, and that is decided by your actions in the game. GL if you are on a junk pile...

  8. #8
    I'll be glad not to be able to build on junk if tribes can't fence them. But I doubt anyone else will like that idea. I will be so happy when other resources for major crafting are available besides those ugly junk piles!
    It seems I've singed a troll or two too many with my trusty flamethrower, and now hark! The ban hammer hovereth. Troll me more, and I'll see it falls on your head and not on mine, by the power of the report post button.


    On a side note, I'm sorta cranky, but I love you all anyway!

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by xsyon
    What I imagine is:
    - Tribes choosing to become warring on non-warring, not as an on / off switch but as a permanent or difficult to reverse decision, likely based on tribal actions.
    - 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.
    - Both warring and non-warring tribes could claim resources that would be up for contest by both types of tribes.
    - Some expansion zones being open to more conquest without safe zones, while in others tribes would retain the choice to war or not.
    I'm not particularly a fan of the first two points. I personally find them silly. But the last two points give me hope that they will actually flesh the system out in a way that makes sense for gameplay purposes.

    From a gameplay balance perspective, I see no reason why the game should be either FFA-PvP everywhere, or why people would be able to decide where to place a safezone. The former drives away people that would otherwise play the game and the latter is too exploitible. A good balance is to have a large area dedicated as a safezone and another large area dedicated to PvP conquest where players could be unrestricted in terms of killing and building. Then, the devs should place different resources, monsters, events, etc in each area to encourage players to play in both, encourage trade, encourage crafting (through the destruction of equipment), and encourage transportation of goods.

    This type of system gets around some of the more worrisome exploits and over-sights whilst still encouraging players to play in the manner that most befits their personalities and goals.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcalhou View Post
    I'm not particularly a fan of the first two points. I personally find them silly. But the last two points give me hope that they will actually flesh the system out in a way that makes sense for gameplay purposes.

    From a gameplay balance perspective, I see no reason why the game should be either FFA-PvP everywhere, or why people would be able to decide where to place a safezone. The former drives away people that would otherwise play the game and the latter is too exploitible. A good balance is to have a large area dedicated as a safezone and another large area dedicated to PvP conquest where players could be unrestricted in terms of killing and building. Then, the devs should place different resources, monsters, events, etc in each area to encourage players to play in both, encourage trade, encourage crafting (through the destruction of equipment), and encourage transportation of goods.

    This type of system gets around some of the more worrisome exploits and over-sights whilst still encouraging players to play in the manner that most befits their personalities and goals.
    +1

Posting Permissions

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