Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 44
  1. #1

    "End Game" and Conquering/Destroying Land Claims

    So I was having a discussion with two others in IRC who seem to believe you shouldn't be able to remove someones claim to land. To me, that would make this game very, very boring. What else would the point of the game be? What would the "End Game" consist of if not being able to remove someone else's claim to land? By destroying what another tribe has made in a long "siege" and in the end being able to destroy their "claim totem" so they have to move elsewhere in the world and start again, away from those who kicked them out?


    Also, thoughts about how to expand...currently I believe the only way to expand your tribe is through numbers. This needs to be thought over. Smaller clans shouldn't be limited in land size by numbers alone. Tribes should be able to expand through PROGRESS. Through hard work. Not through numbers alone. The only thing a larger tribe should be able to do is expand FASTER, as obviously, they have more people that can do more work then a smaller one, but a 10 man tribe should still be able to reach the same amount of "claim land" as a 100 man tribe, albeit much slower as only 10 people are working on expanding compared to 100.

    This stuff needs to be discussed, because I know I for one didn't just sign up to empire build without being able to completely destroy other peoples stuff and not be able remove their claim to the land they claimed. That would make this game completely boring if you couldn't push someone away from your tribes "territory" through force if necessary.

  2. #2
    Hmm I agree with this. I remember at some point awhile ago the devs said that we would advance out technology and society as we work more and more. So I'm thinking you should get land expansions when you reach certain milestones. I think that when an architect becomes top of their game they will be able to create a new advanced structure (I saw it in the features that top craftsmen get to create new items) and this way people can influence the advancement of society.

  3. #3
    I would like to see long castle/city like sieges as well in the future and do agree that size of tribe shouldn't be such a limiting factor in land expansion. Perhaps with more expansion the size of tribe safe zone stays the same till it is removed at a latter date. The concept of siege would like make gathering food and water more important ( assuming we ever get canteens )

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellaciouss View Post
    So I was having a discussion with two others in IRC who seem to believe you shouldn't be able to remove someones claim to land. To me, that would make this game very, very boring. What else would the point of the game be? What would the "End Game" consist of if not being able to remove someone else's claim to land? By destroying what another tribe has made in a long "siege" and in the end being able to destroy their "claim totem" so they have to move elsewhere in the world and start again, away from those who kicked them out?


    Also, thoughts about how to expand...currently I believe the only way to expand your tribe is through numbers. This needs to be thought over. Smaller clans shouldn't be limited in land size by numbers alone. Tribes should be able to expand through PROGRESS. Through hard work. Not through numbers alone. The only thing a larger tribe should be able to do is expand FASTER, as obviously, they have more people that can do more work then a smaller one, but a 10 man tribe should still be able to reach the same amount of "claim land" as a 100 man tribe, albeit much slower as only 10 people are working on expanding compared to 100.

    This stuff needs to be discussed, because I know I for one didn't just sign up to empire build without being able to completely destroy other peoples stuff and not be able remove their claim to the land they claimed. That would make this game completely boring if you couldn't push someone away from your tribes "territory" through force if necessary.
    When sieging will be implemented tribes will be able to choose if they want to be a warring tribe (aka siegeable and being able to siege others) or not. This will be a one time choice, or something that is very hard to change later. If a tribe choose to be non-warring then their main territory will keep its safe zone status.

    Later on tribes will be able to claim additional lands. These lands will be up for contest anyway, both for warring-non-warring tribes.

    This is a very good setup imo, tribes who enjoy wars can choose to be warring type and siege other warring ones, while tribes who prefer to live in peace can do that but will lose the ability to conquer other tribes' main city.

    I agree with your suggestion about tribe territories. It would be much better and more interesting if tribes had to work for the size of their area.

  5. #5
    Jadzia, you seem to always speak in facts when none of what you say is fact. the version of xsyon you are postulating that will occur is one such system which has been offered as a possibility. Since none of the mechanisms for this are in fact in place, it kind of grates on my nerves every time you insist that this is how it is going to be.

    to allow a "non-warring" tribe to be able to do whatever they want without anyone else having any say in the matter is a formula for disaster. There have already been numerous threads which outline the problems that such a system would have. It would be fairly simple for a group of folks to have all their assets under one tribe totem, and just have everyone join up with their "war" tribe when they want to go to war. - especially easy for very large tribes so that they would maintain their existing borders.

    this is just one example which will absolutely happen. It is totally unreasonable in a game-design sense, and a "realistic" sense to have tribes which are unable through some mechanism or another to be attacked.

    I suppose you are hoping that Hopi tribe can just go around hogging all the resources and never have to pay for your environmental terrorism.
    [SIGPIC]http://www.scottstrait.com/images/vd_hap2.jpg[/SIGPIC]SCOTLAND!

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Jadzia View Post
    When sieging will be implemented tribes will be able to choose if they want to be a warring tribe (aka siegeable and being able to siege others) or not. This will be a one time choice, or something that is very hard to change later. If a tribe choose to be non-warring then their main territory will keep its safe zone status.

    Later on tribes will be able to claim additional lands. These lands will be up for contest anyway, both for warring-non-warring tribes.

    This is a very good setup imo, tribes who enjoy wars can choose to be warring type and siege other warring ones, while tribes who prefer to live in peace can do that but will lose the ability to conquer other tribes' main city.

    I agree with your suggestion about tribe territories. It would be much better and more interesting if tribes had to work for the size of their area.
    I could only see this working If, and ONLY IF, the ONLY thing that couldn't be done is destroying the non-warring tribes "Safe Zone Totem", but everything they build MUST be able to be destroyed, otherwise a non-warring tribe could plant a totem and build near a warring tribe and the warring tribe would be able to do absolutely nothing to stop the non-warring tribe from competing in terms of resources. I think if people want to live and play Sims...well, that's what the Sims is for. Warring tribes must be able to make it so the non-warring with be way better off finding another piece of land farther away, as I am sure there will be plenty of land available out there.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Jadzia, you seem to always speak in facts when none of what you say is fact. the version of xsyon you are postulating that will occur is one such system which has been offered as a possibility. Since none of the mechanisms for this are in fact in place, it kind of grates on my nerves every time you insist that this is how it is going to be.

    to allow a "non-warring" tribe to be able to do whatever they want without anyone else having any say in the matter is a formula for disaster. There have already been numerous threads which outline the problems that such a system would have. It would be fairly simple for a group of folks to have all their assets under one tribe totem, and just have everyone join up with their "war" tribe when they want to go to war. - especially easy for very large tribes so that they would maintain their existing borders.

    this is just one example which will absolutely happen. It is totally unreasonable in a game-design sense, and a "realistic" sense to have tribes which are unable through some mechanism or another to be attacked.

    I suppose you are hoping that Hopi tribe can just go around hogging all the resources and never have to pay for your environmental terrorism.
    I really had no intention to annoy you, I'm sorry. The mechanics I wrote about was posted by Xsyon, this is his plan. If you can't find the thread about it I can find it for you. If nothing unexpected happens this is what will be implemented. Its not good to live in denial, you just set up yourself for a disappointment.

    If a big enough part of the community requires it he will set up 2 different servers with different PvP rules ( he said this as well several times), so players who prefer a more war-type environment may get it later.

    He said that the additional lands will be up for contest, so its only Hopi's main city which can stay a safe zone if we choose that, so your comment about environmental terrorism (good one ) is not valid.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Jadzia View Post
    I really had no intention to annoy you, I'm sorry. The mechanics I wrote about was posted by Xsyon, this is his plan. If you can't find the thread about it I can find it for you. If nothing unexpected happens this is what will be implemented. Its not good to live in denial, you just set up yourself for a disappointment.

    If a big enough part of the community requires it he will set up 2 different servers with different PvP rules ( he said this as well several times), so players who prefer a more war-type environment may get it later.

    He said that the additional lands will be up for contest, so its only Hopi's main city which can stay a safe zone if we choose that, so your comment about environmental terrorism (good one ) is not valid.
    2 Servers would kill this game, period. You don't split up full sandbox games into different servers. No buildings should be safe from destruction, period. If you can claim non-waring, then the only thing that should be "safe" is the actual totem, NOTHING ELSE. Everything else must be destroyable or this creates serious problems. Hopi members could go around ganking people around their "territory" and no one would be able to do anything to remove their presence. If you get ganked in return all you do is spawn at your totem, instead of father away, and then you just run back the short distance and continue ganking. Tribes must be able to make it so non-warring are WAY better off finding another place to live "peacefully". Sure, your "Claim Totem" wont be able to be destroyed, but you also won't be able to build anything because it will be destroyed by people you piss off.

  9. #9
    Actually, what was posted was a "I imagine this is how it will work..." type of scenario. It wasnt thought out, nor was it put forward as the iron rule that it was going to be implemented that way. I did read the post, and apparently we read what we want from the statement - you read it as a fact about how it was going to be implemented, and I read it as a postulation about how it might be done.

    I kind of agree with Hell's idea about keeping maybe just the totem safe for the "peace" tribes.

    Either that or automatically flag a peace tribe for war whenever they take any resources outside their tribal area.

    The idea that a warring tribe has the ability to "raid" others is great. It seems like that is good enough of a reward for the possibility of losing your home. But, if warring tribes can only raid other warring tribes, then that is not sufficient.

    Hopi - the locusts of Xsyon, I hope I can scavenge up some bug spray.
    [SIGPIC]http://www.scottstrait.com/images/vd_hap2.jpg[/SIGPIC]SCOTLAND!

  10. #10
    Xsyon Citizen Dade512's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellaciouss View Post
    2 Servers would kill this game, period. You don't split up full sandbox games into different servers. No buildings should be safe from destruction, period. If you can claim non-waring, then the only thing that should be "safe" is the actual totem, NOTHING ELSE. Everything else must be destroyable or this creates serious problems. Hopi members could go around ganking people around their "territory" and no one would be able to do anything to remove their presence. If you get ganked in return all you do is spawn at your totem, instead of father away, and then you just run back the short distance and continue ganking. Tribes must be able to make it so non-warring are WAY better off finding another place to live "peacefully". Sure, your "Claim Totem" wont be able to be destroyed, but you also won't be able to build anything because it will be destroyed by people you piss off.
    Not to be rude but the term 'non-warring' seems lost on you. A tribe that is set to non-warring but fully capable of being destroyed and griefed...that's little more than free xp for combat characters.

    edit for hap... They are already kill-able outside the tribal area...
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes.

Posting Permissions

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