Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 104
  1. #1

    Safe Zone/Free Zone ala Tribal Creeds

    Safe Zone/Free Zone ala Pacifist/Militant Tribal Creeds

    Separation of Zone of Safety from Zone of Influence:

    ZoI = Zone of Influence: The area you can build on grows and shrinks by each member in your tribe (this remains as is and unaffected throughout this post).
    ZoS = Zone of Safety: The area that pacifists are safe from attack grows and shrinks by each pacifist/militant in your tribe.


    PLAYER TAGS

    1. PACIFISTS:
    a. Players start as pacifists.
    b. Each pacifist in the tribe adds 1 size to the ZoS(zone of safety), up to the max which is the ZoI(zone of influence).

    2. MILITANT:
    a. When a player kills another player, he/she becomes militant.
    a1. Cannot become militant from knocking another player unconscious, allowing a modicum of self-defense.
    b. Each militant in the tribe removes 1 size from ZoS(zone of safety).


    HOW THIS RELATES TO TRIBES a.k.a. TRIBAL CREEDS

    When a tribe leader plants a totem, he/she would choose a tribal creed:

    1. PACIFIST CREED:
    a. Only a pacifist may choose a pacifist creed.
    b. Full ZoS(zone of safety) in effect (Militants and Pacifists alike).
    c. Structures outside ZoS(zone of safety) are vulnerable.
    d. Totem is invulnerable inside ZoS(zone of safety).
    e. A pacifist creed will become a moderate creed if too many tribe members become militant.


    2. MODERATE CREED (mixed)
    a. Anyone may choose a mixed creed.
    b. ZoS(zone of safety) in effect for Pacifists ONLY, Militants are fair game.
    c. Structures outside ZoS(zone of safety) are vulnerable.
    d. Totem is invulnerable inside ZoS(zone of safety).
    e. A moderate creed will become a militant creed if most of the tribe members become militant.
    f. A moderate creed will revert to a pacifist creed if most of the tribe members become pacifist.


    3. MILITANT CREED
    a. Only a militant may choose a militant creed.
    b. NO ZoS (pacifists provide 0 size to ZoS).
    c. Structures are vulnerable.
    d. Totem is vulnerable.
    e. A militant creed will revert to a moderate creed if too many tribe members become pacifists.


    *Tribe leaders may adjust their creed by exile of pacifists/militants from their tribes. Or by establishing tribal policy as a preventative measure. Thereby pushing/keeping their creed towards their desired play-style.


    BREAKDOWN

    Pacifist Creed Tribes (no pvp): Can attack but can't be attacked in their ZoS(zone of safety). Structures can only be attacked if they fall outside the ZoS (-1 ZoS size per militant). With no militants in the tribe, the size of the ZoS is max (covers their entire build-able area). PRO: Safety, CON: Must remain pacifists, non-retaliatory.

    Moderate Creed Tribes (half and half): Pacifists and militants can attack but only militants can be attacked in their ZoS(zone of safety). Structures can only be attacked if they fall outside the ZoS (+1 ZoS size per pacifist). PRO: Pacifists have a safe zone, CON: A portion of their build-able area is always exposed to pvp area.

    Militant Creed Tribes (heavy pvp): FFA, all the way. PRO: The full experience of a post-apoc world. CON: The full experience of a post-apoc world.


    PROBLEMS

    a. How does one get back a pacifist tag once they have become a militant? I left this out because I just don't know. I just know it shouldn't be too easy short of re-rolling a toon. Perhaps they could tie this in with the religion system somehow?

    b. some might notice this subtly flows towards creating pvp players, and.... it does. Which is why I mentioned the problem above about getting your pacifist tag back. Though I suspect if you really want no part of pvp, you'll just refrain from killing anyone.

    c. Add to this rotating resources. ie. Resources are finite and when exhausted they move to a new place. This can be done for select resources that need it to avoid the monopoly syndrome.

    A lot of this is simply an alteration of some good ideas from ColonelTEE3. Thanks for the inspiration.

    I've tried to stick to the things that the developers have said 'lately'. I'm not a game dev no so don't ask me that. I'll let you who are more knowledgeable hash out the mechanics of all this. I tried to make it very general where the numbers are involved, using terms like 'most' and 'too many', '1 size', etc. instead of defining them explicitly.

    Poke holes in it guys. Adjust, re-adjust, alter/dismiss at will.

  2. #2
    Xsyon Citizen joexxxz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    USA/CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    552
    LOVE YOUR IDEA. GOOD JOB. SOME BALANCE THERE I, SEE !!!!

  3. #3
    With this system, the only hurdle for non-pvp players becomes one of a struggle to keep from being drawn in to the conflict of a broken world.

  4. #4
    Basically non pvpers have to let people kill them and loot there corpse when outside there safe zone.....

    At least they wont fight back.

    how ever you do realize that, almost, everything you just mention will be in game eventually when they turn on Raiding. Just though i would mention it.
    TokTok - Axe Welding Basket Weaver

  5. #5
    Basically non pvpers have to let people kill them and loot there corpse when outside there safe zone.....
    How is that different from the way it already is? Also see the problem section about getting your pacifist tag back.

  6. #6
    The system you described is very similar to the good/neutral/evil alignment system they plan to add, yours is a bit overcomplicated imo and less fair. But if you add that pacifists can fight for self-defense (aka they don't attack first) and can kill players on their tribe land (to avoid some griefing tactics) without alignment hit then I like it.

  7. #7
    The system you described is very similar to the good/neutral/evil alignment system they plan to add, yours is a bit overcomplicated imo and less fair.
    Yeah I noticed that while thinking things out. As far as complicated, I don't believe I'm capable of overly complicated. hehe

    But if you add that pacifists can fight for self-defense (aka they don't attack first) and can kill players on their tribe land (to avoid some griefing tactics) without alignment hit then I like it.
    Of course you would. But then how do you keep the pvp players from always setting up pacifist tribes so they can join the confict without consequences? If you really want to take your part of the map and go home, you should have to give SOMETHING up. This is also why I mentoned the tag being reversable somehow. Maybe when they add religion a priest or shaman would have the ability through skills to reverse the tag on the basis of repentence. It would be a good RP touch.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Trenchfoot View Post
    Of course you would. But then how do you keep the pvp players from always setting up pacifist tribes so they can join the confict without consequences?
    How could they join the conflict if they can't attack first ?

  9. #9
    How could they join the conflict if they can't attack first ?
    I'm not sure I follow you. Anyone can attack first. Or last or whatever. But if you're going to have a no-pvp ideology, don't you think you should stick to it or suffer the consequences? Or is it just that you want a safe zone advantage with all the benefits of joining the conflict?

    With this system, a non-pvp tribes pvp actions become almost purely diplomatic instead of physical. Non-pvp tribes don't want to fight. I say OK, so they can't fight without consequences. So that the trade off for safety is simply doing what you want to do (which is not fight). Right? What better trade off than to do what you want to do, in exchange for safety? If non-pvp is really what you want to do. Is it? Or is that something non-pvp proponents are simply hiding behind?

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Trenchfoot View Post
    I'm not sure I follow you.
    Hmm I meant that pacifists players should be able to fight for self-defense. As in if they are attacked then they can fight back without alignment hit. So they can't join a conflict, since they are only observers there, no one is attacking them. They can only join by risking of losing their pacifist alignment.

Posting Permissions

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