Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Xsyon Citizen NexAnima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Worcester, MA
    Posts
    161

    Tribal warfare and politics.

    Territory
    As tribes grow larger and hit a certain population (lets say 60), they are given the ability to start placing outpost totems. They will be given 1 outpost for every 20 or so members after 60, so a tribe with 100 members would get 2 outposts. The logic behind the limit is, by expanding the land tribes would be spread thin if they didn't have the members to support it. These outpost would not have safe zones and would be completely free to attack.

    In each zone there would be a (or more then one) spot to place the outpost totem. By placing an outpost, it would create an "Area of influence" territory in the zone, owned by this tribe. Anything (other small tribes) living in the area would now be under "rule" of this larger tribe. By "rule" I mean laws, religion, currency and possible tax set by the ruling tribe.

    I haven't quite figured out how protection will work because of safe zones currently in game. Ideally it would be up to the controlling tribe to protect those they rule. realistically, we all know that wouldn't work. This is up for suggestions.

    Back to attacking outposts. As I stated before, outpost are freely attack-able but the real fun comes from being attacked by another large tribe. If a outpost is conquered by a random small tribe it would merely be destroyed and the area of influence would recede back to public land. This would be a good reason to keep the tribes under your rule happy.

    If another large tribe is close enough to the zone (with either their main tribe or an outpost) and they attack and conquered the outpost, they would (if they have a free totem to place) have the option to take over the zone, thus expanding their influence.

    Political

    Ruling tribes will be able to create laws, import/export contracts (with other ruling tribes), Alliances, declare War and peace treaties.

    Type of governments: Ruling tribes could have the option to create their type of government. From democracy, where players vote for their leader, to a monarchy where there is one ruler until he decides to step down.

    Laws would control the conduct of the population under rule, (how much control needs to be discussed). It could regulate what resources could be harvest or how much. breaking these rules could turn players into criminals that make them freely attackable

    Import/Export: This would create a contract that ruling tribes would have with other tribes for the exchange of resources (IE: from 5000 stone or 1 large log)

    Alliances/War declarations and Peace treaties:Pretty self explanatory. It would come with timers to keep the same problems DF had with wardecking on the fly.





    This is what I have so far, feel free to contribute.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  2. #2
    The smaller tribes won't like this idea of becoming under the "zerg" control - you have some good ideas but you need to rethink.

  3. #3
    I like the idea, but your idea would ultimately make ppl want to become zerg tribes and form alliances and get huge they can start placing outpost totems everywhere. That is the last thing this game needs is just big zerg/alliance tribes running around forces ppl under their control, which then forces them to become part of another zerg/alliance to get their home back. The conflict will happen, but I think most would like to see it happen tribe vs tribe, not zerg vs zerg, but hell I could be wrong about that.

    I like your political aspect of the zone control except I think I would make it that the homesteader that is currently there has the option to stay independent from the person laying down an outpost totem. That would help make it so larger guilds don't force homesteaders that are already established into moving yet again. But the homesteader would have the option to fall under the protection of the tribe if it so chooses. Maybe for nothing or maybe for a monthly tribute up to each others discretion, but once conflict comes into play there is nothing to protect the homesteader from getting destroyed.

    Which is why when the game first came out, you should look to see who your neighbors are. We had a bunch of homesteaders in our area and they've all moved on, they had set up shop next to pandemic and I don't think they liked the idea of kill first ask questions later, lol.

  4. #4
    Xsyon Citizen NexAnima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Worcester, MA
    Posts
    161
    I don't disagree with the lack of "enthusiasm" to be assimilated into anther's rule, But this is how kingdoms are born. I do like the option of being independent, but if given the option to stay a 3 man tribe or join a kingdom, I think the majority will always just to remain independent And the world will stay as it is a land of bushmen with no sense of direction. Some times to bring order, subjugation is necessity evil.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  5. #5
    homesteads and small tribes feel they need to have a get out of jail free card to not be vuln to larger tribes.

    you can not have a real system of politics if there are coded limitations to it.

    politics and diplomacy are 10 homesteads banding together to fight off a larger tribe.

    politics and diplomacy are multiple tribes banding together to preemptively dismantle a megazerg tribe before it can start steam rolling others.

    Territorial control involves the potential destruction of the hard 'work' of players...NO NOT THE PIXELS NOTTTT THEHHHEEEE PIXXXELLSSSSS

    the devs simply wont make the hard choices necessary to allow for real politics. An influential core contingent of the playerbase is just too against the vehicles required to actual generate that type of environment.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    www.theburninghorde.com

  6. #6
    Xsyon Citizen NexAnima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Worcester, MA
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubanka View Post
    homesteads and small tribes feel they need to have a get out of jail free card to not be vuln to larger tribes.

    you can not have a real system of politics if there are coded limitations to it.

    politics and diplomacy are 10 homesteads banding together to fight off a larger tribe.

    politics and diplomacy are multiple tribes banding together to preemptively dismantle a megazerg tribe before it can start steam rolling others.

    Territorial control involves the potential destruction of the hard 'work' of players...NO NOT THE PIXELS NOTTTT THEHHHEEEE PIXXXELLSSSSS

    the devs simply wont make the hard choices necessary to allow for real politics. An influential core contingent of the playerbase is just too against the vehicles required to actual generate that type of environment.

    True, but there is also a fine line between a griefers paradise and a functioning political warfare system. All angles have to be looked at to insure a fair and flourishing system. The main issue is the inevitable roll over that will destroy 3 months of hard work in a day, just because some group wants to be a dick and play just to ruin other players fun. Fun being the keyword, which is why we pay to log in and waste hours of our time. It has to be fun for all players, not just for the group that wants to craft, the PvP'ers or the PvE'ers.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by NexAnima View Post
    True, but there is also a fine line between a griefers paradise and a functioning political warfare system. All angles have to be looked at to insure a fair and flourishing system. The main issue is the inevitable roll over that will destroy 3 months of hard work in a day, just because some group wants to be a dick and play just to ruin other players fun. Fun being the keyword, which is why we pay to log in and waste hours of our time. It has to be fun for all players, not just for the group that wants to craft, the PvP'ers or the PvE'ers.
    when two sides fight, one side will lose. if it involves an asset, that means someone's work will be lost.
    The crying of the loser will be no different if it is a 100vs15 zerg smushing, or a 50 vs 50 'fair' slug fest.
    No one likes losing.
    Oh, and the loser is always going to say that the winner 'zerged' him, and will typically exaggerate the opponents numbers and deflate their own. Just like ganking is synonomous with any type of pvp on these forums, any type of numbers disparity will be getting zerged. ie. LOL nice zerg we only had 10 (they had 14) and you guys had 25 (they had 19). We'd pwn joo 1v1 lol lol lol.

    The issue really boils down to, what does the winner get? How badly does the loser get penalized? Can the winner capture?/loot? Destroy? a city? How is the loser dealth with in these instances? Do the spoils change based upon the region or the allignment of tribe? There are all kinds of details that can be looked at to balance the risk reward equation for a seiging system...without having to hard cap who can fight with who (because that will then just get worked around and abused anyway, so it's pointelss exercise). Anyway, lots of detail that could be worked out, but at this point, littlepoint in investing the time to doing so.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    www.theburninghorde.com

  8. #8
    Xsyon Citizen NexAnima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Worcester, MA
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubanka View Post
    when two sides fight, one side will lose. if it involves an asset, that means someone's work will be lost.
    The crying of the loser will be no different if it is a 100vs15 zerg smushing, or a 50 vs 50 'fair' slug fest.
    No one likes losing.
    Oh, and the loser is always going to say that the winner 'zerged' him, and will typically exaggerate the opponents numbers and deflate their own. Just like ganking is synonomous with any type of pvp on these forums, any type of numbers disparity will be getting zerged. ie. LOL nice zerg we only had 10 (they had 14) and you guys had 25 (they had 19). We'd pwn joo 1v1 lol lol lol.

    The issue really boils down to, what does the winner get? How badly does the loser get penalized? Can the winner capture?/loot? Destroy? a city? How is the loser dealth with in these instances? Do the spoils change based upon the region or the allignment of tribe? There are all kinds of details that can be looked at to balance the risk reward equation for a seiging system...without having to hard cap who can fight with who (because that will then just get worked around and abused anyway, so it's pointelss exercise). Anyway, lots of detail that could be worked out, but at this point, littlepoint in investing the time to doing so.
    Answer to all issues, Perma-death. Everything else will work itself out.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  9. #9
    Yeah I don't believe homesteaders should get a "get out of jail free card" I think they should have seen who their neighbors are or could be if they picked a hot spot vs finding a nice secluded spot to go it on their own, but they will say "there is no junk in the mountains or secluded spots" to that I say tough shit like everyone else, if you don't want to get harassed then you shouldn't have built on a junk pile inbetween some big tribes and or hostile tribes.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by boomer0901 View Post
    Yeah I don't believe homesteaders should get a "get out of jail free card" I think they should have seen who their neighbors are or could be if they picked a hot spot vs finding a nice secluded spot to go it on their own, but they will say "there is no junk in the mountains or secluded spots" to that I say tough shit like everyone else, if you don't want to get harassed then you shouldn't have built on a junk pile inbetween some big tribes and or hostile tribes.
    to use the sb model as an example (it's a much better asset war example than df, since there was so much more freedom on city placement)...if you planted your tree (town) in an isolated middle of no where corner of the map, odds are you really had to work to piss someone off enough to come and go after you. Your most likely conflict was with your neighbor over something stupid. These locations were typically not horribly convenient, but they were typically 'safe' and not targets of opportunity. However if you planted in a 'prime' location, well you'd better be able to defend it...and not be afraid to lose what you built...because guaranteed someone would have been coming after it (if for no other reason than they wanted the spot).

    Perma death would make everything worse...simply because they greater the stakes, the more you ensure you win.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    www.theburninghorde.com

Posting Permissions

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