Are contested totems the best way for land control

[ocoma]

I just read Danathur's "Hello Thread" I skipped it before because I thought it was just a thread from a random player who posted in the wrong forum section. :-)

As a starting point for the above explained process, to produce enough food to keep your comfort at MAXIMUM (again you can survive without intensive farming, but we are talking here about being at the top) you will have to find a suitable farming spot and start farming. To protect this spot you can drop an „expansion“ totem. But this totem will be attackle and your crops can be taken away or even only destroyed by others. This should generate conflicts and hopefully give you a first reason to struggle about. How the "siege mechanics" will work in detail, I will present in a different thread, where I will ask for your feedback on it, cause this post is already getting to long for a first "Hello" ...

This part in particular where he describes in more detail how contested totems will work is interesting. If there are a number of resources ect out in the green mist lands that can not be harvested unless a contested totem is dropped on them, then I think the contested totem system may indeed be viable.

[Dubanka]

I just read Danathur's "Hello Thread" I skipped it before because I thought it was just a thread from a random player who posted in the wrong forum section. :-)





This part in particular where he describes in more detail how contested totems will work is interesting. If there are a number of resources ect out in the green mist lands that can not be harvested unless a contested totem is dropped on them, then I think the contested totem system may indeed be viable.

yeah, hopefully when it's rolled out it's farming/mining (i'd imagine the code would be fairly similar). planting unique trees, locating mineral veins, and then extracting/harvesting.

i don't think 'food' will be enough. you have to roll out the resources, the seige mechanics and the expanded crafting lines at the same time (as well as having already fixed the general pvp mechanics issue)...it's 'easy' to see with a basic flow chart.

[Trenchfoot]

Fighting over resources, so that you can be more successful at fighting over more resources seems pointlessly circular to me. This isn't directed at any one post, but I am concerned that fighting over resources alone will become a meaningless treadmill.

If conquest is limited to resources and those resources usefulness is pigeonholed into the pvp game, then this is nothing less than a dog chasing its tail. There has to be more to it than this.

I would rather the devs create overall 'necessities' and let the players decide what to fight over. As opposed to providing custom tailored 'necessities' with the intent to create cattle-chute reasons to pvp.

Question: What feature other than tribal conquest can break this circular loop? Just to qualify this isn't intended as a backhanded question. I'm asking because I honestly can't think of anything, not to suggest that tribal conquest IS the only thing.

I do know this. One of the most essential factors in conquest is the conquest of your enemies. People should be allowed to conquer rare resources, by eliminating their competition, not simply by controlling an area. Anything else is Shakespeare in the park.

EDIT: In other words, if you can conquer resources but not the enemy you're fighting to conquer those resources. Conquest is a treadmill with little reward other than more treadmill.

[Dubanka]

Fighting over resources, so that you can be more successful at fighting over more resources seems pointlessly circular to me. This isn't directed at any one post, but I am concerned that fighting over resources alone will become a meaningless treadmill.

If conquest is limited to resources and those resources usefulness is pigeonholed into the pvp game, then this is nothing less than a dog chasing its tail. There has to be more to it than this.

I would rather the devs create overall 'necessities' and let the players decide what to fight over. As opposed to providing custom tailored 'necessities' with the intent to create cattle-chute reasons to pvp.

Question: What feature other than tribal conquest can break this circular loop? Just to qualify this isn't intended as a backhanded question. I'm asking because I honestly can't think of anything, not to suggest that tribal conquest IS the only thing.

I do know this. One of the most essential factors in conquest is the conquest of your enemies. People should be allowed to conquer rare resources, by eliminating their competition, not simply by controlling an area. Anything else is Shakespeare in the park.

I agree. The spin off of creating things of value, is you develop real trade. and real trade hubs. trade causes human interaction. Interaction causes drama. Drama creates politics, which creates more drama. Ultimately, pvp should just be a means of ensuring something is obtained, and be the final stage of 'diplomacy'. But you have to have something to start the train moving.

[Trenchfoot]

But you have to have something to start the train moving.

Right on.

I think you should be able to hold totems for ransom.

For example: X tribe keeps contesting our newly conquered resource. We form a war party and capture their totem. Then through diplomacy, we hammer out an agreement that we return their town unblemmished if they agree not to contest our rare resource.

EDIT: Qualify that, Home Totem. Or in other words, their nation state.

[Book]

I agree. The spin off of creating things of value, is you develop real trade. and real trade hubs. trade causes human interaction. Interaction causes drama. Drama creates politics, which creates more drama. Ultimately, pvp should just be a means of ensuring something is obtained, and be the final stage of 'diplomacy'. But you have to have something to start the train moving.

but if you start the diplomacy train by having war as the destination, why bother with the diplomacy at all? Wouldn't it save everyone time to just go to war? War may well be an extension of diplomacy, but done correctly, and as sanely as war can be done, that is all it is.

Also, just have to mention so it's said somewhere... interaction needn't necessarily cause drama. For people like me (presumably not the only one), drama is not incentive to interact. Quite the opposite actually.

[Trenchfoot]

but if you start the diplomacy train by having war as the destination, why bother with the diplomacy at all?

War IS the destination, which is precisely why diplomacy exists. For some it's a matter of personal honor or morality. For others its simply a way to keep from biting off more than you can chew. For others it's a personal quest for revenge through subterfuge and deception. That's why bother with diplomacy. But if you're a tribal nation that believes you have the muscle to go to war and thereby gain more than you loose, then by all means let it be so.

Let a tribe get out of line and begin sweeping the map and you'll see the entire map become a game of joining the oppressed tribes of the world to crush the evil invaders. Will you unite the tribes and be enough of a diplomat to pull them together to stop these evil conquerors? These type of things should be allowed to happen.

EDIT: Of course interaction creates drama. Unless you're all the same, with nothing to loose, ever.

[Book]

War IS the destination, which is precisely why diplomacy exists. For some it's a matter of personal honor or morality. For others its simply a way to keep from biting off more than you can chew. For others it's a personal quest for revenge through subterfuge and deception. That's why bother with diplomacy. But if you're a tribal nation that believes you have the muscle to go to war and thereby gain more than you loose, then by all means let it be so.

Let a tribe get out of line and begin sweeping the map and you'll see the entire map become a game of joining the oppressed tribes of the world to crush the evil invaders. Will you unite the tribes and be enough of a diplomat to pull them together to stop these evil conquerors? These type of things should be allowed to happen.

EDIT: Of course interaction creates drama. Unless you're all the same, with nothing to loose, ever.

You're talking about building a coalition. That requires bargaining, bribery, incentive... all facets of diplomacy in some regard but an effective diplomat's primary job is the ability to avert war altogether.
The notion that diplomacy exists to negotiate an entrance to war is backwards.

If one party is determined to go to war without a hint of an open mind or capacity for compromise, then the negotiating table is a waste of good wood.

But you are right, interaction for the dramatically inclined, I suppose, will always lead to drama. Seems unfortunate imho.

[Hanover]

Silly question... Can the game engine handle "large" groups?

[Dubanka]

Right on.

I think you should be able to hold totems for ransom.

For example: X tribe keeps contesting our newly conquered resource. We form a war party and capture their totem. Then through diplomacy, we hammer out an agreement that we return their town unblemmished if they agree not to contest our rare resource.

yeah, i agree. we would actually do that in shadowbane...capture a 'tree' and then auction it off

you're getting into seige mechanics...where it would be nice to be able enter into different types of seiges....the more drastic the potential outcome is, the costlier it is for the attacker...ie.
raid totem. Drop a raid seige totem. allows you to damage walls (no other structures), and prevents any bin/storage device from being locked (by the defender)...you break in, take some stuff and leave...a 'friendly' seige...and the cheapest.
Pillage totem. same as raid, except also allows you to destroy buildings. still just a 'message' tho, as you are not attacking the totem.
Capture totem. Same as pillage, except it is a fight where the attacker will capture the opponents tribal area if they win.
Destruction totem. allows total destruction of tribal area, including the defending totem. mOst expensive.

now the drama happens when tribe a drops a raid totem to send a message, then tribe b responds by dropping a destruction totem as a big fu in their lawn. then we find how much people really do love their pixels.

but then you get into things like warring drops having huge needs for architectural supplies and whatnot, since they literally wont have the time to gather. LIkewise the trade in raw materials will be huge. Oh, and you are selling to them? really? coming after you next for aiding my enemy. of course it's one thing to say you're gonna, and another to actually do.

lastly. seiging should be extremely difficult. as much as i besmirch peoples love of pixels...they do represent time invested, and a well built town should be extremely difficult to take.

but if you start the diplomacy train by having war as the destination, why bother with the diplomacy at all? Wouldn't it save everyone time to just go to war? War may well be an extension of diplomacy, but done correctly, and as sanely as war can be done, that is all it is.

Also, just have to mention so it's said somewhere... interaction needn't necessarily cause drama. For people like me (presumably not the only one), drama is not incentive to interact. Quite the opposite actually.

i've seen more than one guild bite off more than they can chew. it's one thing to be billy bad ass. it's another to be bill badass to everyone at the same time. waging war (ie going after totems) should be expensive and time consuming...it's not something you should be able to do on a whim.