War, taking towns & forts

[orious13]

He said "those that want to will remain safe". There are a lot of legitimate ways to remain safe. He could have just meant safe from asset destruction.

[Jadzia]

He said "those that want to will remain safe". There are a lot of legitimate ways to remain safe. He could have just meant safe from asset destruction.

He said we can keep our area safe. Does it really matter what way that safety works ? As long as it is safe we have the choice.

[MrDDT]

Ya sadly he has changed his ideas since posting that on the FAQ.
He updated it with the new "We can be safe anywhere anytime" idea.


could you please post a link to this? would like see whats goin on for the most part.
No matter what gona stick with game though, great concept and lots of fun so far.

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthrea...ll=1#post60691

Regarding the future of safe zones and conquest as brought about by the discussion of War and Peace servers:

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.

As always, Xsyon will evolve with its community to provide balance and choices. What exactly game will become 6-9 months from now will depend on how players drive the world.

This decision was made not because of the arguments and complaints but arose from proposals from the other programmers to resolve the crowding issues without the additional complications of managing two worlds.

[orious13]

He said we can keep our area safe. Does it really matter what way that safety works ? As long as it is safe we have the choice.

Right. People seem to be completely okay with the idea of areas having 100% lockable gates where there isn't any imaginary barrier stopping you from attacking someone while inside. If someone finds an interesting way to jump in...they won't be getting out. All of this assumes /unstuck won't work.

So dropping a "safe zone" may not be the case, whereas dropping a totem that is invulnerable to destruction could be.

It all serves the same function imo, but a lot of people cringe at the sound of "safe zone". Even DF has safe zones (unless they are meaningless now with the rediculous soft cap), where there is a tower of power that shoots at you for flagging. They all serve the same purpose. It's all just painted differently. A lot of guys would rather not have the color pink or purple everywhere. Green and blue...yeah sure.

[Jadzia]

Right. People seem to be completely okay with the idea of areas having 100% lockable gates where there isn't any imaginary barrier stopping you from attacking someone while inside. If someone finds an interesting way to jump in...they won't be getting out. All of this assumes /unstuck won't work.

So dropping a "safe zone" may not be the case, whereas dropping a totem that is invulnerable to destruction could be.

It all serves the same function imo, but a lot of people cringe at the sound of "safe zone". Even DF has safe zones (unless they are meaningless now with the rediculous soft cap), where there is a tower of power that shoots at you for flagging. They all serve the same purpose. It's all just painted differently. A lot of guys would rather not have the color pink or purple everywhere. Green and blue...yeah sure.

There is no difference safety-wise, safe area will be safe with whatever mechanics. But there are some severe disadvantages of the wall-gate system gameplay wise.

1. Bots. People said earlier that using macros and bots are easy since they can't be killed inside their safe zone. Now imagine it when they are locked behind huge walls and gates... we won't even be able to see and report them. -1 to walls.

2. Quest system. If an area is safe only when it is locked that will result that all of the tribes will keep their gates locked and will only let people in who they know. So a new player will roam around in a world with locked-up sandcastles, he can't go in to check the quests or simply to admire the design. Same goes to trading, people will be extremely suspicious. The whole totem system (trading, delivery quest) would be useless. -1 to walls.

3. Aesthetic. Even a small homestead would be forced to build huge walls and gates. Just imagine a camp where there is nothing but a campfire and a tent. Surrounding it with walls doesn't make much sense for me, it would only be an eyesore. -1 to walls.

What disadvantages does the magic barrier system have (apart of being unrealistic, but this is a game isn't it)? I don't see any, so I'd vote for it, I don't like the effects the wall-gate system would have on the social aspects on the game.

[MrDDT]

Right. People seem to be completely okay with the idea of areas having 100% lockable gates where there isn't any imaginary barrier stopping you from attacking someone while inside. If someone finds an interesting way to jump in...they won't be getting out. All of this assumes /unstuck won't work.

So dropping a "safe zone" may not be the case, whereas dropping a totem that is invulnerable to destruction could be.

It all serves the same function imo, but a lot of people cringe at the sound of "safe zone". Even DF has safe zones (unless they are meaningless now with the rediculous soft cap), where there is a tower of power that shoots at you for flagging. They all serve the same purpose. It's all just painted differently. A lot of guys would rather not have the color pink or purple everywhere. Green and blue...yeah sure.

Safe zones in DFO btw are not 100% safe. They are just mostly safe. There isnt anything really stopping you from killing someone in a "safe" area in DFO btw. Its been done many many times.

There is no difference safety-wise, safe area will be safe with whatever mechanics. But there are some severe disadvantages of the wall-gate system gameplay wise.

1. Bots. People said earlier that using macros and bots are easy since they can't be killed inside their safe zone. Now imagine it when they are locked behind huge walls and gates... we won't even be able to see and report them. -1 to walls.

2. Quest system. If an area is safe only when it is locked that will result that all of the tribes will keep their gates locked and will only let people in who they know. So a new player will roam around in a world with locked-up sandcastles, he can't go in to check the quests or simply to admire the design. Same goes to trading, people will be extremely suspicious. The whole totem system (trading, delivery quest) would be useless. -1 to walls.

3. Aesthetic. Even a small homestead would be forced to build huge walls and gates. Just imagine a camp where there is nothing but a campfire and a tent. Surrounding it with walls doesn't make much sense for me, it would only be an eyesore. -1 to walls.

What disadvantages does the magic barrier system have (apart of being unrealistic, but this is a game isn't it)? I don't see any, so I'd vote for it, I don't like the effects the wall-gate system would have on the social aspects on the game.

Cant you make it so that you wall up protect your city, while still leaving the totem area open? Im pretty sure I could make plans to allow that. Wurm does it.

[Jadzia]

Cant you make it so that you wall up protect your city, while still leaving the totem area open? Im pretty sure I could make plans to allow that. Wurm does it.

I don't think so, the totem is the center of the tribe area. But even if you could, that wouldn't help with bots and would make the aesthetic aspect even worse. And why all this mess ? Only to avoid the words 'safe zone' ? What is the benefit of the other system ? Both would be 100% safe, I only see disadvantages with the gates.

[MrDDT]

I don't think so, the totem is the center of the tribe area. But even if you could, that wouldn't help with bots and would make the aesthetic aspect even worse. And why all this mess ? Only to avoid the words 'safe zone' ? What is the benefit of the other system ? Both would be 100% safe, I only see disadvantages with the gates.

Why mess is because, people dont want "fake" rules that stop them from doing something.
IMO I agree that to me I dont see a problem with magical reasons why you cant attack people, but Im trying to express a system that can work for both.

Yes it wont stop bots, your way wont stop bots, nothing but 100% open PVP will effect bots. But bots and macroers are only going to be minor effected by any system really for this type of stuff. Those need to be stopped with GMs and detection coding IMO.

I dont see how it would make the aesthetic aspect work, its just a change in it. Like I said Wurm does it just fine. I dont think everyone will want people going to their totem anyways. You can have tons of systems in place that can allow people to access a totem without them going into the city if you wanted too.

I do see problems with the gates because really what orious13 is kinda saying to me is that he wants to remove the "fake" protections and allow for these walls, but he also wants people to be able to find ways in them.
Im think that kinda defeats the reasons for these walls.

IMO I like the walls idea better, because then there is no "fake" system to prevent people, walls can tell you how much work people have done in the area, and look really cool. Plus I expect a lot of people are going to build strong walls because with the switch off of safe areas they will then have a well built up city for defense.

[Phatkat]

There is really only 1 issue with safe zones. Little homesteads should not be able to plant there totems where ever they want, aka resources. It simply isn't fair. A large tribe surrounded by safe zone homesteads defeats the game. If you wana live on your own you should be up in the mountains or deep in the woods. Not right next to a tribe 20-50x larger than you. Safe zones are fine, i dont mind them. But they can be abused and some system needs to be implemented to stop that.

Something along the lines of declaring war.

The homestead can have an allotted amount of time to move their tribe or fight back.
If they are in the woods no large tribe is gonna go out looking for them.
Not saying this is a good system, but planting safe zones where you want doesn't work.

I beileve that as long as that 1 issue is fixed then the game all in all should work.

this is just my opinion.

[Jadzia]

So the only thing against magic barrier is that its 'fake' ? Lol this is a game, everything is fake here.
Walls would effect bots a lot. They can't be reported to GMs since they can't be seen. You expect the GMs to teleport inside every city to check for bots ? If player reports can't help they will be clueless where to search for them.

I would hate a world full of locked up cities which can't be visited due to the owner's (valid) paranoia. I'd much better take a system which gives freedom in design and in social aspects and the only downside that it uses the word 'safe'. Thats not a downside anyway, it tells the customer properly what to expect.