Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25
  1. #1

    Wars, Sieges, Safe Zones, etc

    I tried to look at this from both types of players, those that like the care bear style (no offense intended) and those that like the ffa pvp no safe zone type of players.

    The basis of this outline is to distinguish what a conquest tribe and non-conquest tribe can do. (it is not meant to determine how an actual siege will work)

    Conquest Tribe
    1. Can control an unlimited amount of contested totems (limited amount of non-contested totems)
    2. Ability to set a capital totem within the zones that were live on official launch day - this totem cannot be seiged
    3. Can be attacked on any owned territory
    4. Asset damage can be done to structures at any time including the capital
    5. Sieges must be initiated by whatever siege system is implemented
    6. Capital city cannot be seiged
    7. Initiate a territory trade, purchase, hand off etc (territories can be sold this way to other tribes)
    8. Ability to decline or accept a trade, purchase, hand off etc
    9. Only an official tribe leader can initiate a trade, purchase, hand off etc, if the trade, purchase, hand off etc is accpeted the territory is placed under this tribe owned by the requesting tribe leader.
    10. Only the initial tribe leader who placed the totem can accept or decline a trade, purchase, hand off etc (prevents griefing by stealing a tribe by the members)
    11. If a territory trade, purchase, hand off etc is unanswered after 7 days, it is automatically declined.

    The following is based on a siege system and would be adjusted according to whatever siege system is implemented This is just how I think it could work
    12. Sieges can be initiated by those with proper rank (through whatever siege initiation system that is implemented)
    13. As soon as a siege is initiated the tribe leader will receive an instant message if logged in, if not logged in this message will popup on next login.
    14. A message will read, "Your tribe has been seiged, click ok to continue or click surrender to initiate a 24 hour countdown to a handover" or whatever, something along the lines of that
    15. The siege will start in exactly 24 hours from when it was initiated. (again this would be setup however a siege system is implented)

    Non-Conquest Tribe
    1. Can control a limited amount of territories within non-contested zones
    2. Ability to set a capital totem within the zones that were live on official launch day
    3. Capital city cannot recieve asset damage
    4. Capital city is a safe zone
    5. All other owned territory can recieve asset damage at any time and can tribe members can be attack on the territory
    6. No controlling territory can be sieged
    7. Initiate a territory trade, purchase, hand off etc (territories can be sold this way to other tribes)
    8. Ability to decline or accept a trade, purchase, hand off etc
    9. Only an official tribe leader can initiate a trade, purchase, hand off etc, if the trade, purchase, hand off etc is accpeted the territory is placed under this tribe owned by the requesting tribe leader.
    10. Only the initial tribe leader who placed the totem can accept or decline a trade, purchase, hand off etc (prevents griefing by stealing a tribe by the members)
    11. If a territory trade, purchase, hand off etc is unanswered after 7 days, it is automatically declined.

    Penalities for asset damage
    Any member of a good or neutral tribe attacking another good or neutral tribes assets would be treated the
    same as attacking another good or neutral player with whatever alignment system is implemented.

    With something like this in place and a totem decay system it would make for a very exciting game.

    I know there's going to be flaws, so let's find them and fix them.

    Edit: Added after original post based on feedback
    1. All areas outside tribal territories will still have the same FFA PVP rules as now based on the alignment system when it's implemented.
    2. Setting yourself as a conquest or non-conquest tribe would be just like setting your tribe alignment, once it's set you can't change it without disbanding your tribe and resetting your totem.
    3. A conquest tribe could have any totem seiged at any time, so you would have to be carefull about how you split your forces - this would control how many conquest totems you place.

    The problem with this system
    1. Capital cities controlled by non-conquest tribes can be a used as a safe zone for not only themselves but can allow other pvp'ers access inside their walls when being hunted by other pvp'ers
    2. Non-Conquest tribes can setup a 2nd tribe next to their capital that is non-contested that is used as their Conquesting tribe. - the members can jump back and forth between the 2 tribes

  2. #2
    Other than being sold or traded why would anyone accept a take over?
    MrDDT



    "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
    -Sun-tzu


  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDDT View Post
    Other than being sold or traded why would anyone accept a take over?
    the whole point of initiating a take over is to trade, sell, or buy someones territory without having to initiate a siege - that will keep you from having to perform the extra steps of whatever a siege requires.

  4. #4
    Sounds like you put some great t hought into this. This is a system very similar to what I have posted about a few times.

    Gives everyone what they want. Only thing is, remember that somehow Conquest Tribes will simply set up an additional tribe that is a Non Conquest Tribe, so they can store their items without risk of losing them.

    The only way I see this working, is a separation of conquest lands and non conquest lands by a "no mans land". This "no mans land" could be a ring around the map (no mans land should stretch 1000m at least, from non conquest to conquest lands), that actually serves a secondary purpose of creating PvP areas for both non conquest and conquest tribes. Even if Conquest Tribes do set up a Non Conquest Tribe as well, they will at least have to haul their supplies back and forth from this safe area to even do war (or risk losing the items by keeping them at the conquest totem). Allowing safe totems to be placed in conquest lands or conquest totems to be placed in safe lands, will, not, work. And there must be a no man's land in between, otherwise at the boundary of conquest and non conquest lands there could be a non conquest totem right beside a conquest one (and likely those will be the same tribe, abusing the system).

    Agreed, there will be flaws, like the one just mentioned but we need to discuss this thoroughly. Please discuss further if you see any alternatives or improvements.
    Audacius

    [B]

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by NorCalGooey View Post
    Sounds like you put some great t hought into this. This is a system very similar to what I have posted about a few times.

    Gives everyone what they want. Only thing is, remember that somehow Conquest Tribes will simply set up an additional tribe that is a Non Conquest Tribe, so they can store their items without risk of losing them.

    The only way I see this working, is a separation of conquest lands and non conquest lands by a "no mans land". This "no mans land" could be a ring around the map (no mans land should stretch 1000m at least, from non conquest to conquest lands), that actually serves a secondary purpose of creating PvP areas for both non conquest and conquest tribes. Even if Conquest Tribes do set up a Non Conquest Tribe as well, they will at least have to haul their supplies back and forth from this safe area to even do war (or risk losing the items by keeping them at the conquest totem). Allowing safe totems to be placed in conquest lands or conquest totems to be placed in safe lands, will, not, work. And there must be a no man's land in between, otherwise at the boundary of conquest and non conquest lands there could be a non conquest totem right beside a conquest one (and likely those will be the same tribe, abusing the system).

    Agreed, there will be flaws, like the one just mentioned but we need to discuss this thoroughly. Please discuss further if you see any alternatives or improvements.
    I don't see a need for no-mans land, if you select to be a non-conquest tribe then you are still vulnerable outside your capital and any other territory you own within non-conquest areas- you just can't be seiged.

    I'll update my post to make that clear.

  6. #6
    So non conquest totems, even capitals, can have items looted from baskets?

    The problem still persists, if not.
    Audacius

    [B]

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by KeithStone View Post
    the whole point of initiating a take over is to trade, sell, or buy someones territory without having to initiate a siege - that will keep you from having to perform the extra steps of whatever a siege requires.

    So this is only for trade / selling totems?
    MrDDT



    "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
    -Sun-tzu


  8. #8
    Imagine that you wanted to take someone over. Well it may be cheaper for you just to pay them for the land then it would be to actually gather materials and forces for a siege. They may take something in return for losing land, where as with a siege they losing everything and gain nothing except for putting a slightly larger dent in your wealth than it would have cost if you just paid them for the land.
    Audacius

    [B]

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by NorCalGooey View Post
    So non conquest totems, even capitals, can have items looted from baskets?

    The problem still persists, if not.
    I think you are misunderstanding me

    Anything outside a tribe territory no matter where you are in the world is FFA PVP, it doesn't matter if you are in a conquest or non-conquest area.

    The option is to set your tribe as a Conquest Tribe or Non-Conquest Tribe - could also be worded as Warring Tribe or Non-Warring Tribe - although I like the conquest or non-conquest titles better.

    A non-conquest or non-warring tribe would have safe zone capitals - but if they take anther territory in a non-contested region they can still be attack on that territory, they just can't be seiged.

  10. #10
    You are still missing the point that conquest tribes can set up non conquest tribes with a capital totem directly next to their conquest tribe. Thus they have safe goods.

    Do you not see how this causes a problem? When capturing conquest lands, there will be nothing of value in those lands. Everything will be kept in the safe totem non conquest tribe because that is the better way to do it, offered by the game mechanics.

    If there was a forced seperation of non conquest and conquest areas, then that would force more long distance trade between non conquest and conquest totems (even if they are used by the same tribe), and the decision therefore will have to be made, how many of X amount of materials can we afford to lose at the conquest totem? how many materials would be ideal to keep at the conquest totem incase of a siege, so we wouldn't have to make constant risky trades through no mans land incase we were sieged for 3 days and ran out of materials.

    This is the potential of Xsyon but oh so much more...like huge creatures that take parties and raids of players to take down, that roam the world growing in strength with each player they kill. monsters that actually provided great loot, and with the incentive of needing that loot to keep your territory safe, people will be drawn to PvE. Anyway, thats for another discussion.
    Audacius

    [B]

  11. 10-20-2011, 02:26 PM

Posting Permissions

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