Non Violent forms of PVP

[ifireallymust]

Then what's the problem with turning off all safe zones and removing all PvP restrictions? Especially once sieging is enabled.

You actually asked three separate questions:

1. Problem with turning off all safe zones now.

No one has had time to build defenses.

2. Problem with turning off all safe zones (after players have had time to build defenses but before sieging is enabled).

Nothing wrong with turning them off before sieging is enabled, after players have time to put defenses up and so long as using /unstuck won't allow anyone to gain access through defenses.

3. Problem with turning off all safe zones (after sieging is enabled).

Nothing, I just hope the devs come up with a sieging and other property pvp ruleset that will not allow superior numbers to trump all defenses because if they don't, I believe that Xsyon will end up empty except for a few giant zerg tribes, with no room in it for solo players, bands, clans, or even most tribes.

[maelwydd]

i was using homesteads generically to keep from writing homestead/band/clan/tribal area

I have no idea who jcanto is.
I didn't reference that because it was a heresay, and not a direct post from the devs. See, i can do it to...here is a post i just got from xsyon:
Xsyon:
The current set up for Prelude is as follows:
- open pvp.
- full asset destruction

obviously i just typed that. Just to prevent any future misquoting.

I guess you havent read anything i've written. In no place have I advocated a gank fest. In no place have i advocated that there isn't room for 'good' and 'evil' players (there are 'good' pks too btw...they hunt the evil ones). Of course, i realize that you view a 'gank fest' as any environment where there is open pvp. So we have a fundemental impass...*shrug* Ill get over it.

lol gloss over it you did. Thanks

[Surly]

You actually asked three separate questions:

1. Problem with turning off all safe zones now.

No one has had time to build defenses.

2. Problem with turning off all safe zones (after players have had time to build defenses but before sieging is enabled).

Nothing wrong with turning them off before sieging is enabled, after players have time to put defenses up and so long as using /unstuck won't allow anyone to gain access through defenses.

3. Problem with turning off all safe zones (after sieging is enabled).

Nothing, I just hope the devs come up with a sieging and other property pvp ruleset that will not allow superior numbers to trump all defenses because if they don't, I believe that Xsyon will end up empty except for a few giant zerg tribes, with no room in it for solo players, bands, clans, or even most tribes.

Well that's cool. Glad to see you're just being aprehensive instead of having a poor conception of what the game needs to eventually be. I don't think anyone wants to turn the game into a massive zerg-fest. In fact, if the past is any indication of the future, not even zerg clans want zerg-benefiting mechanics because it just leads to an arms race where people are the only useful commodity.

I think some of your aprehension is a little misplaced, of course, and that you've got an unreasonable fear of griefing which prompts you to think that mechanics which will only aid griefing are good... but I guess in the long run it won't matter much as long as you aren't a fan of permanent safe zones.

This whole "Prelude" thing is, to me, a big paid beta where we're supposed to build up the world. The only reason I'm taking part in it is to eventually see a real sandbox, one with no restrictions, where solutions to problems are found by giving players more tools, not more restrictions.

[Redemp]

This thread is still going on?
You folks are either A. Trolling B. Lack reading comphrension or C. Understand that no one in this thread has labeled all pvp as griefing, that everyone in this thread agrees to pvp, and that the post in regards to griefers do not apply to the normal pvpers ; Yet still want to argue it for the sake of argueing something completely pointless, that everyone agrees on ... because they are bored.


Pick one ...

[ColonelTEE3]

This thread is still going on?
You folks are either A. Trolling B. Lack reading comphrension or C. Understand that no one in this thread has labeled all pvp as griefing, that everyone in this thread agrees to pvp, and that the post in regards to griefers do not apply to the normal pvpers ; Yet still want to argue it for the sake of argueing something completely pointless, that everyone agrees on ... because they are bored.


Pick one ...

Arguing about the game is better than playing it right now, imo.

edit: double post

[ifireallymust]

Well that's cool. Glad to see you're just being aprehensive instead of having a poor conception of what the game needs to eventually be. I don't think anyone wants to turn the game into a massive zerg-fest. In fact, if the past is any indication of the future, not even zerg clans want zerg-benefiting mechanics because it just leads to an arms race where people are the only useful commodity.

I think some of your aprehension is a little misplaced, of course, and that you've got an unreasonable fear of griefing which prompts you to think that mechanics which will only aid griefing are good... but I guess in the long run it won't matter much as long as you aren't a fan of permanent safe zones.

This whole "Prelude" thing is, to me, a big paid beta where we're supposed to build up the world. The only reason I'm taking part in it is to eventually see a real sandbox, one with no restrictions, where solutions to problems are found by giving players more tools, not more restrictions.

You are being shockingly unsurly today.

But your sig is still draining my IQ.

Here is what fuels my apprehension:

Devs come up with a way for homesteaders, bands, clans, and small to medium size tribes to indefinitely fend off a zerg tribe (provided the defenders have the appropriate skills high enough and are willing to put in the time, effort, and intelligence to build properly).

Zerg tribes complain that this is in no way realistic, no matter how well the defenders built and that it is tantamount to a safe zone. (Same will be applied to any magical or pet property defenses when magic and taming is in the game.)

The complainers will be correct. It isn't realistic.

However, if sufficient numbers will always prevail in all pvp situations, including sieges, then the first goal a new player should have is to join the largest tribe or the largest alliance in the game. All other attempts to defend property are pointless. If enough people want the location you live on or what you keep in that location, you will not be able to defend it.

My greatest apprehension, therefore, is that superior numbers will always triumph in pvp, and that the end of safe zones will mean the eventual end of homesteads, bands, clans, and small and medium tribes.

Two servers with different rule sets, one that keeps safe zones in some form and one that does not would allow the continued existence of solo players and people playing in small groups.

A safe zone area that is maintained after Prelude and additional areas that do not have safe zones would allow the continued existence of solo players and people playing in small groups.

Defenses that will hold indefinitely against a zerg would allow the continued existence of solo players and people playing in small groups.

A mechanic such as Eve's hisec, where the attacker loses something of theirs in order to kill another player would make many solo players and small tribes unlikely targets of attack if properly implemented. For example, a siege against even a homestead might take several days to succeed (if the homesteader(s) have built well), and cost a huge amount of effort and materials. But the moment any tribe becomes wealthy and organized enough to absorb the costs of a siege when nothing of equal or nearly equal value will be obtained, the mechanic becomes broken and no longer serves its purpose. Also, new players would either need temporary protection or the means to build at least a temporary barrier that is costly to remove, or new players will be huge targets.

The devs might come up with a way to maintain diversity of tribe size that isn't on this list, or they may decide diversity of tribe size isn't as important as realism. Either way, though, my concern is with my ability to play solo in Xsyon in the future. I might not choose to, but I want to be able to, and the end of safe zones could mean the end of solo play (and small tribes, bands, clans, etc.)

[Soulwanderer]

You are being shockingly unsurly today.

But your sig is still draining my IQ.

Here is what fuels my apprehension:

Devs come up with a way for homesteaders, bands, clans, and small to medium size tribes to indefinitely fend off a zerg tribe (provided the defenders have the appropriate skills high enough and are willing to put in the time, effort, and intelligence to build properly).

Zerg tribes complain that this is in no way realistic, no matter how well the defenders built and that it is tantamount to a safe zone. (Same will be applied to any magical or pet property defenses when magic and taming is in the game.)

The complainers will be correct. It isn't realistic.

However, if sufficient numbers will always prevail in all pvp situations, including sieges, then the first goal a new player should have is to join the largest tribe or the largest alliance in the game. All other attempts to defend property are pointless. If enough people want the location you live on or what you keep in that location, you will not be able to defend it.

My greatest apprehension, therefore, is that superior numbers will always triumph in pvp, and that the end of safe zones will mean the eventual end of homesteads, bands, clans, and small and medium tribes.

Two servers with different rule sets, one that keeps safe zones in some form and one that does not would allow the continued existence of solo players and people playing in small groups.

A safe zone area that is maintained after Prelude and additional areas that do not have safe zones would allow the continued existence of solo players and people playing in small groups.

Defenses that will hold indefinitely against a zerg would allow the continued existence of solo players and people playing in small groups.

A mechanic such as Eve's hisec, where the attacker loses something of theirs in order to kill another player would make many solo players and small tribes unlikely targets of attack if properly implemented. For example, a siege against even a homestead might take several days to succeed (if the homesteader(s) have built well), and cost a huge amount of effort and materials. But the moment any tribe becomes wealthy and organized enough to absorb the costs of a siege when nothing of equal or nearly equal value will be obtained, the mechanic becomes broken and no longer serves its purpose. Also, new players would either need temporary protection or the means to build at least a temporary barrier that is costly to remove, or new players will be huge targets.

The devs might come up with a way to maintain diversity of tribe size that isn't on this list, or they may decide diversity of tribe size isn't as important as realism. Either way, though, my concern is with my ability to play solo in Xsyon in the future. I might not choose to, but I want to be able to, and the end of safe zones could mean the end of solo play (and small tribes, bands, clans, etc.)

I like that post, and I get some of your concerns. The blunt answer is... there really is an advantage to numbers. The only ways to completely stop that from being the case aren't very desirable (hard coded guild limits, instanced number-limited PvP, no asset destruction, etc). What can be done is to both give players the tools to not be trampled (defensive fortifications, wall mounted anti-siege weaponry, npc city guards) and, if it comes to it, implement prohibitively costly measures to having too many members.

In Shadowbane for example, the resources needed to make the best weapons were highly contested and very limited. Lot of guilds would fight over them, and when the small guild won and got the resources (which happened as often as not, even solo players would win the resources sometimes) they'd be able to equip a whole lot more of their member base out of it than those with more people. There was also maintenance in that game, and an idea that was kicked around by the players to prevent zerging was to raise the cost of that maintenance per account tagged.

Back to defensive sieges though. The advantage should always rest with the defender given equal skill and numbers, and it's up to the devs to make sure the tools are available to make that the case. As defenders we've taken those advantages and won against some majorly impressive odds.

EDIT: The music might not be appropriate for all ages... or work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGBuNmobGFo

We've also lost to zergs and even numbers who just outplayed us. That's the part a lot on the forums seem to have trouble with. In order for a fight to mean anything, there has to be a risk of losing and losing has to mean something. If sieges are implemented, everyone has to face up to the fact that at some point you will lose your city. It may not be in a fair fight, it may have been because it was a Saturday and your membership decided to go bar hopping instead of defending, or it might have just been to a smaller group of people who were more experienced. It will happen though. And it's fine. You regroup, you learn, you get revenge. And seeing your enemies city burn after they took yours is going to be way more memorable years down the road than creating your umpteenth basket, winning some PvE raid, or even ganking some one for a sweet piece of armor.

I also agree that attacking a city or homestead needs to have a cost involved with it. Maybe you have to construct an offensive totem, and to do that you need so much of certain resources that take some time to collect. Maybe later on you can use crafting and resource collection to improve your totem (rank it up), and as you do your enemies would have to build larger and more elaborate offensive totems requiring more resources. That way each attack involves some time and effort from the attacker rather than just throwing wave after failed wave at you with no cost to the attacking guild.

Once they open up a Siege talk forum I'm sure a lot of solid ideas for ways to make the experience fun for both PvPers and Crafters will come out. Let's hope it's sooner rather than later.

[Jadzia]

If sieges are implemented, everyone has to face up to the fact that at some point you will lose your city. It may not be in a fair fight, it may have been because it was a Saturday and your membership decided to go bar hopping instead of defending, or it might have just been to a smaller group of people who were more experienced. It will happen though.

You know that becoming a warring tribe ( aka being siegeable) will be optional, don't you ?

[Dontaze_Mebro]

You know that becoming a warring tribe ( aka being siegeable) will be optional, don't you ?

No it won't. It will be optional to do it early.

[Jadzia]

No it won't. It will be optional to do it early.

No, lol. It will always be consensual.

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.