The Switch - Lessons from another game

[Dubanka]

Anything that gives a player the ability to dodge accountability, in an accountability driven game is a huge, glaring, potential exploit.

A large and well organized pvp tribe will have multiple people with 2 accounts (or more)...of course that assuming that we get a game delivered that actually delivers...Second accounts will be used to set up crafting alts. Crafting alts will be set up in quaint little unassuming villages with names like, Springwater Trading Company, Bobs Bed and Breakfast, etc. etc. The mission of these alt towns will be to craft items for the tribes militant branch.

This frees up the military wing of the tribe to act completely without consequence...the logistics that drive their machine can not be shut down, or even hindered, since they are protected.

In sb this existed - fly catcher trees: just a bind point that players from a guild would use to stage raids on assaults on others. If someone seiged it, usually they would not even show because it was easily replaceable. Typically groups would have a built up 'roller city' where they funneled their cash and resources to produce weapons. Players spent huge amount of time trying to track down the 'real owners' of roller towns, sometimes seiging them just to see who showed up. The flyl catcher: roller town dynamic was bad, since it mostly removed accountability from the game.

The system that is on its way to implementation is worse, as the players will not be able to hold these new 'craft tribes' accountable for the actions of their parent tribe.

Please think about the ways we can abuse a system before it gets implemented...if it can be, we will do it...it's in our nature. Unfortunately.

[Yuyito]

My solution would be to keep a watch on the offending "crafter tribe". Every time foraging parties set out from it, jump them and send them home packing naked. Eventually they'll get the message and it will be a hell of a lot of fun. On the old WAR server on SB, that's what we did agains the bigger "empire" guilds...

[baka77]

Anything that gives a player the ability to dodge accountability, in an accountability driven game is a huge, glaring, potential exploit.

A large and well organized pvp tribe will have multiple people with 2 accounts (or more)...of course that assuming that we get a game delivered that actually delivers...Second accounts will be used to set up crafting alts. Crafting alts will be set up in quaint little unassuming villages with names like, Springwater Trading Company, Bobs Bed and Breakfast, etc. etc. The mission of these alt towns will be to craft items for the tribes militant branch.

This frees up the military wing of the tribe to act completely without consequence...the logistics that drive their machine can not be shut down, or even hindered, since they are protected.

In sb this existed - fly catcher trees: just a bind point that players from a guild would use to stage raids on assaults on others. If someone seiged it, usually they would not even show because it was easily replaceable. Typically groups would have a built up 'roller city' where they funneled their cash and resources to produce weapons. Players spent huge amount of time trying to track down the 'real owners' of roller towns, sometimes seiging them just to see who showed up. The flyl catcher: roller town dynamic was bad, since it mostly removed accountability from the game.

The system that is on its way to implementation is worse, as the players will not be able to hold these new 'craft tribes' accountable for the actions of their parent tribe.

Please think about the ways we can abuse a system before it gets implemented...if it can be, we will do it...it's in our nature. Unfortunately.

I fully agree.

There could be ways to think outside the box for a solution, though. It all comes down to what benefits there are to declare a tribe for war. If the benefits are mostly superfluous, then we have major problems. But what if the benefits were truly epic & required to maintain progress?

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking about crafting machines. Only warring tribes would be able to venture into certain parts of the wilderness & discover lost technology that allows mass production. It could also be that these machines allow for the creation of MUCH BETTER combat gear & city defense structures. And here is the catch, these machines can ONLY be placed in the tribal zones of warring tribes. This will eliminate the effectiveness alt tribes & let crafter tribes know that they will never have access to all the game offers unless they accept some element of risk.

[orious13]

If you can track the amount of trade between certain tribes, maybe the alignment of a trade tribe city can be shifted with those regards? A fully neutral trade colony wouldn't necessarily care who they trade with, but if a tribe traded with only neutral people or only good people then one could consider them taking sides. This would mean the neutral/trade tribe would need to be aware or have a mechanic that explained their trading alignment and they could then NEED to refuse trade towards one alignment or the other in order to remain neutral.

Figuring out the problems with the mechanics this early on is good.

We must find a way to remedy these problems within the next few months while the building phase is in motion.

[Proto]

As usual, good post Dubs.

[Dubanka]

yeah if you could
- track trade statistics between tribes (i see that being a pita to code)
- restrict 'invuln' tribes from trading with 'warring' tribes...trading with a warring tribe flips their switch (of course this is worked around by throw away mule toons)

of course the best fix is just not to having to worrying about fixing the possible exploits...because it's not in game :)

[Sultan]

people that get two acconts have no life

[Dubanka]

people that get two acconts have no life

i concur. but lots of people have no life :)

[orious13]

yeah if you could
- track trade statistics between tribes (i see that being a pita to code)
- restrict 'invuln' tribes from trading with 'warring' tribes...trading with a warring tribe flips their switch (of course this is worked around by throw away mule toons)

of course the best fix is just not to having to worrying about fixing the possible exploits...because it's not in game :)

A bitch to code and probably would really effect the server saves in some way.
You could have every character include 1 more array of data that tracks individual player trade alignment. If you only track alignment while in a tribe, people will just exit to trade and then rejoin in a few hours.

[mrcalhou]

Dub, I agree that it's not perfect, and I still don't get Xsyon's insistence on mutalism for warfare, but I do think it's a good comprimise with other zones being opened up as non-safe. I honestly wouldn't mind him extending the safe zones to be some of the land between tribal zones when new, conquerable, areas open up.

At least with the way it is now, players could stalk the crafting alts. That's what I see happening: People are going to mostly focus on cutting off the tribes supply by harrasing the workers (and I mean this like how it's done in an RTS; not as greifing), and they're going to need escorts or something. I really don't think it'll be too bad.

[Dubanka]

Dub, I agree that it's not perfect, and I still don't get Xsyon's insistence on mutalism for warfare, but I do think it's a good comprimise with other zones being opened up as non-safe. I honestly wouldn't mind him extending the safe zones to be some of the land between tribal zones when new, conquerable, areas open up.

At least with the way it is now, players could stalk the crafting alts. That's what I see happening: People are going to mostly focus on cutting off the tribes supply by harrasing the workers (and I mean this like how it's done in an RTS; not as greifing), and they're going to need escorts or something. I really don't think it'll be too bad.

'stalking the crafter alt' - this is actually a really dangers concept for gameplay. when the game gets to the point that we assume every little craft town is someones little arms factory, we really do start closing the door on the little guy.

what's the outcry gonna be when big country's band of wild men take a scorched earth policy on 'independent' trader villagers because Hopi's crafting operations went underground after they flipped their switch (name's just used for example purposes...no flameage intended)? You throw out a big net, yeah you'll get the tuna you were after, but you're also going to kill some dolphins and turtles in the process (TURTLES!11! oh the Horror).

to reiterate...we need to see what the incentives are to go read.
if we're going to have a switch, there needs to be a large benefit to keeping your logistics in house...we need this from an accountability standpoint.

[jokhul]

<snip>
to reiterate...we need to see what the incentives are to go read.
if we're going to have a switch, there needs to be a large benefit to keeping your logistics in house...we need this from an accountability standpoint.

Bad idea in that form, because you'd be removing the possibility of legitimate trade from the game.

What if a certain tribe want to setup as suppliers of armour to whomever wants to buy ?

Besides, your entire premise is faulty, lol. The alignment system is designed to PUNISH reds, not to reward them :)

[yoori]

'stalking the crafter alt' - this is actually a really dangers concept for gameplay. when the game gets to the point that we assume every little craft town is someones little arms factory, we really do start closing the door on the little guy.

what's the outcry gonna be when big country's band of wild men take a scorched earth policy on 'independent' trader villagers because Hopi's crafting operations went underground after they flipped their switch (name's just used for example purposes...no flameage intended)? You throw out a big net, yeah you'll get the tuna you were after, but you're also going to kill some dolphins and turtles in the process (TURTLES!11! oh the Horror).

to reiterate...we need to see what the incentives are to go read.
if we're going to have a switch, there needs to be a large benefit to keeping your logistics in house...we need this from an accountability standpoint.

Goods have to be transported, hit the transport, not the crafter. Plant a spy in enemy camp. If a village is right next to your enemy you can be pretty sure it's a factory.

We know there are ganna be "not safe" zones, not warring tribes shouldn't be able to plant totems there, there should be most valuable resources.
It's an advatnage for going war and you have to make choice transport resources to crafters or craft there.

[Marcus]

Do you need two accounts?

You could just make a war tribe, and a crafter tribe, and jump between the two as needed (/gquit).....

not easier, but cheaper..... and fixxed with a timer on joining tribes after quitting

edit... thinking the alignment system could throw a wrench into this thought, i'll have to check...

[mrcalhou]

I wrote something in suggestions that I think would help balance it for everyone involved.

[Doc]

'stalking the crafter alt' - this is actually a really dangers concept for gameplay. when the game gets to the point that we assume every little craft town is someones little arms factory, we really do start closing the door on the little guy.

what's the outcry gonna be when big country's band of wild men take a scorched earth policy on 'independent' trader villagers because Hopi's crafting operations went underground after they flipped their switch (name's just used for example purposes...no flameage intended)? You throw out a big net, yeah you'll get the tuna you were after, but you're also going to kill some dolphins and turtles in the process (TURTLES!11! oh the Horror).

to reiterate...we need to see what the incentives are to go read.
if we're going to have a switch, there needs to be a large benefit to keeping your logistics in house...we need this from an accountability standpoint.

So, "when the game gets to the point that we assume every little craft town is someones little arms factory" all small tribes/homesteads will be conquered and vanish from the face of Xsyon just because of your paranoia. No.

Incentives to go red? What are you smoking?

[Dubanka]

So, "when the game gets to the point that we assume every little craft town is someones little arms factory" all small tribes/homesteads will be conquered and vanish from the face of Xsyon just because of your paranoia. No.

Incentives to go red? What are you smoking?

Read the whole post, it wasn't that long.

if we're going to have a switch, there needs to be a large benefit to keeping your logistics in house...we need this from an accountability standpoint.
If you don't want every homestead crafter living under the assumption they are someone's alt equipment factory, we need the game to make that clear. ie. Why would you split off your logistics, it's stupid, because then you don't get x, y, z benefits.
Currently there is no benefit to crafting within tribe, as compared to doing so from an anon homestead alt. When you are able to reduce your risk by decentralizing your operations, this is is gameplay problem.

You want your playerbase to build up, to fortify, to have a desire to defend. This makes warefare matter,and something that is not engaged in lightly. Without the incentive to do this, players will seek to mitigate their risk, which means decentralizing their support activities to 'random' homestead operations that are protected. This is bad.

[orious13]

Read the whole post, it wasn't that long.

If you don't want every homestead crafter living under the assumption they are someone's alt equipment factory, we need the game to make that clear. ie. Why would you split off your logistics, it's stupid, because then you don't get x, y, z benefits.
Currently there is no benefit to crafting within tribe, as compared to doing so from an anon homestead alt. When you are able to reduce your risk by decentralizing your operations, this is is gameplay problem.

You want your playerbase to build up, to fortify, to have a desire to defend. This makes warefare matter,and something that is not engaged in lightly. Without the incentive to do this, players will seek to mitigate their risk, which means decentralizing their support activities to 'random' homestead operations that are protected. This is bad.

Guild crafting perks? Makes it sound like some other themepark, but I mean if you could craft something that gives a bonus to guild blood and you can't craft something like that unless you are part of the guild for X amount of time that could be a very very easy fix eventhough it sounds weird. Then the problem would be why get trade from out of house crafters.

[mrcalhou]

To be honest, I kind of like that it'd be anon. It'd give players an incentive to protect their suppliers. Dubanka, I do understand where you are coming from and it certainly makes sense. Especially if the major tribes implement a sort of "scorched Earth" policy. But I think it's that sort of thing that makes emergent gameplay fun and special when compared to themepark-style gameplay

[Doc]

Read the whole post, it wasn't that long.

If you don't want every homestead crafter living under the assumption they are someone's alt equipment factory, we need the game to make that clear. ie. Why would you split off your logistics, it's stupid, because then you don't get x, y, z benefits.
Currently there is no benefit to crafting within tribe, as compared to doing so from an anon homestead alt. When you are able to reduce your risk by decentralizing your operations, this is is gameplay problem.

You want your playerbase to build up, to fortify, to have a desire to defend. This makes warefare matter,and something that is not engaged in lightly. Without the incentive to do this, players will seek to mitigate their risk, which means decentralizing their support activities to 'random' homestead operations that are protected. This is bad.

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/3869-My-PvP-Idea

There you go, you will see that most of it was already considered by certain individuals, although noone else seems to have any desire to actually look for and propose solutions, just rant about...stuff.

(And yah, thread title is not actually mine)

[mrcalhou]

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/3869-My-PvP-Idea

There you go, you will see that most of it was already considered by certain individuals, although noone else seems to have any desire to actually look for and propose solutions, just rant about...stuff.

(And yah, thread title is not actually mine)

Noone? My thread from a few days ago: http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/4545-My-suggestion-for-tribal-lands-safe-zones-and...

[Doc]

most of it was already considered by certain individuals


Noone? My thread from a few days ago: http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/4545-My-suggestion-for-tribal-lands-safe-zones-and...

Disclaimer: you count as certain individual if you have put in some effort :)

[Larsa]

Anything that gives a player the ability to dodge accountability, in an accountability driven game is a huge, glaring, potential exploit.

A large and well organized pvp tribe will have multiple people with 2 accounts (or more)...of course that assuming that we get a game delivered that actually delivers...Second accounts will be used to set up crafting alts. Crafting alts will be set up in quaint little unassuming villages with names like, Springwater Trading Company, Bobs Bed and Breakfast, etc. etc. The mission of these alt towns will be to craft items for the tribes militant branch.

...

The system that is on its way to implementation is worse, as the players will not be able to hold these new 'craft tribes' accountable for the actions of their parent tribe.

Please think about the ways we can abuse a system before it gets implemented...if it can be, we will do it...it's in our nature. Unfortunately.Yes, you're right, this will happen. There's no way around it, it has happened in every single FFA PvP MMORPG I can think of.

There's also no way to avoid this. If you have a FFA PvP game you will have cheaters and exploiters amongst the legit players. One cannot have one without the other.

[Bear5732]

A large and well organized pvp tribe will have multiple people with 2 accounts (or more)...of course that assuming that we get a game delivered that actually delivers...Second accounts will be used to set up crafting alts. Crafting alts will be set up in quaint little unassuming villages with names like, Springwater Trading Company, Bobs Bed and Breakfast, etc. etc. The mission of these alt towns will be to craft items for the tribes militant branch.

This frees up the military wing of the tribe to act completely without consequence...the logistics that drive their machine can not be shut down, or even hindered, since they are protected.

The system that is on its way to implementation is worse, as the players will not be able to hold these new 'craft tribes' accountable for the actions of their parent tribe.

Please think about the ways we can abuse a system before it gets implemented...if it can be, we will do it...it's in our nature. Unfortunately.

This system is already in place in the game. Neutral tribes craft items that they will either trade or give to Good/Evil tribes in return for protection or other military actions - In fact I am sure there will be many secret wars going where a neutral crafting tribe outfits and resupplies / supports a Good or Evil tribe in a war against an enemy tribe for numerous reasons. While the Pvper tribes with alts are trying to supply themselves, whole alliances of neutral tribes will be formed that can continually provide a constant stream of supplies while their secret allies can constantly war against any tribes.

You better believe there will be huge political actions in this game between tribes - broken alliances, secret ones, backstabbing, stealing, double dealing, spies, treason, its gonna happen - probably already did in beta.

I think this system already in place, is exactly what is needed for a decent balanced pvp game - I seriously doubt it will be of any benefit with so many other tribes / alliances doing it faster and better.

If you want accountability just come back in 9 months when the devs have stated that "there will be no safe zones" - the baby is in the oven

[Dubanka]

4. risk for attackers - defending tribe dont need to do anything but successfully defend. Win/lose conditions apply equally to both for acheving/failing their task, if attackers fail, defenders get full rights to pillage/conquer their land
- your take is very punitive for any aggression. A successful defense is a successful defense. Winning a siege should be very difficult. You are expected to win in the defense. your proposal is designed to deter territorial disputes, except in cases where the attacker achieves a vast numerical advantage, enough to be assured of a win. bad idea. If you want to get some payback, successfully defend then bring the party to my house. To say that the defender and attacker should have the same stakes in a seige engagement is ludicrous.

in general, all i saw in that thread was a plethora of restrictions seeking to make tribal war as difficult as possible, so it happens as infrequently as possible.

in general this has very little do with the purpose of my post...this was not a general 'war' post. This was a, 'incentivizing players to make invulnerable craft towns IS A REALLY BAD IDEA'.

I wont get into theorizing tribal war mechanics, because it's pointless until the devs throw us something to chew on...then ill generate an opinion.

In this case there is plenty to chew on, and it is a very real problem that will occur with the current mechanics in play.

[Dubanka]

If you want accountability just come back in 9 months when the devs have stated that "there will be no safe zones" - the baby is in the oven
Honestly i don't think this will ever occur.
I don't think certain groups in game would allow this to occur.

Even more honestly, i'm not sure that no safe zones is a good idea. Just if you're goign to be 'safe', there should be a trade off for that safety. And, there needs to be a mechanic to incentize tribes to keep their eggs in one basket, and not build a safety net.

[Sirius]

To say that the defender and attacker should have the same stakes in a seige engagement is ludicrous.


This is a very simple point but I think it's going to take some time to get across to people who haven't played a game with sieging.

[Doc]

- your take is very punitive for any aggression. A successful defense is a successful defense. Winning a siege should be very difficult. You are expected to win in the defense. your proposal is designed to deter territorial disputes, except in cases where the attacker achieves a vast numerical advantage, enough to be assured of a win. bad idea. If you want to get some payback, successfully defend then bring the party to my house. To say that the defender and attacker should have the same stakes in a seige engagement is ludicrous.

Aaaand, we are back to sq. 1. You want reward with 0 risk. Noted. I will never support a system where attacker has nothing to lose and defender has everything to lose.


in general, all i saw in that thread was a plethora of restrictions seeking to make tribal war as difficult as possible, so it happens as infrequently as possible.

Exactly. Risk vs. reward.


in general this has very little do with the purpose of my post...this was not a general 'war' post. This was a, 'incentivizing players to make invulnerable craft towns IS A REALLY BAD IDEA'.

I wont get into theorizing tribal war mechanics, because it's pointless until the devs throw us something to chew on...then ill generate an opinion.

In this case there is plenty to chew on, and it is a very real problem that will occur with the current mechanics in play.

Right. Continue to...rant...on stuff. Cause, atm everyone has invulnerability, so your post is either aimed for after prelude - or doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

[mrcalhou]

I think people are thinking about it to much. If the Devs give the game severe item destruction, ala Eve (because a lot of things in Eve work really, really well for games that relies on emergent gameplay for content), then sieging will have enough consequences for the attacking party. The defenders would have the advantage of having Non-player operated defensive structures, like chokepoints and maybe even retalitory structures in the future.

Edit: Because the attackers would have to invest in much more fragile items to stand a chance of winning. Walls are easy and cheap to build. That awesome armor set probably isn't. Relatively speaking.

[Doc]

I think people are thinking about it to much. If the Devs give the game severe item destruction, ala Eve (because a lot of things in Eve work really, really well for games that relies on emergent gameplay for content), then sieging will have enough consequences for the attacking party. The defenders would have the advantage of having Non-player operated defensive structures, like chokepoints and maybe even retalitory structures in the future.

Well, i havent seen anything about severe item destruction mentioned anywhere. It would amount to having all items you wear being destroyed on death.

[Sirius]

Aaaand, we are back to sq. 1. You want reward with 0 risk. Noted. I will never support a system where attacker has nothing to lose and defender has everyithing to lose.

Reward with zero risk? You mean the right to sit back, play without courage or ambition, win an easy fight with home court advantage, and then be treated as conquering hero (who enjoys all of the same rewards as the people who actually took some initiative to make the game interesting) -- all without actually having to mobilize for war, mount an attack, and go fight an uphill battle on someoneelse's home court?

ROGER THAT BRO. NICE VISION YOU HAVE THERE.

[Doc]

Reward with zero risk? You mean the right to sit back, play without courage or ambition, win an easy fight with home court advantage, and then be treated as conquering hero (who enjoys all of the same rewards as the people who actually took some initiative to make the game interesting) -- all without actually having to mobilize for war, mount an attack, and go fight an uphill battle on someoneelse's home court?

ROGER THAT BRO. NICE VISION YOU HAVE THERE.

Really, if i can defeat your attack with just "sitting back doing nothing ever in the course of the game" i deserve to pillage your land. Great attack you launched there bro.
Another one on "reward with 0 risk" list.

[Sirius]

Have you ever participated in a PVP combat game? Are you familiar with the concept of ATTACKING being both more difficult and labor-intensive than DEFENDING?

That's why you incentivize aggression, instead of lazy, no-ambition pacifism, unless you want the server to be stagnant, boring, and uneventful.

[Dubanka]

Aaaand, we are back to sq. 1. You want reward with 0 risk. Noted. I will never support a system where attacker has nothing to lose and defender has everything to lose.
Question: have you played a game with asset destruction? MMO/MUD/whatever?

THE risk when moving from skirmish, open field pvp, to an asset destruction / territorial dispute is that you're wrong. That you've underestimated your opponent. That you've underestimated their ability, or their fear of losing pixels (and thus end up fighting them and all their allies)...because after its your turn, it's theres.

Conflict is something that should be 'feared' (OMG I MIGHT LOSE MY PIXELS!!!) it is something that should be embraced as the pinnacle of the game- where else does everything come together...crafting, city design, politics, and pvp?

[baka77]

unless you want the server to be stagnant, boring, and uneventful.

You do realize that's actually exactly what some people want. They want a lovely place to build a pretty little town & then sit back to enjoy social time with friends around a cozy fire while weaving the most fierce grass couture this side of the Sierra Nevada's. Not my kind of "fun," but I guess to each his own?

[Dubanka]

Really, if i can defeat your attack with just "sitting back doing nothing ever in the course of the game" i deserve to pillage your land. Great attack you launched there bro.
Another one on "reward with 0 risk" list.

Successfully seiging a city SHOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. A DEFENDER SHOULD NOT LOSE WITH ANYTHING APPROACHING EVEN ODDS.
The attacker should have to acquire resources for a 'war totem', seige engines, get them deployed without having them ripped appart by the defenders.

When you create a game with no incentive to attack, or where the penalty for loss is the same, or greater as the benefit from victory, you ensure that very few attacks will be made, unless they are done so with overwhelming numbers.

Do you want to play that game? No conflict unless it's completely lopsided? Really?

[Doc]

Have you ever participated in a PVP combat game? Are you familiar with the concept of ATTACKING being both more difficult and labor-intensive than DEFENDING?

That's why you incentivize aggression, instead of lazy, no-ambition pacifism, unless you want the server to be stagnant, boring, and uneventful.

Really? By removing risk and promise reward? Lol, yah, i know all about "incentivising". Its on you then to make the world non "stagnant, boring, and uneventful."

Pretty much everyone can see you just want reward with 0 risk. You want tribes that play defensively take all risk, while tribes that play agressively take all rewards. Thats your "incentivising". No. You want to create imbalance for sake of imbalance. No.


You do realize that's actually exactly what some people want. They want a lovely place to build a pretty little town & then sit back to enjoy social time with friends around a cozy fire while weaving the most fierce grass couture this side of the Sierra Nevada's. Not my kind of "fun," but I guess to each his own?

You can attack whoever whenever you want. I thought thats what you wanted? Yet it doesnt come without a price. Thats what all this is about. You want to be agressor and have agression "incentivized" by removing risk from it, i want a balanced system where playing defensively and offensively is equally valid. Risk vs. reward.


Successfully seiging a city SHOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. A DEFENDER SHOULD NOT LOSE WITH ANYTHING APPROACHING EVEN ODDS.
The attacker should have to acquire resources for a 'war totem', seige engines, get them deployed without having them ripped appart by the defenders.

When you create a game with no incentive to attack, or where the penalty for loss is the same, or greater as the benefit from victory, you ensure that very few attacks will be made, unless they are done so with overwhelming numbers.

Do you want to play that game? No conflict unless it's completely lopsided? Really?

Where have i mentioned tremeduous resources or anything like that? You havent read whole thread, have you? Thats the problem.

Benefit/drawback of victory/defeat would be roughly the same. Just as you have to build and invest resources in attack, defender has to build and invest resurces to defend.

You want to know why EvE works? In large even fleet battle both attacker and defender lose huge amount of resources. By attacking you risk losing your whole fleet just as the defending side. That is not present in Xsyon, and has to be compensated by other means, Unless you suggest that everything you wear is destroyed on death.

[Sirius]

No offense, Doc, but you sound pretty unintelligent. It's clear you haven't thought this through in anything approaching a realistic fashion.

[mrcalhou]

Well, i havent seen anything about severe item destruction mentioned anywhere. It would amount to having all items you wear being destroyed on death.

It doesn't need to be all items. Actually, it'd be a bad idea to destroy all items on death. Keeping some stuff still intact would be a nice little trophey for the victor. But you can't think about one system without considering how it effects others. The economy would need items to completely leave the game to keep it going, otherwise people would become inundated with too much stuff that they'll never use, so they'll stop trading. The war-engine provides an outlet for this: If items get destroyed than crafters would have a more prominent role in the game (and let's face it, Jooki WANTS the game to focus on crafting. Having warfare helps give crafters more of a purpose. I know, I know. It seems odd to think that emphasizing warfare would also stimulate the crafters and the economy (though it really shouldn't if anyone reads up a little on how warfar has acted to stimulate technological advances and manufacturing)). But this also provides an incentive not to die. The individual doesn't, and shouldn't, want to lose their items. But, to acquire more stuff and increase their influence, tribes (and individuals) would need to conquer lands established by others and to do so they would need to build up goods to launch an attack.

The consequence of losing, is that the aggressor loses all the time that it took to acquire it, but if they win then they get more resources to build more stuff. Eventually some defender will lose. This is why I suggest having some safezones. You don't want to completely knock out a players, or a group of players, means of advancing again.

Edit: Doc: The reward for winning a defense is that you acquire some of the items of the aggressors, you maintain your facilities and infrastructure, and you obtain the knowledge that one of your competitors just lost a lot of time and resources in an unsuccessful seige.

[Dubanka]

What are you scared of?

I wan't people seiging me. That means i don't have to spend the resources to have a real fight.

There is no offensively/defensively...i mean if someone hits you, arent you going to hit them back? You get hit, you mount a counteroffensive.

I keep trying to make the point, and none of the non-pvp types seem to be hearing it:
THERE IS A POINT ON THE RISK REWARD SLIDER WHERE INCREASED RISK IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE. BEYOND THAT POINT, A PLAYER/TRIBE/ALLIANCE WILL SEEK TO COMPLETELY REMOVE RISK FROM AN EQUATION BY ENSURING THAT THEY DO NOT ENGAGE IN A CONFLICT THAT THEY ARE NOT 100% CERTAIN THEY CAN WIN.
There is actually a point beyond that, where the risks are so comical that we just stop playing (i'm sure that would break your heart).

Who is taking the risk when my little tribe of 20 somethingonagreatday decides to go to war with your ubermilitia of 100+ ? We did it because we wanted the offensive challenge and we thought our defensive capeability was sufficient to stifle any counteroffensive you may make. Because you win a defensive engagement 100v20 you 'deserve' a cookie? Really?

[baka77]

You can attack whoever whenever you want. I thought thats what you wanted? Yet it doesnt come without a price. Thats what all this is about. You want to be agressor and have agression "incentivized" by removing risk from it, i want a balanced system where playing defensively and offensively is equally valid. Risk vs. reward.

Did we read the same update today? And have you actually read my posts today?

You actually can't attack whoever you want whenever you want. People who refuse to flag for war will always be safe in their lands. I'm fine with that, they can stay there all the live long day.

However, I think it's poor form for those people who refuse to take a risk to expect the same rewards as those who do. By flagging for war, I'm willing to risk everything I have built to utter destruction. I'm willing to accept the consequences for my actions. However, I also expect to be rewarded for putting my ass on the line. I won't have a magical safe zone to fall back on if I piss off the wrong people. What's my incentive for flagging? I really hope it's a situation where special resources/recipes are only available to flagged tribes.

I never ever want a situation where there are incentives for aggression with no risk. I actually think we kinda want the same thing. LOL

The post of mine you quoted as a tongue-in-cheek note to Sirius, letting him know that what he considers fun is not what others consider fun. As I said, I'm cool with carebears hiding behind safe zones forever, but they should have to miss out on some incentives since they're unwilling to take a risk.

[Doc]

It doesn't need to be all items. Actually, it'd be a bad idea to destroy all items on death. Keeping some stuff still intact would be a nice little trophey for the victor. But you can't think about one system without considering how it effects others. The economy would need items to completely leave the game to keep it going, otherwise people would become inundated with too much stuff that they'll never use, so they'll stop trading. The war-engine provides an outlet for this: If items get destroyed than crafters would have a more prominent role in the game (and let's face it, Jooki WANTS the game to focus on crafting. Having warfare helps give crafters more of a purpose. I know, I know. It seems odd to think that emphasizing warfare would also stimulate the crafters and the economy (though it really shouldn't if anyone reads up a little on how warfar has acted to stimulate technological advances and manufacturing)). But this also provides an incentive not to die. The individual doesn't, and shouldn't, want to lose their items. But, to acquire more stuff and increase their influence, tribes (and individuals) would need to conquer lands established by others and to do so they would need to build up goods to launch an attack.

The consequence of losing, is that the aggressor loses all the time that it took to acquire it, but if they win then they get more resources to build more stuff. Eventually some defender will lose. This is why I suggest having some safezones. You don't want to completely knock out a players, or a group of players, means of advancing again.

Edit: Doc: The reward for winning a defense is that you acquire some of the items of the aggressors, you maintain your facilities and infrastructure, and you obtain the knowledge that one of your competitors just lost a lot of time and resources in an unsuccessful seige.

Well, thats the point, items are not destroyed on death, friends can loot your corpse to get all items back when you die, and you can sound retreat when you see fit. Non destruction of items has to be compensated somehow, if capital ship pops in EvE, its gone, its not like someone can scoop capital ship and return it back to their fort.


What are you scared of?

I wan't people seiging me. That means i don't have to spend the resources to have a real fight.

There is no offensively/defensively...i mean if someone hits you, arent you going to hit them back? You get hit, you mount a counteroffensive.

I keep trying to make the point, and none of the non-pvp types seem to be hearing it:
THERE IS A POINT ON THE RISK REWARD SLIDER WHERE INCREASED RISK IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE. BEYOND THAT POINT, A PLAYER/TRIBE/ALLIANCE WILL SEEK TO COMPLETELY REMOVE RISK FROM AN EQUATION BY ENSURING THAT THEY DO NOT ENGAGE IN A CONFLICT THAT THEY ARE NOT 100% CERTAIN THEY CAN WIN.
There is actually a point beyond that, where the risks are so comical that we just stop playing (i'm sure that would break your heart).

Who is taking the risk when my little tribe of 20 somethingonagreatday decides to go to war with your ubermilitia of 100+ ? We did it because we wanted the offensive challenge and we thought our defensive capeability was sufficient to stifle any counteroffensive you may make. Because you win a defensive engagement 100v20 you 'deserve' a cookie? Really?

I am perfectly aware what you want, and i want balanced system. If your "tribe of 20 somethingonagreatday" wants to attack something it should attack another "tribe of 20 something".

Yes, you dont go on offensive when you have no chance of winning, that should be common sense and be reflected in the game.


Did we read the same update today? And have you actually read my posts today?

You actually can't attack whoever you want whenever you want. People who refuse to flag for war will always be safe in their lands. I'm fine with that, they can stay there all the live long day.

However, I think it's poor form for those people who refuse to take a risk to expect the same rewards as those who do. By flagging for war, I'm willing to risk everything I have built to utter destruction. I'm willing to accept the consequences for my actions. However, I also expect to be rewarded for putting my ass on the line. I won't have a magical safe zone to fall back on if I piss off the wrong people. What's my incentive for flagging? I really hope it's a situation where special resources/recipes are only available to flagged tribes.

I never ever want a situation where there are incentives for aggression with no risk. I actually think we kinda want the same thing. LOL

The post of mine you quoted as a tongue-in-cheek note to Sirius, letting him know that what he considers fun is not what others consider fun. As I said, I'm cool with carebears hiding behind safe zones forever, but they should have to miss out on some incentives since they're unwilling to take a risk.

My system was no safe zone solution. You should first read the thread we are discussing before making any assumtions.

[Proto]

Don't waste your breath Dubs/Sirius, Doc is just a troll. He knows very well that there is risk and reward for both the attacking and defending sides, he would just prefer to prolong the arguing for his own trolling purposes.

[Dubanka]

Well, thats the point, items are not destroyed on death, friends can loot your corpse to get all items back when you die, and you can sound retreat when you see fit. Non destruction of items has to be compensated somehow, if capital ship pops in EvE, its gone, its not like someone can scoop capital ship and return it back to their fort.



I am perfectly aware what you want, and i want balanced system. If your "tribe of 20 somethingonagreatday" wants to attack something it should attack another "tribe of 20 something".

Yes, you dont go on offensive when you have no chance of winning, that should be common sense and be reflected in the game.

oh, so now I, as the attacker should be penalized for whom I choose to attack? Maybe we jsut grew tired of listening to you and decided to see if you could back up your mouth in game? Ahh, but you're too big to be attacked by a small tribe, so the small tribe should autolose. Everything. Great, great system there.

What if you look like a 20something tribe, and then ally up immediately before a seige to be 100+? Your extraordinary skill in zerg organzation means you deserve a my stuff? Really?

Run the mental traps on your proposals...they don't work except in very limited circumstances.

[Doc]

Don't waste your breath Dubs/Sirius, Doc is just a troll. He knows very well that there is risk and reward for both the attacking and defending sides, he would just prefer to prolong the arguing for his own trolling purposes.

Dont troll please.


oh, so now I, as the attacker should be penalized for whom I choose to attack? Maybe we jsut grew tired of listening to you and decided to see if you could back up your mouth in game? Ahh, but you're too big to be attacked by a small tribe, so the small tribe should autolose. Everything. Great, great system there.

What if you look like a 20something tribe, and then ally up immediately before a seige to be 100+? Your extraordinary skill in zerg organzation means you deserve a my stuff? Really?

Run the mental traps on your proposals...they don't work except in very limited circumstances.

At this point its obvious you havent read the thread and just want to spam with nonsense. As i said, rant away, im not really interested in people that just want to rant. Hopefully Jordi will be smart and implement actually balanced system, you know, a system that actually works, instead one side attack reward vs. 0 risk scenario some here want.

EDIT: mrcalhou, please if you want to continue discussion and look for solutions do that in another thread away from trolls and ranters, as i see you are interested in looking for solution instead just ranting.

[Proto]

Dont troll please.


That's ironic.

I was just giving them advice, you're the one arguing for the sake of arguing (ie. trolling).

[mrcalhou]

EDIT: mrcalhou, please if you want to continue discussion and look for solutions do that in another thread away from trolls and ranters, as i see you are interested in looking for solution instead just ranting.

I'm not "looking" for a solution. I already know the solution. It might need to be tweaked a little bit here and there, but it'd work very well relative to pretty much everything else people on these forums are saying.

[Sirius]

Don't waste your breath Dubs/Sirius, Doc is just a troll....he would just prefer to prolong the arguing for his own trolling purposes.

And what would YOU know about the subject, Proto? Please bro, don't act like you know how to troll <3

[Doc]

I'm not "looking" for a solution. I already know the solution. It might need to be tweaked a little bit here and there, but it'd work very well relative to pretty much everything else people on these forums are saying.

Yah, i am pretty much in line with your idea, just that i want to think of no safe zone solution, cause some people here have nervous breakdown when someone mentiones safe zone. *shrug* It seems safe zones it will be.

[mrcalhou]

Yah, i am pretty much in line with your idea, just that i want to think of no safe zone solution, cause some people here have nervous breakdown when someone mentiones safe zone. *shrug* It seems safe zones it will be.

I don't mind if they have nervous breakdowns. Those types have serious difficulties with thinking about anything other than themselves or about the long-term.

[Sirius]

lol is this exchange making anyone else giggle uncontrollably?

[baka77]

lol is this exchange making anyone else giggle uncontrollably?

This is fantastic. The last 24 hrs have been some of the most fun forum pvp I've had in ages.

[mrcalhou]

lol is this exchange making anyone else giggle uncontrollably?

It's been the only bright spot of my day. I have 54 4-page short answer/stoichiometry tests to grade. I wrote "Show all of your work and show all of your units" underlined and in 14-point font at the beginning of each section and half still didn't do it. And then I know on Monday they'll argue with me about why they lost points. *sigh*

So yeah... This is my entertainment to break it up.

[Sirius]

stoichiometry

Gesundheit!

[mrcalhou]

Gesundheit!

Thank you.

[Charles_Prince]

However, I think it's poor form for those people who refuse to take a risk to expect the same rewards as those who do. By flagging for war, I'm willing to risk everything I have built to utter destruction. I'm willing to accept the consequences for my actions. However, I also expect to be rewarded for putting my ass on the line. I won't have a magical safe zone to fall back on if I piss off the wrong people. What's my incentive for flagging? I really hope it's a situation where special resources/recipes are only available to flagged tribes.

Haha, seriously?

The reward for being a warring tribe is that you are allowed to conquer other tribes. That's the whole point. It's simple risk vs. reward. You risk being conquered but you have the ability to conquer. It would be ridiculous if warring tribes were given special recipes or resources, that would be very unbalanced. Non-warring tribes will choose peace knowing they won't have the ability to conquer other tribes, and they won't care.

[Dubanka]

Dont troll please.



At this point its obvious you havent read the thread and just want to spam with nonsense. As i said, rant away, im not really interested in people that just want to rant. Hopefully Jordi will be smart and implement actually balanced system, you know, a system that actually works, instead one side attack reward vs. 0 risk scenario some here want.

EDIT: mrcalhou, please if you want to continue discussion and look for solutions do that in another thread away from trolls and ranters, as i see you are interested in looking for solution instead just ranting.

spam with nonsense? I've been pretty civil, factual, and provided examples of every potential problem your 'system' would introduce.

I have seen cities inflate from a pre-seige population of 30, to 100+ at the time of seige.
I have attacked enemy cities vastly outnumbered just to see what happens, and in a longer term agenda of engaging in a battle of attrition (are my 20 more dedicated than your 100?)
I have fought off odds of 3:1 at a seige.

these are not conceptual examples, these are 'lessons from another game'...hence the title of the post.

The dynamic that is proposed by the devs is abuseable, and the repurcussions of the abuse WILL have very negative consequences in a manner that you are not anticipating.

I'm sorry if you see me stating that as a desire to

spam with nonsense


im not really interested in people that just want to rant.
no, you're not really interested in anyone that disagrees with you.

[baka77]

Haha, seriously?

The reward for being a warring tribe is that you are allowed to conquer other tribes. That's the whole point. It's simple risk vs. reward. You risk being conquered but you have the ability to conquer. It would be ridiculous if warring tribes were given special recipes or resources, that would be very unbalanced. Non-warring tribes will choose peace knowing they won't have the ability to conquer other tribes, and they won't care.

And what does conquering someone get me? I sure hope it gives me something other than e-peen. I prefer my game to have some depth of purpose beyond bragging rights & the ability piss in somebody else's cheerios. Not all PvP'ers are teenage douche bags, ya know. I want resource control, baby! Ever read Sun Tzu? The only thing worth really fighting over is land.

And it's not ridiculous to think war-like tribes would develop certain technology faster than peace tribes, especially technology & advancements specifically related to war. THAT is my idea. The special recipes/resources I propose would be better armor, weapons, & defensive structures. If the carebears want the very best gear to protect their gatherers out in the field & play with the big boys, let 'em flag up I say!

Perhaps the sword can swing both ways, though. The protected peace tribes will have access to special things like ping pong tables & fountain gardens & shit. Seems a fair trade off, no? :)

[Charles_Prince]

And what does conquering someone get me? I sure hope it gives me something other than e-peen.

It will get you more resources.


I prefer my game to have some depth of purpose beyond bragging rights & the ability piss in somebody else's cheerios. Not all PvP'ers are teenage douche bags, ya know. I want resource control, baby! Ever read Sun Tzu? The only thing worth really fighting over is land.

And it's not ridiculous to think war-like tribes would develop certain technology faster than peace tribes, especially technology & advancements specifically related to war. THAT is my idea. The special recipes/resources I propose would be better armor, weapons, & defensive structures. If the carebears want the very best gear to protect their gatherers out in the field & play with the big boys, let 'em flag up I say!

Perhaps the sword can swing both ways, though. The protected peace tribes will have access to special things like ping pong tables & fountain gardens & shit. Seems a fair trade off, no? :)

I do see a bit more clearly where you're coming from. Now I must decide if I want siege machines or Xsyon ping pong tournaments.

[Sirius]

Haha, seriously?

It would be ridiculous if warring tribes were given special recipes or resources, that would be very unbalanced.

Could you please explain, given the fact that non-warring tribes will be safe and secure in their snuggly little blankets, how this would be unbalanced in anyway? Only warring tribes could ever have these weapons USED on them if they didn't want to. And they could, by and large, only use them on other warring tribes.

If you don't plan on fighting people, why should it matter if your weapons and armor are slightly less than the 100% best stuff available?

[Sirius]

It will get you more resources.

Worth noting that it will also COST you resources. Waging war, paying for your losses, is expensive.

Plus, happily farming away into eternity will also get you resources.

It's not crazy to suggest that people who commit to the PVP playstyle, instead of player-versus-junkpile, might deserve a slight edge in their chosen path -- combat.

[Salvadore]

No offense, Doc, but you sound pretty unintelligent. It's clear you haven't thought this through in anything approaching a realistic fashion.

Yeah, i have pretty much gotten to the point of disregarding any post by a Hopi Tribe member. Doc argues like a donkey regardless of who it is and how thorough their logic in rebuttals are ESPECIALLY if it is outside of the scope of how he personally wants the game without considering the rest of the game world or the "down the road" aspects. The rest of them seem to basically follow that same mentality. Im expecting the rest of them to follow the leader and "drink the punch" soon after release anyway...if the collective tribe of "evils" dont get to them first. Typical zerg mentality...it always seems to be the psoriasis on the buttcheeks of a good time.

Dubanka has pretty much stated all I could hope to say. Plus one(s)!

[Doc]

I don't mind if they have nervous breakdowns. Those types have serious difficulties with thinking about anything other than themselves or about the long-term.

Heh, yah, its actually funny, but it seems Jordi has made up his mind and has given options to players, even those that were not in his initial vision. And community has pretty much voted with non complaining about it, sans few vocal individuals.

[Charles_Prince]

Could you please explain, given the fact that non-warring tribes will be safe and secure in their snuggly little blankets, how this would be unbalanced in anyway? Only warring tribes could ever have these weapons USED on them if they didn't want to. And they could, by and large, only use them on other warring tribes.

If you don't plan on fighting people, why should it matter if your weapons and armor are slightly less than the 100% best stuff available?


Worth noting that it will also COST you resources. Waging war, paying for your losses, is expensive.

Plus, happily farming away into eternity will also get you resources.

It's not crazy to suggest that people who commit to the PVP playstyle, instead of player-versus-junkpile, might deserve a slight edge in their chosen path -- combat.

That's all fine, as long as those who commit to the crafting/community playstyle get a slight edge in their chosen path i.e. exclusive crafting recipes.

Edit: Even though it may not sound like it, I am actually a PvP oriented player. I just like balance.

[Proto]

Yes, the few vocal individuals with any experience with balanced sieges and asset destruction..

Still trolling eh, doc? If I was a lesser man I would report your posts for violating the ToS.

[ffff]

dubanka talks like a politician, bla!, bla!, bla!

[wolfmoonstrike]

That's all fine, as long as those who commit to the crafting/community playstyle get a slight edge in their chosen path i.e. exclusive crafting recipes.

Edit: Even though it may not sound like it, I am actually a PvP oriented player. I just like balance.

How is that balance? No risk no reward. No matter what everybody risks losing their members off tribal lands but only warring has a chance to lose their land.

[Charles_Prince]

How is that balance? No risk no reward. No matter what everybody risks losing their members off tribal lands but only warring has a chance to lose their land.

..But also, warring has a chance to gain land. How is that not balance?

[wolfmoonstrike]

..But also, warring has a chance to gain land. How is that not balance?

Fair enough but peaceful cities will have the ability (maybe not game mechanic wise) to become trade hubs since if their peaceful nobody will have to worry about dieing from them. My point is the bigger the risk the bigger the reward. But the reward also needs to have meaning. If all you get are more resources you already have then is gaining land really such a big carrot? If you have nothing to develop with those resources then are the resources worth getting? Of course really we could all just be over-complicating the tech idea. The warring tribes will likely have first dibs on any new resources found which means they will develop the tech first. We probably don't need game mechanics to enforce this lol. If the peaceful want these techs they will need to trade for it in someway.

Who knows maybe trading technologies will be a cool thing to do. For example the peaceful came up with a way to automine rock but a warring tribe got these cool new gadgets and they trade blueprints.

[Charles_Prince]

Fair enough but peaceful cities will have the ability (maybe not game mechanic wise) to become trade hubs since if their peaceful nobody will have to worry about dieing from them. My point is the bigger the risk the bigger the reward. But the reward also needs to have meaning. If all you get are more resources you already have then is gaining land really such a big carrot? If you have nothing to develop with those resources then are the resources worth getting? Of course really we could all just be over-complicating the tech idea. The warring tribes will likely have first dibs on any new resources found which means they will develop the tech first. We probably don't need game mechanics to enforce this lol. If the peaceful want these techs they will need to trade for it in someway.

Who knows maybe trading technologies will be a cool thing to do. For example the peaceful came up with a way to automine rock but a warring tribe got these cool new gadgets and they trade blueprints.

Exactly, I think it will actually be a lot more fun without those certain mechanics, they would just complicate things. The PvP oriented guilds will have an edge in combat over the crafting guilds anyday, so they will likely have an edge when it comes to claiming land when they expand the map, which will probably lead to discovering new technology or at least something useful.

[Dubanka]

dubanka talks like a politician, bla!, bla!, bla!

i gots fans.

and i dare say, that was the most constructively critical post i've received in a while.

[yoori]

I don't know what happened to this disscusion. It started nicely and went south.

Jooky presented balanced system allowing many playstyles. Poeple that want more safety(don't want to loose their main territory), can choose not to be warring. They still have to fight for additional lands. Now we need something to compensate the risk of loosing main land for tribes that choose that way. I think the best idea is to place most valuable resources in danger zones where non warring tribes can't claim land.

Many tribes will choose to stay out of war, focus on production and trade. They will have to get resources from other tribes, and sell their goods, it's faster to get goods this way for warring tribes than splitting time between alts. That's another factor in politics, who can score better trading agreement.

And last point deciding war with one siedge is ridiculous. Attackers should invest a lot of time and resources in preparation and it must be really hard to win a siedge.
If they loose they go home and prepare for defence.

Weapon and armor gets damaged in fight(loose durability faster), siedge equipment shuold too. You can't teleport anything into battle field you have to transport it. You can damage enemy's equipment before they get to you city. You can intercept resource tranports, weapon shipments. War will be much more interesting than just siegdes.

[Bear5732]

Honestly i don't think this will ever occur.
I don't think certain groups in game would allow this to occur.


Well you may be right, but lets be honest - safe zones, in one form or the other, are a necessary evil.

Why? Because games are meant to be fun, and it's no fun logging in for the first time ever only to be instantly ganked before you even know to press C to enter combat. (someone was complaining that this happened to them yesterday). Whether you like it or not, this game has a steep learning curve for people who just are unfamiliar with a somewhat realistic common sense game. And whether its a newbie island or a neutral tribe, there has to be something in place to give new players a shot at having fun and learning the game before rage quitting.

Also there has to be something in place that doesn't force a tribe to have a 24-7 defense. Nothing is more frustrating then logging in after a long week at work, to find that the European tribe just spent the last 24 hours demolishing everything your tribe had built over the last 3 months.

So even if they remove the safe zones as they are in place now, there will still have to be some sort of safe zone in place to keep the game fair and fun.

[jumpshot]

I don't see the fascination with Conquering mechanics, anyway.

I love to PvP, but these things are just contests of WHo HAs the Larger Zerg in every game I've played.

No, I don't equate "politics" with PvP. Or Mass Recruiting.

[Salvadore]

I don't see the fascination with Conquering mechanics, anyway.

I love to PvP, but these things are just contests of WHo HAs the Larger Zerg in every game I've played.

No, I don't equate "politics" with PvP. Or Mass Recruiting.

Which games have you played? With conquest mechanics?

The games I was involved with had zergs as well. Any time they abused their size and started flexing their muscles too much, various others would mount up and stop them. It was also very common that an organized tribe could easily beat a zerg with 2:1 or even 3:1 odds. Recruiting everyone you can and inflating as big as you can actually has many negative consequences in itself.

[FabricSoftener]

Anything that gives a player the ability to dodge accountability, in an accountability driven game is a huge, glaring, potential exploit.

A large and well organized pvp tribe will have multiple people with 2 accounts (or more)...of course that assuming that we get a game delivered that actually delivers...Second accounts will be used to set up crafting alts. Crafting alts will be set up in quaint little unassuming villages with names like, Springwater Trading Company, Bobs Bed and Breakfast, etc. etc. The mission of these alt towns will be to craft items for the tribes militant branch.

This frees up the military wing of the tribe to act completely without consequence...the logistics that drive their machine can not be shut down, or even hindered, since they are protected.

In sb this existed - fly catcher trees: just a bind point that players from a guild would use to stage raids on assaults on others. If someone seiged it, usually they would not even show because it was easily replaceable. Typically groups would have a built up 'roller city' where they funneled their cash and resources to produce weapons. Players spent huge amount of time trying to track down the 'real owners' of roller towns, sometimes seiging them just to see who showed up. The flyl catcher: roller town dynamic was bad, since it mostly removed accountability from the game.

The system that is on its way to implementation is worse, as the players will not be able to hold these new 'craft tribes' accountable for the actions of their parent tribe.

Please think about the ways we can abuse a system before it gets implemented...if it can be, we will do it...it's in our nature. Unfortunately.

I bought an account for my sister and I used my credit card to do it.
Sorry but form a legal standpoint I dont think its possible to not have alts in this or any other game.

[Dubanka]

I don't know what happened to this disscusion. It started nicely and went south.

Jooky presented balanced system allowing many playstyles. Poeple that want more safety(don't want to loose their main territory), can choose not to be warring. They still have to fight for additional lands. Now we need something to compensate the risk of loosing main land for tribes that choose that way. I think the best idea is to place most valuable resources in danger zones where non warring tribes can't claim land.

Many tribes will choose to stay out of war, focus on production and trade. They will have to get resources from other tribes, and sell their goods, it's faster to get goods this way for warring tribes than splitting time between alts. That's another factor in politics, who can score better trading agreement.

And last point deciding war with one siedge is ridiculous. Attackers should invest a lot of time and resources in preparation and it must be really hard to win a siedge.
If they loose they go home and prepare for defence.

Weapon and armor gets damaged in fight(loose durability faster), siedge equipment shuold too. You can't teleport anything into battle field you have to transport it. You can damage enemy's equipment before they get to you city. You can intercept resource tranports, weapon shipments. War will be much more interesting than just siegdes.

i will mostly agree with you here.

[mrcalhou]

What Yoori said is pretty much what I've been saying in this thread. Not exactly, but close.

[Koll]

I fully agree.

There could be ways to think outside the box for a solution, though. It all comes down to what benefits there are to declare a tribe for war. If the benefits are mostly superfluous, then we have major problems. But what if the benefits were truly epic & required to maintain progress?

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking about crafting machines. Only warring tribes would be able to venture into certain parts of the wilderness & discover lost technology that allows mass production. It could also be that these machines allow for the creation of MUCH BETTER combat gear & city defense structures. And here is the catch, these machines can ONLY be placed in the tribal zones of warring tribes. This will eliminate the effectiveness alt tribes & let crafter tribes know that they will never have access to all the game offers unless they accept some element of risk.

I actually agree with you. It does makes sense to give a purpose or a "sense" behind being a warring tribe other than the full blown pvp. Hopefully during the "prelude" period they will work this out.

[Drevar]

I thought the "reward" for choosing open war was...OPEN WAR. No more silly safe zones that you hate so much for you or your enemy. You guys want full blown warfare without being held back by carebear limitations, well there you go.

Now you need an incentive to fight? I thought the FFA WAS the incentive. You guys are just out looking for a good fight right? You want to play your little war games with others who enjoy tit for tat, back and forth pitched battles. You want to see your enemies driven before you and hear the lamentation of the women, right?....

Or was that all just BS to cover your real desire to be able to harvest QQ tears from people who don't want to play the sociopath game?

[mrcalhou]

I thought the "reward" for choosing open war was...OPEN WAR. No more silly safe zones that you hate so much for you or your enemy. You guys want full blown warfare without being held back by carebear limitations, well there you go.

Now you need an incentive to fight? I thought the FFA WAS the incentive. You guys are just out looking for a good fight right? You want to play your little war games with others who enjoy tit for tat, back and forth pitched battles. You want to see your enemies driven before you and hear the lamentation of the women, right?....

Or was that all just BS to cover your real desire to be able to harvest QQ tears from people who don't want to play the sociopath game?

Go back and read my posts.

[Dubanka]

I thought the "reward" for choosing open war was...OPEN WAR. No more silly safe zones that you hate so much for you or your enemy. You guys want full blown warfare without being held back by carebear limitations, well there you go.

Now you need an incentive to fight? I thought the FFA WAS the incentive. You guys are just out looking for a good fight right? You want to play your little war games with others who enjoy tit for tat, back and forth pitched battles. You want to see your enemies driven before you and hear the lamentation of the women, right?....

Or was that all just BS to cover your real desire to be able to harvest QQ tears from people who don't want to play the sociopath game?

No. You're actually completely wrong. Sorry to dispel your delusions, but most of 'us' arent 15 and living in our parents basement.

Most of us don't play for others tears (however comedic they may be at times).

We play, the way we play, because there is no foe like a human foe.
We desire to play an mmo like an rts. Where you have a strategic metagame includes resource management, character development, city building, territorial expansion, politics and tactical engagement (pvp).

For the most part plain 'pvp' bores us. Been there, done that, many many times before. It's simplistic, formulaic, and generally at some point repetetive.

The dynamics we desire, are pvp with player driven consequence. Send one of mine to the hospital? i send 3 of yours to the morgue. YOu come back and raid my city? i burn yours to the ground. and when you mesh the other elelments mentioned above in there, it becames a very intricate dance between what you could do, what you can do, and what other others think and believe you will do.

Sorry, but we're no more sociopathic than any player on a team sport. We're just at it to 'win', and will utilize whatever tools are available to do so.

No, ffa pvp is not incentive. An open world is just a background. Without underlying game mechanics that integrate the logistics, operations, combat and diplomacy aspects of the game...we'll we can just pvp anywhere.
Yes, we're looking for a good fight, but we can get that anywhere, we're lookign for more.
Yes, we want pitched battles, but you can't have pitched battles unless they mean something, and for them to mean something players need to be INVESTED in what they are fighting for.

but yes, if we see you, and you're not us, we'll probably kill you...or at least try.

sorry bout that...you were in the way.

[Proto]

No, we're all sociopaths living in our parents basements with shotguns and trenchcoats.

[Proto]

dubanka talks like a politician, bla!, bla!, bla!

Nonsense.

Dubanka is the lobbyist.

I am the politician.

[mrcalhou]

No. You're actually completely wrong. Sorry to dispel your delusions, but most of 'us' arent 15 and living in our parents basement.

Most of us don't play for others tears (however comedic they may be at times).

We play, the way we play, because there is no foe like a human foe.
We desire to play an mmo like an rts. Where you have a strategic metagame includes resource management, character development, city building, territorial expansion, politics and tactical engagement (pvp).

For the most part plain 'pvp' bores us. Been there, done that, many many times before. It's simplistic, formulaic, and generally at some point repetetive.

The dynamics we desire, are pvp with player driven consequence. Send one of mine to the hospital? i send 3 of yours to the morgue. YOu come back and raid my city? i burn yours to the ground. and when you mesh the other elelments mentioned above in there, it becames a very intricate dance between what you could do, what you can do, and what other others think and believe you will do.

Sorry, but we're no more sociopathic than any player on a team sport. We're just at it to 'win', and will utilize whatever tools are available to do so.

No, ffa pvp is not incentive. An open world is just a background. Without underlying game mechanics that integrate the logistics, operations, combat and diplomacy aspects of the game...we'll we can just pvp anywhere.
Yes, we're looking for a good fight, but we can get that anywhere, we're lookign for more.
Yes, we want pitched battles, but you can't have pitched battles unless they mean something, and for them to mean something players need to be INVESTED in what they are fighting for.

but yes, if we see you, and you're not us, we'll probably kill you...or at least try.

sorry bout that...you were in the way.

This.

[Soulwanderer]

I thought the "reward" for choosing open war was...OPEN WAR. No more silly safe zones that you hate so much for you or your enemy. You guys want full blown warfare without being held back by carebear limitations, well there you go.

Now you need an incentive to fight? I thought the FFA WAS the incentive. You guys are just out looking for a good fight right? You want to play your little war games with others who enjoy tit for tat, back and forth pitched battles. You want to see your enemies driven before you and hear the lamentation of the women, right?....

Or was that all just BS to cover your real desire to be able to harvest QQ tears from people who don't want to play the sociopath game?

You thought a lot of stuff that was wrong then, didn't you? If all we wanted was PvP there are a ton of other games where we could have it that are much further along toward a finished product than this one. Even FPS games are designed completely around PvP with little to no grind at all. It's the risk and reward potential that makes a game like this worth playing, and if you don't have experience in playing one then you don't know the thrill of what you were missing.

Yeah, the first time you lose a city that you worked hard on is rough, and depending on the quality of the guild not everyone can take it. But what you lost teaches you what you did wrong. You rebuild, better than last time. You work on your weaknesses as a group and get better. If you need more advice... well, contrary to what a lot of non-PvPers like to portray, those that will be playing a game like this for PvP are in the majority just regular people. I've helped a lot of newer guilds learn the mechanics of game play and what they needed to do better either after taking their city or just killing them and taking their things in the open field. Later on some of them came and took a crack at my city, and I was thankful for it because fighting a good fight on your own doorstep to protect what's yours can be hands down the most gratifying thing you will experience in an MMO. Those walls? They aren't just there to look pretty. Guards at the door aren't just there to wave goodbye as you leave. Every bit of time investment put into fortifying a city means nothing if no one ever takes a stab at attacking it.

This isn't about crafters vs PvPers. Some people will have a stronger bend on war than others, and that's fine... but this is guild vs. guild (or tribe vs tribe), not carebears vs PvPers, because everyone will have to be both. You farm resources to make stuff. You make stuff to be ready to defend yourself and your claims/ideals/territory/city. You PvP to defend and obtain resources so that, once again, you can make stuff. It's a cycle, and every guild is going to be engaged in it. If you pull one stage of that cycle out you will not end up being very happy in this game for long imo. There is no PvE or Questing to swap out with the PvP/territory control aspect of the game, and I don't think it's the devs intention to make this a PvE game trying to compete with WoW in their own arena.

If you haven't had the opportunity to play a real territory control style MMO, don't knock it before you try it. Knowing that the time you invest into making items for your guild or city, or that having a fun conversation after a scrap over a junk pile that results in an alliance, can be the deciding factor in a fight for resources or to keep your home will be so much more worth your monthly investment than than just making everything look pretty.

[Salvadore]

I thought the "reward" for choosing open war was...OPEN WAR. No more silly safe zones that you hate so much for you or your enemy. You guys want full blown warfare without being held back by carebear limitations, well there you go.

Now you need an incentive to fight? I thought the FFA WAS the incentive. You guys are just out looking for a good fight right? You want to play your little war games with others who enjoy tit for tat, back and forth pitched battles. You want to see your enemies driven before you and hear the lamentation of the women, right?....

Or was that all just BS to cover your real desire to be able to harvest QQ tears from people who don't want to play the sociopath game?

SO...lemme get this straight...

The pvp tribe that declares themselves as "warring" has no safezones, but can enjoy the potential that there MIGHT be another tribe somewhere that declares themselves as warring...and they COULD war? They cannot, however, raid the neighboring "peaceful" tribe due to them having a safezone. They can only pvp IF the peaceful tribe members come looking for it or get caught outside of their safezone.

The carebare tribe right next to the pvp tribe declares themselves as "peaceful". They can raid the pvp tribe any time they want. They start to lose? run right back to the safezone, no real risk, pure potential gain. They also have access to the "ffa pvp" that the "Warring" tribe has as well.

Both types have the same incentives. One, the peaceful, has unbalanced protection and no real means of consequence for their actions. That is absolutely lopsided and unbalanced. Why would anyone declare themselves as warring then? Just exploit and abuse the peaceful setting like everyone else!

[jumpshot]

The carebare tribe right next to the pvp tribe declares themselves as "peaceful". They can raid the pvp tribe any time they want. They start to lose? run right back to the safezone, no real risk, pure potential gain. They also have access to the "ffa pvp" that the "Warring" tribe has as well.

Both types have the same incentives. One, the peaceful, has unbalanced protection and no real means of consequence for their actions. That is absolutely lopsided and unbalanced. Why would anyone declare themselves as warring then? Just exploit and abuse the peaceful setting like everyone else!

Ya!


The games I was involved with had zergs as well. Any time they abused their size and started flexing their muscles too much, various others would mount up and stop them. It was also very common that an organized tribe could easily beat a zerg with 2:1 or even 3:1 odds. Recruiting everyone you can and inflating as big as you can actually has many negative consequences in itself.

Good point, although I disagree with your math.

[Sirius]

No, we're all sociopaths living in our parents basements with shotguns and trenchcoats.

This is Sirius's mother and I just wanted to say I wish he didn't play this game so much, because he always kicks the cat after he tries to "gank" some poor player and fails.

But Proto, I am happy at least that he plays with such a smiling, well-dressed man who likes cats and obviously has all his priorities in the right place.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go make sandwiches for my darling Sirius, whose fixation on harassing nice ordinary people troubles me deeply and will probably one day be the subject of a newspaper interview cataloguing all of the seemingly innocuous details that, in hindsight, could be seen to have eerily foreshadowed that horrible event at the Denny's just off of County Line Road.

::burp::

Goodness me, I feel light-headed. Was I telling the future again?

[Sirius]

Good point, although I disagree with your math.

There is an alternative form of math. It's called "Calimath".

No matter what the question is, the answer is always 3.5 full groups.

[Proto]

Good point, although I disagree with your math.

lol you're welcome to disagree, but those are odds that we played with and have both won and lost with, in Shadowbane. Sal isn't guessing at those numbers, it's purely based upon our experience in a territory control, city sieging game.

[Charles_Prince]

The carebare tribe right next to the pvp tribe declares themselves as "peaceful". They can raid the pvp tribe any time they want. They start to lose? run right back to the safezone, no real risk, pure potential gain. They also have access to the "ffa pvp" that the "Warring" tribe has as well.

Both types have the same incentives. One, the peaceful, has unbalanced protection and no real means of consequence for their actions. That is absolutely lopsided and unbalanced. Why would anyone declare themselves as warring then? Just exploit and abuse the peaceful setting like everyone else!


Jooky presented balanced system allowing many playstyles. Poeple that want more safety(don't want to loose their main territory), can choose not to be warring. They still have to fight for additional lands. Now we need something to compensate the risk of loosing main land for tribes that choose that way. I think the best idea is to place most valuable resources in danger zones where non warring tribes can't claim land.

This is not correct.

Taken from Xsyon's update:

"- 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."

As I said earlier in this thread, our reward for becoming a warring tribe is the chance to conquer other tribes, that's it, that's all that is needed. That alone is enough reason to risk your land, and it's completely balanced.

[Sirius]

Just to clarify: conquest doesn't get warring tribes any ADDITIONAL land, right?

In other words, you can conquer someone else's tribal homeland, but you can't take it over while keeping your original one, so that you have multiple territories... correct? Or CAN you?

[mrcalhou]

When I think about conquesting, I think about having the resources to build up a base whilst keeping it defensible. Like, expanding a base in an RTS; you could potentially establish it anywhere, but to build it in the first place you would need to make sure the area is clear, and you can defend it while it exists.

[jumpshot]

you're welcome to disagree

Good. (HAR)

But seriously... obviously zergs eventually eat themselves, and obviously they don't win every fight. And maybe zergs somehow managed to lose every fight in SB (is that what you're claiming?). But in my experience, zergs win more fights than they lose.

In other words, Thermopoly is a good story but not every fight goes down like that.

[yoori]

Just to clarify: conquest doesn't get warring tribes any ADDITIONAL land, right?

In other words, you can conquer someone else's tribal homeland, but you can't take it over while keeping your original one, so that you have multiple territories... correct? Or CAN you?

Every tribe warring or not will be able to claim additional territories. And they won't be safe for either of them. How many we don't know, I heard 3, maybe it will depend on tribe size. So if you have any territories left you'll probably be able to claim other tribe's land. Only warring tribes can loose or conquer/raid other tribes main territory. Additional lands are open for everyone to conquer.

[yoori]

double post

[Proto]

Good. (HAR)

But seriously... obviously zergs eventually eat themselves, and obviously they don't win every fight. And maybe zergs somehow managed to lose every fight in SB (is that what you're claiming?). But in my experience, zergs win more fights than they lose.

In other words, Thermopoly is a good story but not every fight goes down like that.

I'm not saying zergs always lose, but in our experience the zergs more often needed 4/5 to 1 odds to win seiges against competent guilds. It was very easy for a guild to win a defensive seige versus 2/3 to 1 odds, we've seen it hundreds of times.

[mrcalhou]

I'm not saying zergs always lose, but in our experience the zergs more often needed 4/5 to 1 odds to win seiges against competent guilds. It was very easy for a guild to win a defensive seige versus 2/3 to 1 odds, we've seen it hundreds of times.

It makes sense that it'd work that way, too.

[chaosegg]

Good point by OP.

One thing I thought of just from reading the first page was that
this type of exploitation of the system could be made slightly more difficult by limiting trade to people of, or within one, alignment class of you?
For example, evil can only trade with neutral, neutral trades with both, and good trades only with neutral.

Edit:
or perhaps the evil people can only trade with good, withing the good territory or somesuch, so it's obvious what is going on?

[mrcalhou]

Good point by OP.

One thing I thought of just from reading the first page was that
this type of exploitation of the system could be made slightly more difficult by limiting trade to people of, or within one, alignment class of you?
For example, evil can only trade with neutral, neutral trades with both, and good trades only with neutral.

That's almost like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I say let it be. There are other ways to take care of this "problem" than programming a new rule.

[Sirius]

Good. (HAR)
Thermopoly is a good story but not every fight goes down like that.

More than any other MMO playerbase, this one is dead-set on using all kinds of words it has no clue how to spell <3

[mrcalhou]

More than any other MMO playerbase, this one is dead-set on using all kinds of words it has no clue how to spell <3

>:(

I know you aren't quoting me, but my speeling sucks. Proper spelling isn't a sign of lack of intelligence. Funny story: I was teaching my Chem I honors class about moles on Thursday and I wrote on the board, "18.02 grams of H2O is equivilent to 6.02 x 10^23 molecules of H2O." One of the girls in class goes, "Mr. C., you spelled equivalent wrong!" My response: "This is why I'm not teaching English."

[Proto]

I corrected my 3rd grade teachers spelling of "experience" during class and was sent to the hall for it.

[randomt]

Say what? You want the game to give you inside information about tribal alliances?

Are you crazy?

[jumpshot]

my spelling is like a combination with monopoly, the original griefer pvp game.

[otoan]

Who cares about spelling?

[mrcalhou]

Who cares about spelling?

English majors.

[Salvadore]

This is not correct.

Taken from Xsyon's update:

"- 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."

As I said earlier in this thread, our reward for becoming a warring tribe is the chance to conquer other tribes, that's it, that's all that is needed. That alone is enough reason to risk your land, and it's completely balanced.

OK SO...when the "peaceful" tribe member decides he wants to exploit the system, he just /guildquits and leaves the tribe, abuses it, then calls in a /guildinvite whenever he needs it or feels like it THUS instantly going back to the pure peaceful benefits???

Is this possible? Havent tried to expolit this fully yet.

[Proto]

Who cares about spelling?

Poor spelling is inexcusable if you don't have a genuine learning disability.

EDIT: I'm referring to native speakers only.

[mrcalhou]

Poor spelling is inexcusable if you don't have a genuine learning disability.

English is not the most user-friendly language when it comes to spelling the phonemes.