How it should be!

[KeithStone]

- Both warring and non-warring tribes could claim resources that would be up for contest by both types of tribes

Fixed:


- Warring tribes will be able to conquer areas containing more valuable resource areas, non warring tribes would be limited to less valued resource areas.

imo this is how it should be.

Please, I don't want a flame war, but seriously there has to be a reason to be warring or people won't do it.

[Armand]

Agreed. Safety and security should carry a price, and risk should be rewarded.

[Dubanka]

Fixed:



imo this is how it should be.

Please, I don't want a flame war, but seriously there has to be a reason to be warring or people won't do it.

ill +1 this.

[orious13]

Yep.

[Jadzia]

I don't agree. If a non-warring tribe is not allowed to claim good resources they will just buy it from others and you won't be able to stop it. If they have their own claimed land you can fight it and conquer it.

[Kroom]

Right now you are right, not much to fight over. But the impression I get for future development you will have a reason… More land and resources.

Everyone is stuck dealing with the limited combat system and no tribal war functions so I don’t see why players need to be punished for a play style right now.

[Bridger]

Quoting myself from another thread so as to offer another potential option:

Second point: I've been thinking about how you would code this to make the whole good/evil thing more situational and subjective.

I've noticed that the game already allows you to flag someone as a "friend/neutral/enemy" when you transact with them. So the game has a mechanism for setting that flag and tracking it. Maybe that's the answer here? Rather than having a tribe's alignment be a matter of setting a toggle, all alignments start out as 'neutral'. Then, at some point down the road, two players from two different tribes meet. If they simply transact and go their way, both tribes retain their neutral status with respect to each other. But if one of the players attacks the other - [in a dispute over resources, for example] - the attacker's tribe is set to 'evil' with respect to the victim's tribe. (The attack would automatically set the 'friend/neutral/enemy' flag to 'enemy' for each member of the attacker's tribe with respect to the victim's tribe.) The effect of that would be that now the victim's tribe can freely attack any member of the aggressor's tribe without damage to their 'neutral' status. [And, of course, the aggressor's tribe can attack the victim's tribe.]

You could even take it a step further. You could build in a timer that would allow the aggressor's tribe's leadership to either ratify that attack or disavow it - probably by throwing the aggressor out of the tribe.

Additionally, there could be a '[x] strikes and you're out' feature. Your tribe's membership could only engage in so many aggressions before your tribe's status is set to 'evil' ('enemy') for everyone else.

Last but not least, you could give the original victim the ability to reset the aggressor's flag to neutral, if the original victim was willing - for whatever 'motivation' - to do so. At that point, everything would go back to the status quo ante.

Might that be workable?

[baka77]

/signed

This is exactly what I've been preaching in other threads this morning.

[randomt]

Fixed:
imo this is how it should be.

Please, don't want a flame war, but seriously there has to be a reason to be warring or people won't do it.

You dimwits made him cancel the plan for a server with that kind of ruleset, because of all of your crying. Live with that decision.

[KeithStone]

I don't agree. If a non-warring tribe is not allowed to claim good resources they will just buy it from others and you won't be able to stop it. If they have their own claimed land you can fight it and conquer it.

actually, yes you can!

In order to trade someone has to leave the tribe zone to initiate the trade with said goods and killing them in the interrum is how you control it.

[KeithStone]

You dimwits made him cancel the plan for a server with that kind of ruleset, because of all of your crying. Live with that decision.

you are misunderstanding me.

The war server was for war all the time with no pvp location restrictions.

That's not what I'm asking for.

Also, we had no intentions of going to the war server with our tribe.

And - the game is going to evolve based on player feedback - I know this because it says so right here:


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


So, I'm entitled to state my suggestions regardless of whether I'm the only one who thinks it should be that way, if the majority of the community doesn't want it then it won't happen.

[Tehroth]

Perhaps the first tribal area a tribe sets up should be mutual war agreement and once the mists open up there should be rare resources some far distance from everyone in a FFA area. In order to get these resource the tribe will have to make an expansion which no matter if they don't want pvp can be taken away from them.

So it gives the carebears an option. Either just craft with the small amount of resources in their main encampment, or venture off into the new area for the rare resources. This should make both parties happy.

[yoori]

Some expansion zones being open to more conquest without safe zones, while in others tribes would retain the choice to war or not.

This is promising. Let's say "not safe" zones have most valuable resources. Non warring tribes won't be able to claim land there.
You have a choice become warring and fight for those resources or try to trade for them.

[NexAnima]

This is promising. Let's say "not safe" zones have most valuable resources. Non warring tribes won't be able to claim land there.
You have a choice become warring and fight for those resources or try to trade for them.

Or once the ability to place outpost is in, they would have no SZs whether your a warring tribe or not. If you want to expand and prosper you need to risk something no matter what side you chose.

[yoori]

Or once the ability to place outpost is in, they would have no SZs whether your a warring tribe or not. If you want to expand and prosper you need to risk something no matter what side you chose.

Non warring tribes won't be able to loose only their main lands, expansion lands(outposts) are conquerable, non waring tribes can't conquer other tribes lands, only defend theirs.
Non warring tribes can still claim free land and have to deffend it against warring tribes.

[Drevar]

My question is: What resources do you consider "most valuable"?

Drev

[baka77]

My question is: What resources do you consider "most valuable"?

Drev

Perhaps new resources that are required for newer/better end products?

[KeithStone]

My question is: What resources do you consider "most valuable"?

Drev

Concentrated areas of depletable resources will be of great value, limited areas with depletable rare resources when added to the game will be more valuable.

[yoori]

My question is: What resources do you consider "most valuable"?

Drev

I don't know what resources we'll get if we'll get mining iron should be fairly common and accessible to everyone, but maybe gold or oil to fuel future industry.
We'll have to wait and see.

[orious13]

As it stands now, the mist area will be full of a lot of junk and the starting area won't be (not so long term from now). This will create value both for the outer areas and for the resources themselves.

But since we're in cali... having gold or diamond or be at the top would be interesting.

[yoori]

Non warring tribes won't be able to loose only their main lands, expansion lands(outposts) are conquerable, non waring tribes can't conquer other tribes lands, only defend theirs.
Non warring tribes can still claim free land and have to deffend it against warring tribes.

I made wrong assumption that non warring tribes can't conquer other tribes extension lands, aparently they can.
Though "non safe" zones should be out of reach for them. Also warring might not be a choice, it may be determined on actions as well.