"End Game" and Conquering/Destroying Land Claims

[Hellaciouss]

So I was having a discussion with two others in IRC who seem to believe you shouldn't be able to remove someones claim to land. To me, that would make this game very, very boring. What else would the point of the game be? What would the "End Game" consist of if not being able to remove someone else's claim to land? By destroying what another tribe has made in a long "siege" and in the end being able to destroy their "claim totem" so they have to move elsewhere in the world and start again, away from those who kicked them out?


Also, thoughts about how to expand...currently I believe the only way to expand your tribe is through numbers. This needs to be thought over. Smaller clans shouldn't be limited in land size by numbers alone. Tribes should be able to expand through PROGRESS. Through hard work. Not through numbers alone. The only thing a larger tribe should be able to do is expand FASTER, as obviously, they have more people that can do more work then a smaller one, but a 10 man tribe should still be able to reach the same amount of "claim land" as a 100 man tribe, albeit much slower as only 10 people are working on expanding compared to 100.

This stuff needs to be discussed, because I know I for one didn't just sign up to empire build without being able to completely destroy other peoples stuff and not be able remove their claim to the land they claimed. That would make this game completely boring if you couldn't push someone away from your tribes "territory" through force if necessary.

[Xidian]

Hmm I agree with this. I remember at some point awhile ago the devs said that we would advance out technology and society as we work more and more. So I'm thinking you should get land expansions when you reach certain milestones. I think that when an architect becomes top of their game they will be able to create a new advanced structure (I saw it in the features that top craftsmen get to create new items) and this way people can influence the advancement of society.

[warmslumbers13]

I would like to see long castle/city like sieges as well in the future and do agree that size of tribe shouldn't be such a limiting factor in land expansion. Perhaps with more expansion the size of tribe safe zone stays the same till it is removed at a latter date. The concept of siege would like make gathering food and water more important ( assuming we ever get canteens )

[Jadzia]

So I was having a discussion with two others in IRC who seem to believe you shouldn't be able to remove someones claim to land. To me, that would make this game very, very boring. What else would the point of the game be? What would the "End Game" consist of if not being able to remove someone else's claim to land? By destroying what another tribe has made in a long "siege" and in the end being able to destroy their "claim totem" so they have to move elsewhere in the world and start again, away from those who kicked them out?


Also, thoughts about how to expand...currently I believe the only way to expand your tribe is through numbers. This needs to be thought over. Smaller clans shouldn't be limited in land size by numbers alone. Tribes should be able to expand through PROGRESS. Through hard work. Not through numbers alone. The only thing a larger tribe should be able to do is expand FASTER, as obviously, they have more people that can do more work then a smaller one, but a 10 man tribe should still be able to reach the same amount of "claim land" as a 100 man tribe, albeit much slower as only 10 people are working on expanding compared to 100.

This stuff needs to be discussed, because I know I for one didn't just sign up to empire build without being able to completely destroy other peoples stuff and not be able remove their claim to the land they claimed. That would make this game completely boring if you couldn't push someone away from your tribes "territory" through force if necessary.

When sieging will be implemented tribes will be able to choose if they want to be a warring tribe (aka siegeable and being able to siege others) or not. This will be a one time choice, or something that is very hard to change later. If a tribe choose to be non-warring then their main territory will keep its safe zone status.

Later on tribes will be able to claim additional lands. These lands will be up for contest anyway, both for warring-non-warring tribes.

This is a very good setup imo, tribes who enjoy wars can choose to be warring type and siege other warring ones, while tribes who prefer to live in peace can do that but will lose the ability to conquer other tribes' main city.

I agree with your suggestion about tribe territories. It would be much better and more interesting if tribes had to work for the size of their area.

[Haphazard]

Jadzia, you seem to always speak in facts when none of what you say is fact. the version of xsyon you are postulating that will occur is one such system which has been offered as a possibility. Since none of the mechanisms for this are in fact in place, it kind of grates on my nerves every time you insist that this is how it is going to be.

to allow a "non-warring" tribe to be able to do whatever they want without anyone else having any say in the matter is a formula for disaster. There have already been numerous threads which outline the problems that such a system would have. It would be fairly simple for a group of folks to have all their assets under one tribe totem, and just have everyone join up with their "war" tribe when they want to go to war. - especially easy for very large tribes so that they would maintain their existing borders.

this is just one example which will absolutely happen. It is totally unreasonable in a game-design sense, and a "realistic" sense to have tribes which are unable through some mechanism or another to be attacked.

I suppose you are hoping that Hopi tribe can just go around hogging all the resources and never have to pay for your environmental terrorism.

[Hellaciouss]

When sieging will be implemented tribes will be able to choose if they want to be a warring tribe (aka siegeable and being able to siege others) or not. This will be a one time choice, or something that is very hard to change later. If a tribe choose to be non-warring then their main territory will keep its safe zone status.

Later on tribes will be able to claim additional lands. These lands will be up for contest anyway, both for warring-non-warring tribes.

This is a very good setup imo, tribes who enjoy wars can choose to be warring type and siege other warring ones, while tribes who prefer to live in peace can do that but will lose the ability to conquer other tribes' main city.

I agree with your suggestion about tribe territories. It would be much better and more interesting if tribes had to work for the size of their area.

I could only see this working If, and ONLY IF, the ONLY thing that couldn't be done is destroying the non-warring tribes "Safe Zone Totem", but everything they build MUST be able to be destroyed, otherwise a non-warring tribe could plant a totem and build near a warring tribe and the warring tribe would be able to do absolutely nothing to stop the non-warring tribe from competing in terms of resources. I think if people want to live and play Sims...well, that's what the Sims is for. Warring tribes must be able to make it so the non-warring with be way better off finding another piece of land farther away, as I am sure there will be plenty of land available out there.

[Jadzia]

Jadzia, you seem to always speak in facts when none of what you say is fact. the version of xsyon you are postulating that will occur is one such system which has been offered as a possibility. Since none of the mechanisms for this are in fact in place, it kind of grates on my nerves every time you insist that this is how it is going to be.

to allow a "non-warring" tribe to be able to do whatever they want without anyone else having any say in the matter is a formula for disaster. There have already been numerous threads which outline the problems that such a system would have. It would be fairly simple for a group of folks to have all their assets under one tribe totem, and just have everyone join up with their "war" tribe when they want to go to war. - especially easy for very large tribes so that they would maintain their existing borders.

this is just one example which will absolutely happen. It is totally unreasonable in a game-design sense, and a "realistic" sense to have tribes which are unable through some mechanism or another to be attacked.

I suppose you are hoping that Hopi tribe can just go around hogging all the resources and never have to pay for your environmental terrorism.
I really had no intention to annoy you, I'm sorry. The mechanics I wrote about was posted by Xsyon, this is his plan. If you can't find the thread about it I can find it for you. If nothing unexpected happens this is what will be implemented. Its not good to live in denial, you just set up yourself for a disappointment.

If a big enough part of the community requires it he will set up 2 different servers with different PvP rules ( he said this as well several times), so players who prefer a more war-type environment may get it later.

He said that the additional lands will be up for contest, so its only Hopi's main city which can stay a safe zone if we choose that, so your comment about environmental terrorism (good one :p ) is not valid.

[Hellaciouss]

I really had no intention to annoy you, I'm sorry. The mechanics I wrote about was posted by Xsyon, this is his plan. If you can't find the thread about it I can find it for you. If nothing unexpected happens this is what will be implemented. Its not good to live in denial, you just set up yourself for a disappointment.

If a big enough part of the community requires it he will set up 2 different servers with different PvP rules ( he said this as well several times), so players who prefer a more war-type environment may get it later.

He said that the additional lands will be up for contest, so its only Hopi's main city which can stay a safe zone if we choose that, so your comment about environmental terrorism (good one :p ) is not valid.

2 Servers would kill this game, period. You don't split up full sandbox games into different servers. No buildings should be safe from destruction, period. If you can claim non-waring, then the only thing that should be "safe" is the actual totem, NOTHING ELSE. Everything else must be destroyable or this creates serious problems. Hopi members could go around ganking people around their "territory" and no one would be able to do anything to remove their presence. If you get ganked in return all you do is spawn at your totem, instead of father away, and then you just run back the short distance and continue ganking. Tribes must be able to make it so non-warring are WAY better off finding another place to live "peacefully". Sure, your "Claim Totem" wont be able to be destroyed, but you also won't be able to build anything because it will be destroyed by people you piss off.

[Haphazard]

Actually, what was posted was a "I imagine this is how it will work..." type of scenario. It wasnt thought out, nor was it put forward as the iron rule that it was going to be implemented that way. I did read the post, and apparently we read what we want from the statement - you read it as a fact about how it was going to be implemented, and I read it as a postulation about how it might be done.

I kind of agree with Hell's idea about keeping maybe just the totem safe for the "peace" tribes.

Either that or automatically flag a peace tribe for war whenever they take any resources outside their tribal area.

The idea that a warring tribe has the ability to "raid" others is great. It seems like that is good enough of a reward for the possibility of losing your home. But, if warring tribes can only raid other warring tribes, then that is not sufficient.

Hopi - the locusts of Xsyon, I hope I can scavenge up some bug spray.

[Dade512]

2 Servers would kill this game, period. You don't split up full sandbox games into different servers. No buildings should be safe from destruction, period. If you can claim non-waring, then the only thing that should be "safe" is the actual totem, NOTHING ELSE. Everything else must be destroyable or this creates serious problems. Hopi members could go around ganking people around their "territory" and no one would be able to do anything to remove their presence. If you get ganked in return all you do is spawn at your totem, instead of father away, and then you just run back the short distance and continue ganking. Tribes must be able to make it so non-warring are WAY better off finding another place to live "peacefully". Sure, your "Claim Totem" wont be able to be destroyed, but you also won't be able to build anything because it will be destroyed by people you piss off.

Not to be rude but the term 'non-warring' seems lost on you. A tribe that is set to non-warring but fully capable of being destroyed and griefed...that's little more than free xp for combat characters.

edit for hap... They are already kill-able outside the tribal area...

[maelwydd]

Think of non waring tribe as Swiss. Perhaps could institute the 1st banking system so that no one would actually want to attack to ensure their ill gotten gains are not revealed. :)

[Hellaciouss]

Not to be rude but the term 'non-warring' seems lost on you. A tribe that is set to non-warring but fully capable of being destroyed and griefed...that's little more than free xp for combat characters.

edit for hap... They are already kill-able outside the tribal area...

It's not lost on me. If you don't want to be a warring tribe, I'd suggest not planting down next to a warring one....Even the tutorial suggests that you take your time when choosing a home...This game isn't the Sims :/

Another example of why this wont work is "Merc" tribes could set up a non-warring tribe and then take a contract to just grief this crap out of a warring tribe and guess what, the "warring" tribe wouldn't be able to do jack squat about it. Being able to declare as a non-warring will be a disaster for this game, plane and simple.

[maelwydd]

It's not lost on me. If you don't want to be a warring tribe, I'd suggest not planting down next to a warring one....Even the tutorial suggests that you take your time when choosing a home...This game isn't the Sims :/

Another example of why this wont work is "Merc" tribes could set up a non-warring tribe and then take a contract to just grief this crap out of a warring tribe and guess what, the "warring" tribe wouldn't be able to do jack squat about it. Being able to declare as a non-warring will be a disaster for this game, plane and simple.

What if only good aligned tribes can be non-waring and unable to initiate attacks at all, but could only defend?

[Haphazard]

What I meant to say is that any gathering of scarce resources outside the tribal area of a "non-warring" tribe, is an act of war itself.

Imagine if you will a scarce resource (oil). If a tribe went over to an "open" area and just started harvesting that oil, until it was all gone, and they did it through force by protecting the gatherers and killing other folks gatherers (yes its open pvp), wouldn't that be an act of war?

[Hellaciouss]

What if only good aligned tribes can be non-waring and unable to initiate attacks at all, but could only defend?

Won't work either. Who would go after the "Evil" based ones? Just other "Evil"? That wouldn't be very good design. Plus is goes back to the same problem....Tribe selects "Good". Becomes invulnerable to attacks...pillages resources everywhere with no fear. Not a good balance model at all. It also still allows merc tribes to be formed and completely grief anyone with no fear of repercussion. A merc corp could just constantly kill/gank everyone with no fear of attack on their home city while their contractor sieges...sorry, but that doesn't work and would create completely dumb play conditions.

[Jadzia]

What I meant to say is that any gathering of scarce resources outside the tribal area of a "non-warring" tribe, is an act of war itself.

Imagine if you will a scarce resource (oil). If a tribe went over to an "open" area and just started harvesting that oil, until it was all gone, and they did it through force by protecting the gatherers and killing other folks gatherers (yes its open pvp), wouldn't that be an act of war?

Xsyon said that being warring tribe won't be a switch but will likely be based on tribal actions, so what you mentioned may be an example of something which pushes a tribe toward becoming a warring one.

@Hellaciouss: a good tribe can't pillage resources everywhere. The additionaly claimed resource lands will be up for contest, and won't be safe zones. A good tribe is only safe from attacks in their own tribe zone, not everywhere, and if they start to grief others they will lose the 'good' status soon and their land will lose its safe status as well.

[maelwydd]

Won't work either. Who would go after the "Evil" based ones? Just other "Evil"?

Well actually you will ind a lot of 'Good' PvP tribes out there looking for a fight. I would guess that they would BOTH enjoy the fight as they BOTH want the PvP.


That wouldn't be very good design. Plus is goes back to the same problem....Tribe selects "Good". Becomes invulnerable to attacks...pillages resources everywhere with no fear.

Except for the fact that outside their tribal lands they can be attacked of course so not invulnerable at all.


Not a good balance model at all. It also still allows merc tribes to be formed and completely grief anyone with no fear of repercussion.

How? If they are good they cannot attack 1st. If they are outside their village they are open to attack. Only difference here is that a non warring tribe is safe in their village but loses out of expansion of land through conquest.


A merc corp could just constantly kill/gank everyone with no fear of attack on their home city while their contractor sieges...sorry, but that doesn't work and would create completely dumb play conditions.

Again how are they going to constantly kill/gank it they are unable to attack 1st? In fact it more detrimental to non warring gtribes as they could be gathering resources without the ability to defend what they have gathered.

[Dade512]

What I meant to say is that any gathering of scarce resources outside the tribal area of a "non-warring" tribe, is an act of war itself.

Imagine if you will a scarce resource (oil). If a tribe went over to an "open" area and just started harvesting that oil, until it was all gone, and they did it through force by protecting the gatherers and killing other folks gatherers (yes its open pvp), wouldn't that be an act of war?

I'm going on the assumption that by "Open" you mean open to pvp. Then yes, I can see where you're coming from. You would be encroaching on someone else's land, basically invading it. But, if I'm reading your example right, you're also implying the non-warring person killed some people on the open-pvp land. What if the non-warring person just walked into someone's land and picked some grass? Yes, they're encroaching but they didn't harm anyone.


It's not lost on me. If you don't want to be a warring tribe, I'd suggest not planting down next to a warring one....Even the tutorial suggests that you take your time when choosing a home...This game isn't the Sims :/

Another example of why this wont work is "Merc" tribes could set up a non-warring tribe and then take a contract to just grief this crap out of a warring tribe and guess what, the "warring" tribe wouldn't be able to do jack squat about it. Being able to declare as a non-warring will be a disaster for this game, plane and simple.

This game may not be the sims, but it is a sandbox...which means everyone is free to choose how they like to play with their sand. I may not like to build my castle with a round bucket like you, after all.
Your scenario could be pretty easy to circumvent. For example, if your tribe's members attack (swing first, etc) then maybe your tribe switches to open combat. Or possibly if you attack someone's land then your land becomes open for attack. Or possibly, as someone else suggested, it could be based on alignment. Good/Neutral could choose to stay out of the fight where as Evil aligned have no choice. Just some quick thoughts....

[rznkain]

It's not lost on me. If you don't want to be a warring tribe, I'd suggest not planting down next to a warring one....Even the tutorial suggests that you take your time when choosing a home...This game isn't the Sims :/

Another example of why this wont work is "Merc" tribes could set up a non-warring tribe and then take a contract to just grief this crap out of a warring tribe and guess what, the "warring" tribe wouldn't be able to do jack squat about it. Being able to declare as a non-warring will be a disaster for this game, plane and simple.


Nothing personal but most of your posts is telling what YOU want to happen and how YOU think things should be done.Your welcome to your opion but as someone else said point of a sandbox is to allow for all sorts of game play styles.Say there is a tribe of builders/rpers who wanna play the game with no conflict or avoiding it as much as possible you feel its totally okay for a war tribe to come in and destroy there land day after day after day down to the totem if they wanted.How long do you think the other tribe would keep playin? There will be pvp and plenty of war tribes no one is trying to say there shouldn''t be but I sure don't agree with allowing a bunch of griefers torment the hell out of players who do not wanna play that way.

[Hellaciouss]

This game may not be the sims, but it is a sandbox...which means everyone is free to choose how they like to play with their sand. I may not like to build my castle with a round bucket like you, after all.
Your scenario could be pretty easy to circumvent. For example, if your tribe's members attack (swing first, etc) then maybe your tribe switches to open combat. Or possibly if you attack someone's land then your land becomes open for attack. Or possibly, as someone else suggested, it could be based on alignment. Good/Neutral could choose to stay out of the fight where as Evil aligned have no choice. Just some quick thoughts....


What's stopping an Alt from joining a non-warring tribe and attacking his own "warring tribe" so the non-warring tribe is now at war with the warring one? People WILL do this. If it CAN be done, it WILL be done. You shouldn't underestimate the willingness of griefers to do something like this. YOUR scenario is pretty easy to circumvent.

It is very stupid to give any structure invulnerability to being destroyed. It will not work. All you're trying to do is try and give some false sense of security of being safe and then when it turns out it can be gotten around they leave disappointed. Better off to just tell people "If you want to live peacefully....go find a piece of land away from warring tribes and live peacefully". People who don't want to fight can always hire protection instead of just making them completely invulnerable. It. Won't. Work. It will bring more harm then good.

[maelwydd]

What's stopping an Alt from joining a non-warring tribe and attacking his own "warring tribe" so the non-warring tribe is now at war with the warring one? People WILL do this. If it CAN be done, it WILL be done. You shouldn't underestimate the willingness of griefers to do something like this. YOUR scenario is pretty easy to circumvent.

I may be wrong here but as I understand it, if a good player in a good tribe attacks another good/neutral player then they will get kicked from the tribe. Not sure if persistant offending can eventually change a good tribe to neutral or further but I doubt that it would be a mechanic that would be very successful.


It is very stupid to give any structure invulnerability to being destroyed. It will not work. All you're trying to do is try and give some false sense of security of being safe and then when it turns out it can be gotten around they leave disappointed.

Hold a second....if a structure is invulnerable to being destroyed.....how can it be gotten around????


Better off to just tell people "If you want to live peacefully....go find a piece of land away from warring tribes and live peacefully".

Or flag as non warring and live peacefully.....


People who don't want to fight can always hire protection instead of just making them completely invulnerable. It. Won't. Work. It will bring more harm then good.

To be honest you are confusing me almost as much as you are confusing yourself.

[Hellaciouss]

Nothing personal but most of your posts is telling what YOU want to happen and how YOU think things should be done.Your welcome to your opion but as someone else said point of a sandbox is to allow for all sorts of game play styles.Say there is a tribe of builders/rpers who wanna play the game with no conflict or avoiding it as much as possible you feel its totally okay for a war tribe to come in and destroy there land day after day after day down to the totem if they wanted.How long do you think the other tribe would keep playin? There will be pvp and plenty of war tribes no one is trying to say there shouldn''t be but I sure don't agree with allowing a bunch of griefers torment the hell out of players who do not wanna play that way.

I'm, just gonna go ahead and quote this so you can read it.




Tribes

The most important aspect of the Xsyon world is it’s tribal mechanics. Players rely on their home town or tribe for survival and success.

Straight from the features page. Your tribe is your protection...If you can't defend against a neighboring hostile tribe that you angered by stealing their resources, it's time for you to move on and maybe NOT anger your next neighbor.

How can the game be about tribal survival if tribes are INVULNERABLE?

If they plan on making tribes who are able to just be invulnerable then they should just change it to this:


Tribes

The most important aspect of the Xsyon world is it’s tribal mechanics. Players rely on their home town or tribe for survival and success, but only sometimes, cause we are going to let some tribes steal any and all resources they want with absolutely no fear of losing what they built because they will be considered "non warring tribes". Sure you'll be able to kill/gank them outside their invulnerable heaven, but then when you do you become evil aligned even though they are stealing YOUR resources! Ain't that cool!

[maelwydd]

I'm, just gonna go ahead and quote this so you can read it.





Straight from the features page. Your tribe is your protection...If you can't defend against a neighboring hostile tribe that you angered by stealing their resources, it's time for you to move on and maybe NOT anger your next neighbor.

How can the game be about tribal survival if tribes are INVULNERABLE?

If they plan on making tribes who are able to just be invulnerable then they should just change it to this:

All great but I think for obvious reasons you actually misquoted the quote you gave to back up your argument....

The quote was: -


Tribes

The most important aspect of the Xsyon world is it’s tribal mechanics. Players rely on their home town or tribe for survival and success.

You said: -


Straight from the features page. Your tribe is your protection

What about the bit where


Players rely on their home town
Conveniently avoided to enforce your side of the argument and leaving out the bit that destroys it...

[Hellaciouss]

Some people aren't seeing the picture clear here. I'm going to try and adjust the focus so it's much easier to see where I am coming from.



Say you want to be a GOOD Aligned WARRING Tribe that fights the EVIL Aligned WARRING TRIBES. You set up your tribe near good resources, you protect your resources because you need those resources to keep your tribe strong and to keep fighting those Evil Warring tribes.

Along comes a GOOD NON-WARRING Tribe and plops right down on your border, starts gathering and starts hitting up your much needed resources. Along comes another and plops down on another side of your territory and they also start chomping up resources. Soon the GOOD aligned WARRING tribe starts taking some pretty big resource hits with these non-warring tribes situated around them plundering resources that were once yours.

Now, you're GOOD ALIGNED....what happens when you start ganking these GOOD ALIGNED non-warring tribes? You start losing your good alignment because you're ganking other people who are stealing your resources that are aligned as GOOD because that's all you can do. You can't attack their tribe territory because they are invulnerable to all attacks.

So, not only are you competing against the EVIL WARRING TRIBES! But you also have to compete for resources around your territory with non-warring tribes that you can't do anything about.




Another example. 1 Warring Tribe and 1 Non-warring tribe. The non-warring tribe is basically a slave of the warring one that feeds it resources. It's also a tribe that members can jump back and forth to. The non-warring tribe is able to completely plunder all enemy resources with no fear of attack. Say the "enemy" beats back the warring tribe and destroys it. Guess what? The alt non-warring tribe is still there, they will wait for the "enemy" tribe to move their siege out their start up their warring tribe again and begin hitting up the "enemy warring" tribe.



Unless all things can be destroyed, this is the kind of cheesy lameness that will plague this game. You can not have invulnerable tribes being able to compete with warring ones in a game where resources mean everything.

If this is that way it's going to be, then a second server MUST be put up for those who just want to play the Sims (even though there are 50,000 sim games out there). Splitting up a Sandbox game however is the absolute worth thing you could do, ESPECIALLY in a game with the population this one has.


I understand some people don't want to fight. I understand some just want to build up some empire, but there are ways around fighting that can be achieved in game though many ways. You could deploy diplomacy to keep your tribe from being destroyed. You could higher a tribe that does fight to protect you. You could live on the borders of fighting tribe that IS willing to let you share resources BECAUSE THERE WILL BE SOME OUT THERE THAT WILL LET YOU!! But making tribes invulnerable is one of the worst things you could do.

There is nothing good that can come out allowing tribes to be invulnerable where there are many ways tribes can deal with fighting...without actually having to fight at all.

Feel free to argue against my opinion, but I just don't see invulnerable tribes bringing anything good to the game.


All great but I think for obvious reasons you actually misquoted the quote you gave to back up your argument....

The quote was: -


You said: -



What about the bit where


Conveniently avoided to enforce your side of the argument and leaving out the bit that destroys it...

Home town is your tribe...It's infact bigger then a tribe as you currently need more players for a TOWN then you need to start a TRIBE. ugh >< It wasn't left out either...it's right there...quoted....go back and read it.

[maelwydd]

Now, you're GOOD ALIGNED....what happens when you start ganking these GOOD ALIGNED non-warring tribes?

I may be a little presuptious here and this is only my opinion but...

-A good aligned tribe is unlikely to be the ganking sort. I think you are projecting here.
-But lets say there is conflict between 2 good aligned tribes. If they are unable to come to an agreement through diplomacy and it really causes a problem, then one of the tribes may want to take a more agressive stance and decide enough is enough and attack. They would no longer be good aligned and would become neutral and eventually, with persistent attacks Evil. That is a logical, natural and realistic scenario. Good aligned tribes will need to use diplomacy to reach non aggressive deals become agressive and lose moral ground.

Not a problem as I see it and will add a lot to the game.


Home town is your tribe...It's infact bigger then a tribe as you currently need more players for a TOWN then you need to start a TRIBE. ugh ><It wasn't left out either...it's right there...quoted....go back and read it.

Currently a tribe is as big as it gets. Town simply refers to where their totem is placed where structures are built onto tribe land. And as as mentioned, if they are non warring then it is invulnerable to attack at the expence of being unable to expand through conflict.

So an agry warring tribe could attack you in open ground to protect their resources but could not take your totem, which is where your structures are and where your tribe lives.

Still not a valid argument.

[Hellaciouss]

-But lets say there is conflict between 2 good aligned tribes. If they are unable to come to an agreement through diplomacy and it really causes a problem, then one of the tribes may want to take a more agressive stance and decide enough is enough and attack. They would no longer be good aligned and would become neutral and eventually, with persistent attacks Evil. That is a logical, natural and realistic scenario. Good aligned tribes will need to use diplomacy to reach non aggressive deals become agressive and lose moral ground.


This is where you're failing to see the point. If one of the tribes is a warring tribe and the other isn't, the warring tribe can do absolutely nothing about the non-warring tribe. So what if the warring tribe can kill you outside of the grounds, you spawn a few yards away, you can also kill them, which lessens their numbers when they are having to fight you to defend their resources that you are taking as well as defend against a warring tribe that can kill them. The system you want to put in place is massively exploitable, and WILL BE MASSIVELY EXPLOITED! People WILL exploit these holes to their absolute full potential, there is no if's, or and's, or but's, they will exploit these holes to the best of their ability and it will kill any incentive warrings tribes have to stay in the game.

There is way of dealing with an aggressive force if you're not the fighting type. You can hire protection. You can use dimplomacy. You can move to a hostile free area. There are however absolutely no ways to fully deal with an invunlerable tribe sitting on your territorys doorstep. If they are set on making tribes be able to go invulnerable, give them their own server so they can play Sims without causing a massively exploitable system.

[maelwydd]

This is where you're failing to see the point. If one of the tribes is a warring tribe and the other isn't, the warring tribe can do absolutely nothing about the non-warring tribe. So what if the warring tribe can kill you outside of the grounds, you spawn a few yards away, you can also kill them, which lessens their numbers when they are having to fight you to defend their resources that you are taking as well as defend against a warring tribe that can kill them. The system you want to put in place is massively exploitable, and WILL BE MASSIVELY EXPLOITED! People WILL exploit these holes to their absolute full potential, there is no if's, or and's, or but's, they will exploit these holes to the best of their ability and it will kill any incentive warrings tribes have to stay in the game.

There is way of dealing with an aggressive force if you're not the fighting type. You can hire protection. You can use dimplomacy. You can move to a hostile free area. There are however absolutely no ways to fully deal with an invunlerable tribe sitting on your territorys doorstep. If they are set on making tribes be able to go invulnerable, give them their own server so they can play Sims without causing a massively exploitable system.

Lets agree to disagree and see if the developers go your way or stick to their own idea of their own game.

[Plague]

@OP: So end-game for you would be killing everyone and taking their land? In case of real apocalypse remind me not to settle close to you.

My end game would be cleaning up the world, building a city, advancing technology... conquering space. I dare to say that my game will be much longer then yours.

[Saorlan]

Can someone tell me why people think they can talk to others in such a shitty way on games forums?

I think it is just too many testosterone pumped teenage boys here....

[Garek]

carebears.... carebears everywhere

[Hellaciouss]

carebears.... carebears everywhere

qft.

it's going to be funny watching them come to the forums and complain they can't farm resources where they choose and refuse to move. It won't be enough that they have invulnerable towns, they will want to be able to plunder everything around them while invulnerable.

[blake378]

qft.

it's going to be funny watching them come to the forums and complain they can't farm resources where they choose and refuse to move. It won't be enough that they have invulnerable towns, they will want to be able to plunder everything around them while invulnerable.
no what's going to be funny is when this game turns into darkfall and everyone starts complaining about how horribke it is. then where are all the darkfall players going to go? i don't understand a lot of this people leave darkfall and come here to try and make it more like darkfall? does this make sense to anyone else? i think the main tribe bases should be safe zones for good and evil alike and when expansion totems come out those towns they create there or the resources that are there should be destroyable.
insert carebears comment below please just like i want.

[Dade512]

The thing with this thread is that it's the EXACT same as a lot of the ones we had a few weeks back.

Would be PKer wants to be able to kill/destroy everything. Is offended by the fact that there's the *possibility* that some people might be able to CHOOSE to be safe from his reach (within their tribal zone). This is, of course, regardless of the fact that people will HAVE to leave their tribal zones sooner or later which makes them OPEN to PvP. Tells everyone who disagrees with him that they're wrong. Makes up ludicrous scenarios to support his claims of being griefed by "invulnerable" players. Calls them carebears.

[Haphazard]

I think the issue is that the game mechanics are more than just open field pvp and war. There are lots of "aggressive" things a "peaceful" tribe can and will do, and there is nothing in the "proposed" game mechanics which will allow anyone to stop them.

Hopi tribe with their giant zerg of crafters will swoop down on a trash pile near you and pick it clean, cut down all the trees and kill all the wildlife in a matter of weeks, and the ONLY response that anyone can do is to try to do the same back to them.

Yes, PvP and WAR is the last resort in a series of diplomatic efforts, but in the end, sometimes force is the only way to get your point across. Good game design will make sure that someone, somewhere can hold ANYONE accountable for their actions, regardless if they claim to be peaceful or not.

We are not arguing about basically inconsequential PvP combat here. We are talking about burning your house down around your ears and salting the earth so you don't come back.

[maelwydd]

We are talking about burning your house down around your ears and salting the earth so you don't come back.

So you want people to leave the game?

[Dade512]

The thing I'm still not understanding is you both keep stating "Near" "Near", as tho the mere proximity of someone set to non-warring is an insult to you. So what if they claim some land near you? If the junk/trees/grass/water/rocks/whatever are not within your zone of influence you have zero claim to it other than you were picking on it previously. That is not an aggressive act, that's just finding new, unclaimed resources to take advantage of.
Why the need for retaliation when someone stakes a claim near you? Why do you think you own these resources if they're not within your zone of influence? Why the angst about non-warring tribes? I feel I'm missing an intricate part of the puzzle regarding the whole proximity thing. I mean, if you wanted these resources that your set up near, maybe better totem placement was called for...

[maelwydd]

The thing I'm still not understanding is you both keep stating "Near" "Near", as tho the mere proximity of someone set to non-warring is an insult to you. So what if they claim some land near you? If the junk/trees/grass/water/rocks/whatever are not within your zone of influence you have zero claim to it other than you were picking on it previously. That is not an aggressive act, that's just finding new, unclaimed resources to take advantage of.
Why the need for retaliation when someone stakes a claim near you? Why do you think you own these resources if they're not within your zone of influence? Why the angst about non-warring tribes? I feel I'm missing an intricate part of the puzzle regarding the whole proximity thing. I mean, if you wanted these resources that your set up near, maybe better totem placement was called for...

It has nothing to do with the resources and everything to do with the fact they just don't like the idea of someone they can't kill if they manage to get to safety. I mean, if it was to do with resources then they wouldn't complain because one of the facets of the proposed system is that non warring tribes home village is their only safe zone so if they do want resources they will have to travel out into the wilds where they can be attacked. But that is ignored to perpetuate their baseless argument.

[Dade512]

It has nothing to do with the resources and everything to do with the fact they just don't like the idea of someone they can't kill if they manage to get to safety. I mean, if it was to do with resources then they wouldn't complain because one of the facets of the proposed system is that non warring tribes home village is their only safe zone so if they do want resources they will have to travel out into the wilds where they can be attacked. But that is ignored to perpetuate their baseless argument.

Ah, I see. So my statement from earlier was correct and it's the same as the arguments from a month ago. Just being upset about the fact that there may be a (relatively) small plot of land they can't kill someone on. Gotcha...

[Haphazard]

I could give a crap about killing anyone - killing someone doesn't really cause anyone to alter their actions. I want to burn your house down if you act like an asshat.

[Dade512]

The thing I'm still not understanding is you both keep stating "Near" "Near", as tho the mere proximity of someone set to non-warring is an insult to you. So what if they claim some land near you? If the junk/trees/grass/water/rocks/whatever are not within your zone of influence you have zero claim to it other than you were picking on it previously. That is not an aggressive act, that's just finding new, unclaimed resources to take advantage of.
Why the need for retaliation when someone stakes a claim near you? Why do you think you own these resources if they're not within your zone of influence? Why the angst about non-warring tribes? I feel I'm missing an intricate part of the puzzle regarding the whole proximity thing. I mean, if you wanted these resources that your set up near, maybe better totem placement was called for...

I'd still like to understand these questions.

[Tehroth]

This is where you're failing to see the point. If one of the tribes is a warring tribe and the other isn't, the warring tribe can do absolutely nothing about the non-warring tribe. So what if the warring tribe can kill you outside of the grounds, you spawn a few yards away, you can also kill them, which lessens their numbers when they are having to fight you to defend their resources that you are taking as well as defend against a warring tribe that can kill them. The system you want to put in place is massively exploitable, and WILL BE MASSIVELY EXPLOITED! People WILL exploit these holes to their absolute full potential, there is no if's, or and's, or but's, they will exploit these holes to the best of their ability and it will kill any incentive warrings tribes have to stay in the game.

There is way of dealing with an aggressive force if you're not the fighting type. You can hire protection. You can use dimplomacy. You can move to a hostile free area. There are however absolutely no ways to fully deal with an invunlerable tribe sitting on your territorys doorstep. If they are set on making tribes be able to go invulnerable, give them their own server so they can play Sims without causing a massively exploitable system.

Sorry man I see your point. The carebears that want invulnerability don't care. Its almost like they never played a pvp game. If there are exploits people will be damned sure to use em. Too many carebears that want a solely crafting game. In a game like this you shouldn't be able to just switch off your consequences for your actions when its a survival sandbox mmorpg.

[Dade512]

Sorry man I see your point. The carebears that want invulnerability don't care. Its almost like they never played a pvp game. If there are exploits people will be damned sure to use em. Too many carebears that want a solely crafting game. In a game like this you shouldn't be able to just switch off your consequences for your actions when its a survival sandbox mmorpg.

But no one would be invulnerable. There would only be a small plot of land that they couldn't be hurt on. That aside...

So if this is truly about people working out ways to exploit their safe zone, make it so non-warring tribes can't engage in pvp period. Make it so they can't do anything to encroach on someone elses land and so they can't hurt or be hurt by other players. Also, make it where if you choose to switch to open pvp you can never go back to non-warring.
Neocron had a set up like this with implant chips that worked out well.

[jojotheduck]

How about making it so you can destroy buildings/totems within a certain radius of your totem? Buildings/totems outside of your range could be safe, but you would still be able to kill players anywhere. That way war tribes won't have to worry about tribes popping up in their area stealing all their resources(if they do, you can just destroy them and make them move somewhere else). It will also allow the peaceful tribes to stay away from war by staying near other non-aggressive tribes and out of range of the ones that want to kill everything in their area. If an aggressive tribe tries to set up shop in a peaceful area(or a peaceful tribe turns aggressive) then the peaceful tribes can group up to fight them off and destroy their totem. Aggressive people will still be able to "raid" the peaceful areas, killing people outside their safe zones and stealing their stuff. And peaceful people who want a little pvp action can still raid the aggressive areas. If you make it full out open pvp to where you can destroy anything anywhere, then the small tribes wouldn't stand a chance. You'd end up having only a few huge tribes fighting for all the land in the game(which means you'd have a lot less people wanting to play.) It wouldn't be endgame, it would be the end of the game, and a fun game should never end. ;)

And I agree with the op about a tribes land size being determined by progress instead of tribe size. Just my two cents. :D

[Mewmew]

First having two servers would not "kill" this game at all. For some reason a great many PKers want to force everybody else within their ruleset and don't want them to have their own "safe" world. I guess that's because it lets them grief more, to fight against people who have no interest in fighting. If enough people get this game there is no reason why they can't have two servers.

I'm a lone person on my tiny plot of land. I'm not going to be eating up resources around me, and there's no reason why some big clan should be able to come and mow me down. You think it's "unrealistic"? How realistic is it that suddenly my ability to dig up land and things ends just because it's too far from my totem? Not very. It's a game with rules, it's not about how "real" it is.

Especially since this game supposedly has "magic" rituals coming in the future as the world expands and evolves and has Gods re-awakened. Why under this system could there not be a God that protects and watches over peaceful people? It makes complete sense in such a world that we are going to be having actually.

I believe that this game will have enough players to support both a PvP and non PvP server which should solve the problem for most people. It won't make the griefers happy who want to just be able to screw with people that don't want to be screwed with, but do we really care about making the griefers happy?

I absolutely will not hang around if I can get my tiny house wiped out, I'm not here for that type of game. If calling names and thinking it embarrasses people is your only way of getting your point across - go ahead and call me them. I truly don't care.

Besides that 99% of the people calling other gamers "Carebears" would pee their pants if they were going to get in a real fight - they are carebears in real :D